In another case of having to explain the bleeding obvious because the bleeding obvious is apparently not obvious to some.

A recurring theme about the Iraq war is "why Iraq and not xyz country?". At first glance you might have thought that the people asking the question are really concerned about the people of xyz and were miffed that Iraq got first billing. And that they will support the liberation of country xyz at the end of the Iraq campaign. Sadly, they're not. They're merely offering xyz as a reason to do nothing about either, not as an agreement to do both.

I was speaking to an Indonesian who said that the Somalis were holding 11 Indonesians captive, and that if he were president that he would invade Somalia, but the world would stop him. I told him that was nonsense. That if anyone tried to stop Indonesia from volunteering to fix Somalia, the current US government would protect Indonesia. I doubt even Obama would attempt to stop that - the most he'd do is say some nasty words. And no-one at all made any attempt to stop Ethiopia from doing exactly that anyway. Even if it didn't produce all the hoped-for results, at least they tried!

And that really is the right-wing in a nutshell. They don't oppose anyone else who volunteers to do something good. Even if they aren't (yet) ready to do it themselves, they are happy to see others doing it. It's the left-wing that bitches and moans when the US does something good like free 27 million people from state-slavery. Interestingly, they don't oppose the Iraqi people making a stab at overthrowing the government. Nevermind that that has less chance at success (100,000 dead in 1991 when trying to do that, with zero result), nevermind that it's even bloodier, nevermind that the exact same consequences will emerge (civil war/sectarian violence/whatever) - bloody revolutions are a spectator sport to the left, as they toast their marshmallows. But having the US involved making it a completely lopsided war in favour of the revolutionaries spoils all their fun. And they trot out unsubstantiated statements that you can't hand people democracy on a platter (despite Australia - one of the world's oldest democracies - getting democracy exactly like that). Of course, rather than simply discard their unsubstantiated nonsense and agree to rethink their thought processes, they just throw some other factor in such as "unless the country starts with 'A'". So Afghanistan then? "oh, starts and ends with 'a'". So that's why Australia, Austria and Albania are all democracies? "yeah, bet you can't find any flaw with that reasoning for sure!".

I had a similar argument with my own sister. Her cause celebre was genetalia mutilation in Africa and children getting raped in Papua New Guinea. And because these atrocities were happening, that's why we shouldn't do anything about Iran. Great.

Rwanda's another one that gets trotted out. "How can you believe that the US cares about the Iraqi people when it didn't do anything about Rwanda?". "What specifically would you have liked the US to do to stop racist Hutus picking up a machete to kill their Rwandan neighbours?". (at this point they just try a different insanity instead of admitting that their worldview is just complete crap - surprise, surprise).

In an argument with an Australian on the train it was "why not Zimbabwe which was even worse than Iraq?". A complete lie. Mugabe may be a thug, but the fact that the MDC exists at all instead of all its members being fed to lions (literally), boiled in acid (literally), fed to dobermans (literally), shows the insanity of that argument. Not that I oppose liberating Zimbabwe. Far from it. I support anyone who wants to have a crack at that. Including an arsehole country like South Africa. Speaking of which, maybe that Tutu guy isn't so bad after all. See here. Ignoring his own reluctance to call a thug a thug long ago (weasely Christian clergy are fond of doing that the world over), he is correctly pointing out that his own country is acting immorally at the moment preventing the UNSC from taking the required action when it should be the one leading the way. We're still a long way from having Tutu care about the Iraqis and Iranians and urging the same action in Iran that was done in Iraq though. However, let's be grateful for the small steps. A quick google search and we're back to him being an arsehole again. Oh well, like I said, even if an arsehole leads the charge to liberate Zimbabwe, I will only applaud. Just as I applaud China's current involvement in Haiti. The first time I know of that they used their military for something good (trying to enforce rule of law in Haiti). And I applaud the Russians fighting their former partners in crime in Stalingrad too. What a nice way of saying "oops, I was wrong".

Basically, I won't look a gift horse in the mouth. If you're a thug yourself yet you do something good, I will praise the good thing you did, while reserving judgement for the bad. Contrast this with the left-wing who have a harsh judgement on those who do genuine good in the world while giving the assorted communist thugs the thumbs up. In the middle of the Cold War no less. And are yet to apologize for being so so wrong I might add. Not sure what the holdup there is. All it requires is integrity. Oh. I remember now.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?