Quote:
Originally posted by corvax:
We could say we invaded for the good of the oppressed Iraqis, which I'd like to think is a worthy enough cause, but we didn't do shit when 800,000 or however many Rwandans were being macheted to death. So, I guess I don't really know why exactly we invaded. Anyone care to explain?
|
So let me get this straight.
You said that invading a country to liberate/help it's people is indeed a worthy cause.
But since we didn't do what was right in Rwanda, we shouldn't do what's right in Iraq?
Just because we (and the rest of the world) dropped the ball in Rwanda, that doesn't negate your previous arguement, it just means that in that specific instance we didn't act when we should have.
As for an explanation as to difference between the two situations, I think having different presidents during the two different periods would be the logical conlusion
[I'm not making an arguement either way, I just want to help Corvax to clean us his/her fuzzy thinking.]
[ April 27, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Pliedes ]