Mel: "What's human sacrifice," he asked, "if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"
So, Mel, trying to stop the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, women, children by a brutal dictator is not "reason" to send troops to Iraq? Preventing a dictatorial regime from giving to terrorists weapons to be used against their common enemy (the U.S.) is not "reason" to send troops to Iraq? Preventing the use of Iraq as a terrorist training base is not "reason" to send troops to Iraq? Failure to adhere to 17 U.N. resolutions and constant harrassing of coalition jets in the no-fly-zone are not "reason" to send in troops to Iraq? What would you say, then Mel, would be sufficient reason to send troops into such a country? Or, is no reason sufficient in your "humble" estimation?
I think we both know that for isolationists such as Gibson and Pat Buchanan, there is no reason that would justify the U.S. sending its troops anywhere. Frankly, I'm not sure if they would want us to defend our own soil. After all, in the opinion of guys like Gibson, our country is so degenerate, it may not be worthy of defending.