I wish I could pass on this...but I can't.
If you use the same rationale, then we, as humanitarian people, should
be invading and conquering nations all over the world. We should leave
Iraq and head to Zimbabwe where we could oust Robert Mugabe, arguably a
nastier stong-man than Saddam. Then we'd head out to Chechnya and
Armenia and Serbia and Turkey and East Timor and Tibet...and the list
goes on and on. If it's comforting to think of this expansionist move
and the damage it does to the U.N. as "humanitarian" in nature, then
pop open a cold one and sing "Kumbaya," but be sure you reflect on the
similar humanitarian efforts that history credits to guys like Hitler,
Mao and Stalin. ;-)
-Rob
On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 11:56 AM, Tris Schuler wrote:
With re to Iraq and those who cannot bring themselves to bear the
thought of imposing our hateful American special-interest will on its
current loveable (and loving) regime: shame on anyone not clever
enough to see not only the wisdom but the acute necessity of the
United States acting as our government now suggests. If you want to
know, I pity anyone that dense and I despise anyone so bereft of the
need and humanitarian goodwill to help others who suffer greatly
(i.e., the greater Iraqi population of various peoples) under
indescribably cruel government. Maybe it's arrogant to suppose America
could and would do better for them, but if it is it is the arrogance
inherent in God's own truth.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|