For
>now, I'll say that the notion of maintaining peace in locales where there's
>no peace to be maintained (e.g. where a government is massacring a group of
>people within its own borders) is indeed ludicrous and leave it at that.
No one accuses SH of massacring anyone now or lately. The massacres of the Kurds occuured when SH was under US protection and was receiving US aid fourteen years ago. In addition, the Republican Guard massacred revolting Shias after the Gulf War, 11 years ago, when the US allowed SH to remain in power and keep his attack helicopters. If you want to start talkinga bout US intervention where it might be useful to stop an ongoing massacre,w here there is no peace to be maintained, how about an attack on Israel for its activities on the West Bank and Gaza? So it's ludicrous of the US not to invade there?
>BTW, I don't appreciate your subject line.
Because of the "leftists" tag or because of the "embraces Bush doctrine" tag? What exactly is your problem with the Bush doctrine, since you think the US has the right and maybe the responsibility to invade anywhere where there is no peace, according to you, becase at some point in the past the dictator undertook a massacre of his subjects? By the way, how great a massacre is bad enough? Would Waco count, justifying a Mexican invsaion of the US to overthrow the government taht could do such a thing?
jks
>
>Best,
>Luke
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx