Quote:
Originally posted by Purrybonker
Then the question is begged....
If not the saving of lives, what would "their" motivation possibly be in wanting to stop the war?
Do you think it possible that even the most rabid of liberals would be against the "democratization" of Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter) if there were no price tag in terms of death and human suffering?
I just don't get this obsession with motivation - how can you discount a good thing (wanting to save human lives) by attaching a negative motivation? I can understand a difference of opinion based on an understanding of the facts and costs of war, but debating each other's motivations for those opinions seems completely unproductive.
|
I never said I was trying to solve anything here. It really is just an observation.
I already said what I think the motivation is: To solidify the "truth" of their philosophy in their minds and in the arena of ideas. A failure by Bush here represents a whole new quiver of arrows in their arsenal. I'm not saying this is an entirely conscious thing, but in the end everyone wants to be proved right.