Take No Action Protestors
In today's Vancouver Sun there was a guest editorial from the Washington Post entitled, "Western countries must not let up pressure on Sudan". In it, they urged U.S. President Bush to go against current thinking and intervene militarily to put an end to the genocidal devastation that is going on there every day.
Why should he? After all, when he intervened against the murderous cruelty imposed on the people of Iraq by Saddam Hussein, much of the world condemned him. More to the point, exactly the same people who are urging him to intervene in Sudan are the very ones who condemned him for intervening in Iraq.
Whenever I'm walking downtown and see a "Free Tibet" protest, I just shake my head. I very much agree with their stated goal of freeing the Tibetan people from the iron grip of Communist China, but let's face facts: If Canada or the U.S. or any other country were actually to do something to free Tibet, these very same people would be the ones protesting the actions that were required to make it so.
Perhaps one day I should go up to one of them and ask what it feels like to be a hypocrite, to be someone who changes their tune as soon as the going gets tough. Perhaps. For now, I'll just politely smile and walk to the other side of the street like most everyone else does.
I often wonder if those brave Canadian soldiers who fought in World War 2 are turning in their graves over the immense shallowness of thought and conviction of their descendants.
2 comments:
I'm not sure where to begin with what's wrong with this post.
For one thing, I think you would find it very difficult to find someone who opposed the invasion of Iraq who now supports an invasion of Darfur. For another, you seem completely oblivious to the possibility of nonmilitary pressure being applied to the government of Sudan. The US could provide constant satellite coverage of Sudan, so that it was clear where refugee camps were, when they were threatened by militias, and that the militias were coordinated with government forces. Canada could provide money for African Union peacekeepers. I'm not saying these are the only or even best things that the US and Canada could do, but they would be useful. You mentioned the US and Canada, but other countries should also try to apply pressure. I've been to Amnesty International meetings discussing the situation in Darfur, and I can tell you that they are quite clear: the government of Sudan is responsible, and the Chinese government and the Arab League have acted to stop diplomatic pressure from being applied to Sudan.
Much of the world condemned Bush for invading Iraq because we didn't believe the alleged reasons for invading Iraq and thought that it was more likely to bring harm than good. So far, we've been right. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein did not provide support to Al Qaeda. So far, the people of Iraq are living under more fear and worse economic conditions than they did under Hussein.
There is no denying that Saddam Hussein was murderous and cruel. That had not changed since the late 70s. In 2002-2003, the Republicans started complaining that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons, sometimes even against other Iraqis, and that he was dictator. In the mid-80s, many of the same Republicans were in Reagan's government which supported Hussein. In the 80s, when Hussein was actively developing weapons of mass destruction and using them, the US (and all the other major powers, to be fair) were selling him the equipment to make them. The US provided satellite intelligence so that he could use them. Donald Rumsfeld even went to Baghdad, shook Saddam Hussein's hand, and gave him a set of Golden Spurs. There are plenty of other dictatorships, like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, which are US allies and which the US has a strong influence on. If the Bush administration was honestly interested in spreading democracy in the middle east, it would have started with countries where it already had influence and would not have been staffed by people, like Rumsfeld, who supported violent dictatorships when the dictatorships were at their most brutal.
Pieter,
You make some interesting points but have twisted the truth in several places.
You state that it would be very difficult to find someone who opposed the invasion of Iraq who now support an invasion of Darfur. Difficult? I hear them all the time. For starters, Jack Layton was insisting that Canadian soldiers be pulled out of Afghanistan and sent to Darfur.
I do not disagree with your other ideas for helping Darfur but why you're against direct military action there I will never understand. When I hear such views I can not stop but think back to my own personal family history in Germany and just shake my head at people like you.
The hands of past American governments are far from clean, I concur. But how people can condemn them but give a complete pass to Russia, China, France, and many others is just baffling.
As for the weapons of mass destruction, I have a simple math question for you: How is that everyone agreed that at one time Saddam Hussein did have such weapons but now he does not. Put another way, you seem content in believing that 1 = 0. How is that possible?
You stated that "the people of Iraq are living under more fear and worse economic conditions than they did under Hussein". Really? Everything I read these days is that the American forces have broken the back of the terrorist groups over there and that the Iraqi people are now on their way to a brighter future. Even the very left-leaning NY Times had a famous story on this a few months ago.
Of course, I'm not oblivious to the fact that much was mishandled in the years after the Invasion of Iraq. But do you sincerely believe that all went well for the Allied Forces in WW2? Were you aware that even up to early 1945, there was much doubt about whether Hitler and the Japanese could be defeated? I'd strongly recommend you watch a copy of Ken Burns' superb documentary, "The War". It might open up your eyes to history and shed a new light on more recent historical events. It probably won't, but it might.
Pieter, I have little doubt that you & I will never see eye-to-eye on this or likely many other political issues. But I do want to sincerely wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a terrific 2008!
Robert
Post a Comment