Philocrites

John-Eric:

January 14, 2004 08:47 AM | Permalink for this comment

Are you saying that had we known then what we know now, there were grounds for invasion? (Arguably we did know then much of what we know now -- but that's another topic). I'd like to hear them. From where I sit, there are none that stand up to scrutiny.

As to the Slate folks -- if the US ever seriously embraced humanitarian grounds for invading other countries that suffer as the Iraqi people did under Saddam, we would be at war forever -- and on what grounds? The notion that we have a better answer than anyone else as to other people's governance (or that countries should be governed by people to the liking of our current administration) is not only arrogant, it defies international law and common sense. No nation has the right to launch the sort of "preemtive war" that this administration has been fighting. "Regime change" is not an admissable defense for invading another country by anyone but a self-declared world dictator -- who elected George Bush president of the world?

Furthermore, I don't believe that humanitarianism has ever been much of a force in US foreign policy, and arguing that it has anything to do with the current administration's policies now or going into the Iraq invasion doesn't pass the laugh test.