This is an archived comment posted by Aaron Lee-Wudrick. You can view the original
here. I hate that argument. You're not allowed to contradict how bad some regimes are, ergo all my present day accusations should be taken at face value. After all, you don't like Hitler do you? DO YOU?
What's the contradiction? Is Iraq or is it not a violent and oppressive regime? Yes or no? The UN seems to think so - have you bothered to follow their condemnations over the past - wait for it - twelve years? What's to discuss?
The only thing up for debate is: should the Americans be the ones to remove him, or not? Should it be done by force, or not?
Perhaps we could leave Saddam alone, and then come back in a couple years when he can present a much more credible and immediate threat. That might make you happy; so he can launch a few attacks of his own and kill some Americans, just to be on the safe side, so that we all can be sure that he's really and truly a threat to the world. Fair enough?
Are we forgetting who is doing the aggressing these days? Hmmmmmm?
Once again: it's all morally equivalent to you people. It's like saying the police are being the aggressors when they chase after a bank robber who just robbed a bank. Whoa! The robber is only running away from the bank! Stop being so "aggressive" by chasing him down! Or, as Churchill used to say, maybe you're just being even-handed, like being halfway between the fire and the fire brigade.
Cowardice? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard! Accusing pacifists of lack of patriotism was key in the Nazi propaganda campaign itself!
Let's be perfectly clear: Not necessarily war, but war if necessary. Whether or not now is a legitimate time to go to war is open for debate, but anyone who suggest that war is never necessary better pick up a history book real quick.
[ Parent ]
|
