... this is not a morally consistent stand

Submitted by Ben Shniper (United States), Mar 2, 2006 at 14:00

Back when the Holocaust happened, the world stood by. Sure, millions of lives could be saved by intervention, but national priorities took precedence. Most of the world thought "Well, the Nazis are busy killing Jews, cripples, and others. So they won't get to us today."

Iraq, with or without Saddam, is a humanitarian nightmare. In order to save milions of lives, we have to act and act now to prevent the civil war. If we fail to do so, at least let us not be accused of not caring. Sure, it's them.. who are spoiling for the fight. It is the Iranian butchers who are pushing and Al Queda butchers who are pushing for this civil war, just to spite America. But giving them what they want is not a good option.

I agree - it would actually be in America's national interest in the short run to have Al Queda and Iran busy killing Iraqis and not us. But better still if they are kept from killing anyone. Millions of lives are at stake. Is that not work some of America's treasure? What are we planning on doing with the treasure that will make us happier than at least trying to save life?

Bottom line: Unless we are asked to leave, we should do our best to control the situation and save lives. Executing every suspected Al Queda member and suspected Iranian spy would be a good start. After all, killing a few hundred now might save millions later.

-Ben

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".