A Question.

Victor Hanson gives us this excellent commentary:

"The same people who castigate us for allowing the slaughter in Rwanda and Sudan and a dozen other venues now chide us for insuring that such brutality stops in Iraq. They chafe at the unforeseen consequences, mistakes, and inadvertent death that always and everywhere has accompanied the use of force. How many tens of thousands died unnecessarily in World War II, the “good war,” because of such contingencies? The tragic truth of action is that we have to accept those risks and accept that to achieve a future good we often have to risk a present evil. The only alternative is never to use force, and pacifism is a juvenile ideal refuted on every page of history."

Maybe one of my leftwing commenters can answer that question for me. Because I have always wondered it as well. Why is the suffering in Rwanda and Sudan so much more important to stop than the suffering of the Iraqi people?

via BigDog