I am, however, glad to see that Curtis believes a nation is permitted to extinguish the soverignity of another and kill and rape its citizens whenever they have an economic disagreement.
I have consistency in how I believe a nation should conduct its foreign policy, & that also applies to other countries.
People who favor intervention only because of humanitarian reasons have major problems with consistency. Assume we followed that silly policy, we'd be intervening all the time in Africa & numerous other areas. We don't have sufficient military force following the 'interest' driven foreign policy. Just think what force would be needed to follow the policy that you advocate. I guess we start with China, then North Korea, ? Well, we can always reinstitute the draft. I assume you won't wait to be called, but will volunteer to do your humantarian duty?
Iraq had legitimate grievances against Kuwait. The United States, the United Nations, other Arab nations, etc. ignored those legitimate grievances.
Maybe intervention *was* the best thing when you look at the big picture. However, I don't think that the timing was right. I can personally see voting no to discuss the full implications. Whether or not this is right is one thing. Whether it means a person is going to be weak on national defense is entirely another.
