based on them choosing to take the risk. Your original attack on Dick Morris, countered that by saying they did not choose to enter the country... now you concede they might have, but continue whining like you think good intentions justify everything.

Choices sometimes have consequences and Dick Morris appears to think that saving those girls is going to have greater consequences. I am not psychic, but will speculate further that when he says it will bolster this rogue regime, he is demonstrating that he is against them, and that includes what they do to those people.

What if he is right? And now that the journalists are gone all of those millions of starving people are saying "They just came and took the two girls and left us here to starve." And if you are now saying 'non-interventionism is not very progressive' then why stop there? Why not invade them and take out the corrupt leader? Now that a reason to take action is completely off the table, we can be sure nothing will be done to help the 'millions going hungry every night' in the near future. And the US apologizing for these girls (which you maintain were doing the right thing - so why should anyone apologize for it?) in front of the international community may very well be interpreted as weakness, and a vulnerability that can be exploited further - only time will tell if Morris was correct.

by jimmyjames on 08/07/2009 02:30:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]