Who's better off?
by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
AntiWar.Com
04/07/05
Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: 'Aren't the people of Iraq better off?' The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it's too early to declare, 'Mission Accomplished.' But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5485
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
AntiWar.Com
04/07/05
Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: 'Aren't the people of Iraq better off?' The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it's too early to declare, 'Mission Accomplished.' But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5485
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
Starmail - 7. Apr, 16:15
