I was in a debate in a buried Diary thread, when I came up witha bit of logic that really calls out my complaint about this attitude. This is specifically for the "Liebertype", that supports invading Iraq for human rights reasons.
My point was that I would be more sympathetic to this argument if we had a draft military, with no deferments except for contientous objector status. If everyone shared the risk, then elective wars would be at least partially justifiable.
I think I can cut through the BS with a simple question. Why only Iraq? I think we can all agree that there are many countries as bad or worse than there for human rights abuses and dictatorial intrangient govts. So aren't we in there too?
And don't say "we don't have the resources for more at once". Of course we do...just institute a universal draft, with only a contientous objector deferment. Bam! We have ourselves a human rights enforcing army like crazy. We could be liberating 3 more countries immediately!
So why don't we do just that, if this is, as said, a noble principle?
If anyone advocating the "human rights" excuse for Iraq would like to answer, I'd love to hear it. Because you only have two choices. Either you have to admit you only love the principle when your kids/family/etc...aren't at risk, or you have to agree we need a universal draft, post haste.
So which is it?