Last edited by HowardCoombs; 04-05-2011 at 04:57 PM.
A couple of children are beaten to death and held at knife point by their drunken dad. The mom, helpless to do anything herself, turns to three neighbors for help. Neighbor A jumps in to help expecting nothing in return. Neighbor B sympathizes but only helps after you pay him $10,000. Neighbor C condemns the dad's act, but even with reward offered decided his own life is too precious to be put at risk or it is "domestic/internal affairs" and declined to do anything. There is no argument here that A is the most commandable, but between B and C, at least the former does somthing to help albeit with an economic interest in mind. What has C contributed to this whole situation, other than whining and moaning about B's motivation?
Why do you insist on holding the west to the highest saintly (Neighbor A) standards before you are willing to give them any credit? What is so wrong with helping others and fighting wars where you not only help the innocent but also gain a bit of benefit for yourselves? After all, wars are very costly, your own lives are precious also, and the leaders need to justify somewhat to the citizens. Are you cynical because you are that neighbor C who's desperately trying to justify your own cowardice and inaction?
I'm with others on here, it was almost certainly illegal but justified. You can't send troops into another country uninvited and top someone. Definitely not polite. However, my understanding of American law is limited to watching American movies and in those the baddies are never arrested just blasted to hell. Always. Guess it is down to the lack of money there, can't afford the trials and the prisons.
I agree with everyone's posts.