On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 26/09/2011 12:00 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell<m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
To me, a refugee is best explained by the scenes in films taken during World War Two. The destitute people walking from one town or city to the next without purpose or hope or knowing what was waiting for them needed refuge. I strongly suspect the real refugees
This is a rhetorical technique that's often used by unsympathetic members of the majority group to deny decent treatment to members of a minority group. Just say "oh I'm all for treating the real victims well, but the ones we see aren't real victims so we should do nothing for them".
That comment is obtuse and unfair. You are accusing me of using the same technique used by yourself against the wealthy. Something I complained about bitterly. I am saying that there are people who need our compassion but we are blinded by those standing in our faces.
Are you saying that I lack compassion for the "poor" (sic) rich people?
The situation for people in East Germany and Poland was by most measures a lot better than that for people in Afghanistan now. Why do you have so much more sympathy for Poles and Germans? Is it because they are white?
I was thinking of the post World War Two era. 36 million dead Russians, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties The death toll in Iraq has been high since the occupation and the death toll in Afghanistan is probably higher - although I am not aware of any good research. I think that the death toll is high enough to make it reasonable to desire refuge in another country.
Another possibility is to just stop creating victims. If the Kurds and Shia in Iraq were given referendum on having their provinces become separate countries then things would calm down a lot there. Then instead of investing so much blood and money in trying to achieve the impossible (make Iraq a united country without having a despot like Saddam holding it together) attention could be focussed on improving things in Afghanistan.
Best comment on the subject so far and I agree with the sentiment in a broad scale use. If we'd left the tyrant alone the people of Iraq would be better off. Even then we, the west, could have continued strong diplomatic action to get him to do less harm to his people.
The "strong diplomatic action" isn't such a good thing, recall the claims that 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of trade embargos. Leaving the tyrant alone isn't required either, the CIA decided to withdraw support for a rebellion against Saddam after the Kuwait war. The US also supported Saddam for a long time before the invasion of Kuwait. If the US had merely refrained from supporting Saddam or had given the promised support to the rebellion then things would be different there.
As for Afghanistan, the US screwed the whole strategy up. Bludgeoning their way into a country is just dumb! They bombed those suckers all the way back to the stone-age. Damn pity they were already there.
They shouldn't have encouraged the USSR to invade there in the first place, that was what really messed things up. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/