[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

the rest of what you write is all well and good, in fact I agree with most of it. Except you negate it all with the last phrase. "However long that may take" is just a nice way of saying "however many Iraqis have to die" because anything that leads to prolonged conflict or worsened conflict in Iraq means more Iraqis dying. If somebody supports the Iraqi people from a humanitarian perspective then the only outcome they should support is the one that they are convinced would result in the lowest number of Iraqis dead, hurt, displaced, etc. There are some people who would argue that if the coalition withdraws immediately and the Iraqis are allowed to fight it out or talk it out as they see fit, then this will lead to less overall harm to the Iraqi people than the alternatives. They might very well be right in that speculation

However, as soon as we start saying that there has to be one particular outcome in Iraq and it should happen no matter how long it takes (in other words no matter how many Iraqis die to achieve it), then the focus is no longer humanitarian, but rather political. We are no longer just interested in the wellbeing of as many Iraqis as possible, we now support one group or one course of action and are behind that even if it may end up causing more harm than some of its alternatives. This goes for either side of the discussion not just the "withdraw-now", "anti-war", "pro-peace", "pro-jihad", "terrorist" side or whatever term you want to call it.

No, I don't think it's fair of you to say that what I meant by "however long it make take", is a nice way of saying "however many Iraqis have to die".

I meant "however long it may take". It's not a must for people to die, in order for Iraqis to fulfil the requirement "however long it may take".

Also, America would not be the great nation it is today, if its men and women had not fought for their freedom from the shackles of British imperialism. As you seem to be claiming to speak from the humanitarian perspective, would it have been more humanitarian for the Americans to be ruled and bled economically and otherwise by the British, or was it more humanitarian for them to have fought for their freedom and become a free people governing themselves?