As usual, nicely stated, Biggles.Originally posted by Biggles@9 February 2004 - 16:33
I am sympathetic to the argument that we should be pro-active and prevent atrocities. However, I am unconvinced with the assertion that this particular war was necessary to prevent a significant level of wrong doing over and above say that of North Korea or Zimbabwe let alone the activities in Rwanda which either went are still going all but ignored.
Saddams main atrocities occurred when he was on our side 15 to 20 years ago. We said little and did nothing at the time. His second batch of atrocities occurred 12 years ago when he suppressed the Shi'ites, who had risen at our behest only to be ignored in their plight.
I find the moral high ground here uncomfortably low. I am sceptical that it is indeed this hallowed turf we are in the process of re-claiming - although on this matter I would happily be proved wrong. Nevertheless, political expediency may be a wind that blows some good to the ME; albeit by fortuitous accident. If it does not, then the whole party piece may not be easy to repeat even if the circumstances are direr and more pressing.
I wonder, though:
From it's lofty perch on the presumptive moral high ground, how cloudy is the outlook of the U.N., given it's pose of altruistic intent bastardized by it's awful conflicting admixture of international political pressures?
I believe if the U.N. didn't exist (in it's current form) some movement might have occurred to ameliorate these other situations (Rwanda, etc.).
As it is, most of the world looks to the U.N. for leadership, and what is the result?
A constipation of inaction and non-effect; the U.N. accomplishes nothing.
This, for some reason, fails to impress the true believers.
Bookmarks