You know what really annoys me? It isnt so much that the majority of the western public were incredibly gung-ho and susceptible to arguments *for* intervention when it involved pointless neocon-initiated wars that cost millions of innocent lives (e.g. Iraq), but the fact that their learning from this experience wasnt so much becoming wiser to the concept of intervention, as it was forever clouding it as something inherently negative, to be opposed by *any* means necessary. Heck, we even have a 21st century Holocaust (I challenge anyone to look at the reports of the hundreds of thousands of slaughtered, maimed, wounded and massacred people, often on sectarian lines, emerging from Syria and call it otherwise) and yet people still oppose intervention? Why? Because intervention has turned out to be based on lies before, many assume that *any* pretext for intervention has to be based on lies now, and thus theyre ready to play devils advocate for any number of disgusting criminals and mass murderers that they *should* be lobbying their governments to intervene against, on the basis that they were lied to once. YES, the pretext for Iraq and other wars turned out to be lies, but does it means that there are never again legitimate pretexts to intervene to save lives? Does it mean that Bashar al-Assad is fighting evil terrorists and is actually some sort of righteous politician, on the basis that Obama (allegedly) backs his opponents? Does it mean that we have to look back at that genocidal monster Saddam with nostalgia, on the basis that the invasion of Iraq was a catastrophe? Moral consistency is utterly non-existent sometimes. Cant we stand for justice based on humanity, not formulate our opinions on the basis of cognitive dissonance, the likes of: I dont like Obama, and I assume he backs Assads opponents, so I want NOTHING done to stop the Syrian slaughter?
Posted on: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:54:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015