It doesn't. The problem is that if the US government gives a damn about Iraqis, that means they are going to send 140K troops to Iraq. I personally cared about Iraqis in Saddam Iraq. I care about the poor in the world and in this country. Some guy, though, told me that the poor you have with you always. You can care about the unfortunate, but you have to care more about bigger things-- prioritize-- (in his case, he meant about himself)-- the soundness of spending blood and treasure for a mission unlikely to succeed (and probably one that will make things worse).
Of course, we have the luxury of debating such things under an American flag, and not a British one, precisely because the French in 1775 didn't see things quite that way. It served their interests to assist the American rebels, just as it serves our interests to pacify the Middle East - no holy crusade required, merely an enlightened understanding of one's own self-interest.
You can care about the unfortunate, but you have to care more about bigger things-- prioritize-- (in his case, he meant about himself)-- the soundness of spending blood and treasure for a mission unlikely to succeed (and probably one that will make things worse).
I keep hearing that, but it's a completely ahistorical point of view. The few examples of real nation building we have, postwar Germany and Japan, turned out rather well, I think. Not only does Pat not have simple decency on his side, he doesn't really have history on his side either, contrary to what he would have you believe.
After we just killed 40 Iraqis at a wedding party:
I see - when Pat is comparing Saddam to his fears of an Iranian style radical theocracy, we should stop and engage in a sober cost-benefit analysis, and thus settle on the status quo of sticking with the monster we know. But when we go in there, suddenly that cost-benefit analysis goes right out the window - even one single drop of innocent blood is too much to bear, and the potential benefits are ruled illusory. Can we say "double standard"?