[lbo-talk] Whose more destructive ? (Steve Martin versus The Passion)

Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Tue Mar 9 11:32:04 PST 2004


From: "Luke Weiger"

I think the US role in Iraq over the last 14 years has been largely destructive, but it's hard for me to see how a reasonable person could prefer no involvement. Saddam would still rule over Iraq (and probably Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well) with a host of nuclear weapons that would likely ensure regional dominance for some time.

-- Luke

^^^^

This issue is not new to the list, but Luke's formulation here prompts a somewhat "opposite" thought: It doesn't seem better to have the U.S. ruling Iraq, Kuwait and Saudia Arabia and Afghanistan with more nuclear weapons than anybody in the world ensuring U.S. regional dominance for some time. The U.S. role in the world has been more destructive than that of Saddam ( attach list of American invasions and genocides; U.S. is only country ever to use nuclear weapons for real, etc.). Based on this record, a reasonable person would prefer no U.S. involvement.

This would be for future reference: No more U.S. invasions !

Charles



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list