> 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.
The topic of discussion has been interventions in general. Whether the current state of affairs in Iraq may reasonably be referred to as "peacable" I'll leave to others. Whether or not we should invade Iraq is another question I'd best leave to others: I see good reasons for and against.
> 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?
I think forceful intevention from outside might do the Israelis and Palestinians some good, although I don't think Israel's activities constitute "an ongoing massacre" (nor, I hasten to add, do the actions of the suicide bombers). Not invading is probably more reasonable, but not by way of your "preserving a nonexistent peace" rationale.
> Because of the "leftists" tag or because of the "embraces Bush doctrine"
> tag?
You're on fire today, Justin. Funny stuff.
> 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?
The preceding alone ain't the Bush doctrine, which is quite explicitly linked to "our" national interests and is neutral to the interests of foreign subjects.
> By the way, how great a massacre is bad enough?
That, of course, depends on the circumstances. Sometimes forceful intervention will do more harm than good even in the bleakest of situations.
-- Luke