I just want to ask this. The world didn’t respond to Rwanda when Rwanda was experiencing genocide. That came to be perceived as a stain on the consciousness of humanity. I believed that when Pres. Clinton pulled together action to stop genocide in the Balkins that it was the right thing to do. I felt that when troops went into Afghanistan and Iraq, it was wrong and based on a shame pretext. People said that when Iran had a popular uprising and the U.S. didn’t support it that it was a failure of U.S. policy. Many people said that the U.S. should have done more to support the pro-democracy protests in Tehrir Square in Egypt. Now here’s Syria. Two years of butchery. From a humanitarian stand point, the world should have done more a long time ago. The question most always comes down to one of two things, so called national interest or profiteering. Geopolitics falls into the category of national interest. Humanitarianism doesn’t seem to be perceived that way. If not acting in Rwanda was wrong and if acting in the Balkins was right, then if acting in Syria serves a humanitarian mission would it then be right? Is it wrong to ignore the dismembering of so many communities in Syria? Help me out here. If you comment, please make it germane to the problem of logic that has been laid out rather than answering on a purely emotional basis.
Posted on: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 10:03:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015