Does a nation have a right to impose its principles and convictions on another? In twenty first century when the meaning of 'sovereignty of state' is clearly understood, what on earth could justify a nation teaching another the concept of Democracy? History stands testimony to the fact that mounting civilian casualties is the only fruit of such misadventures. Is the value of human life so insignificant that world leaders could afford sacrificing it in such huge magnitudes?
The fact that democratic nations are waging this war, makes me question if democracy could be considered synonymous with civilization. Whether war is breaking terror networks or creating them has become a simple question with an obvious answer. Unfortunately even today, the world doesn’t dare to contest the actions of mighty! Unable to appreciate this war, I feel either they are deluded or they wish to delude the world into an improbable safe and heavenly order.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Dear Jugpa!
I am impressed....I am only not able to decide what to admire more, your clarity of thought or your ability to put it in words!
KK
jp, jp, jp...
It's much more nuanced than you propose. War can be justified, under certain conditions--stepping in and altering a particularly bad government is fair and reasonable.
I'm mulling over how to frame my exact stance on this... but then again, we've already discussed it a lot.
We all know very well who is responsible for the loss of life in Iraq. Whether the earlier "Bad Government" or the "Democratic Noble Invasion" is responsible, is something both you and I agree on!
The US Policy of supporting anybody who was "anti-communist" without asking what exactly they were in favor of is the principle culprit.
For almost 50 years this guiding principle encouraged foolish behavior--consequently the United States trained its current enemies quite well.
We can trace the current loss of life in Iraq to a number of places:
1) We could trace it to the US for invading Iraq without justification--or poor justification.
2) We could say it was Saddam's fault and that the US was intervening in a human rights crisis--however that was not the articulated reason. It is a pretty good reason though.
3) We could say it was the US's fault for training Saddam in the first place during it's "we love anybody who's anti-communist."
4) Better yet, we could blame the British, who as the colonial power divided up the Middle East in rather foolish and stupid ways, nicely drawing lines to put people and cultures together that probably shouldn't have been put together.
What is clear about the current invasion is that the plans went only as far as getting rid of Saddam. There was little thought given to the follow through.
I just made a long winded response to this on my blog: http://www.elmada.com/000661.html
It's probably the first of several parts of my response.
Have at it!
Post a Comment