awkwardly

Tuesday

Partners in genocide
Bush Administration Allied With Sudan Despite Role in Darfur Genocide
Ready for a new round of rationalization for supporting state terrorism, how it's necessary to sometimes work with corrupt regimes to help our security or national interests. Remember how well that worked when we supported Saddam, the Mujaheddin, Pinochet, Noriega, Suharto, Musharraf, that dude who boils people in Uzbekistan, plenty of other examples we could talk about. (At first I was starting to list only the dictators or groups who later fought against the US, as if the only injustices in the world are the ones that affect us. Ugh.) This time it's the govt of Sudan, which the US Sec of State daintily applied the word genocide to, then made sure that we did nothing about it.

So if the US was right to bomb Afghanistan for their support of Al Qaeda, would it be right for survivors of genocide in Sudan to bomb the US for our support of a govt we acknowledge committed genocide? Why does one rule apply to the US and a different rule apply to all other countries?

If the Taleban had tried to distance themselves from Al Qaeda by saying they had only supported and interacted with Bin Laden because it was necessary to their security or national interests, would we have let them off the hook? Lesser of two evils and all the excuses that Conservatives use to explain away Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home