Saturday, March 26, 2011

lovely sentiments about humanitarian foreign aid didn't apply to east pakistan

mar 25th, 2011 CE

there has been a rash of self-congratulatory writing by white people explaining why they are so... sensitive to the problems of poor people, especially those under threat from nasty dictators, to explain why the libyan misadventure by obummer is so morally right.

here's an example from the economist, talking about mosquito nets vs. f-35s. of course the irony is that they are still giving f-35s to the very same dictator/caudillos in pakistan who did the genocide in b'desh. breathtaking hypocrisy, of course that is expected from the good folks over at the economist, NATO, limey-land

====== begin quote ======

When you have a column of armoured forces loyal to a ruthless dictator advancing on a city full of weakly-armed rebels (initially non-violent protestors who took up arms in self-defence) upon whom he has openly promised to wreak bloody vengeance, you pretty much have the paradigmatic case for military intervention. We know how that picture ends; in Srebrenica in 1992 it ended with the bodies of 7,000 able-bodied males in unmarked graves, in Hama in 1982 it ended with 20,000 civilian dead in flattened apartment blocks, in Basra in 1991 it ended in mass graves and in the dungeons of Abu Ghraib, and so forth.

=====end quote =======

yeah, but when india intervened militarily, the us sent the menacing 7th fleet steaming into the bay of bengal.

how quickly they forget!

No comments: