Wednesday, June 11, 2008

The Village Voice article title and tag line alone really got my attention on this one:

Pacifism Fails in the Face of Sovereign Evil

If the U.N. won't act on its own mandate, then we should use force to combat immutable evil
by Nat Hentoff
June 3rd, 2008 12:00 AM

This article refers to the current state of the ongoing unpleasantness in Myanmar.

The more recent VV issue features another article by Ms. Hentoff regarding the Sudanese genocide.

A Third Sudanese Genocide: General al-Bashir's Final Solution
There were two and a half million dead in the last two Sudan genocides—and now a third is on the way

I'm curious about what appears to me to be an obscene contradiction-- that Burmese or Sudanese people are worthy of saving from genocide, but not Kurds. I mean, these articles seem to admonish GWB to DO something, since the international community is sitting on its hands. Yet all the rest of the while, it seems we have constantly harangued that we need to look to the international community for cues and to not intervene in the goings-on of sovereign nations. Also, the VV has made myriad bales of hay by flogging the idea that there was no justification for any intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan, and yet we're sposta charge into these other complicated situations and prevent people from being killed?

I was at Lee Harvey's with some friends Tuesday, hanging out, talking and laughing. One man kept inserting little crap comments about GWB, even though politics in no way related to the conversation. Regardless what I think of our actions in Iraq, I am much fatigued of what appear to me to be hypocritical assertions that one domestic situation need be taken in hand by the USA, and yet another attempt to do just that is met with withering criticism.

I've said it before but it looks like our President is in a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't position. It really makes you wonder why any sane person would apply for that job in the first place.


g bro said...

"Ms." Hentoff? I don't think I want to see Nat in a dress. ;-)

If we want to undertake humanitarian missions, I suppose it's up to us to pick and choose which ones. The less we have to gain, the more humanitarian it looks. The usual criteria would be, "Quick win that builds domestic and international good will." Is that too preagmatic?

You are right, the posturing over which cause is better is a bit nauseating.

(See, no crap comments about GWB. ;-)

HollyB said...

So you're just now recognizing this liberal double talk/claptrap for what it is?
It's funny to watch them when you point out their inconsistencies.

Zelda said...

I wouldn't have a problem if we went to the Sudan. We went to Kosovo and intervened there, and this time we would be helping Christians and animists as opposed to Muslim groups on our own terrorist watch lists.

Islam is a bad religion. The more it's horrors are exposed, the better. It's no way for human beings to live.

Unknown said...

I'm amazed at how many people forgot how much genocide was happening in Iraq during Hussein's reign. Apparently since it was no longer "newsworthy," people put it out of their minds.