Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Another Question for Those Against the War...

Ok...I'm still grasping here. Trying to understand. Trying to rectify the seeming hypocracies that *I* see... So, once again, please help me out.

After watching both Sometimes in April and Hotel Rwanda (I actually likes Sometimes in April better, for those that haven't seen it) and getting that horrible feeling of "why the hell didn't we Clinton do anything"? And "why is the United Nations such a flacid, impotent, disfunctional joke"? You know, all the questions that are inevitable as you watch someone rolling over hundreds of machettied bodies in their van...

And I was thinking how everyone agrees that this was a MAJOR misstep. Everyone knows that it was a MAJOR UN failure. Clinton and the Clintonistas admit that this was a shame of the Administration. You can't help but cry as you feel the pain of these people as the realization of abondomment sinks in... BUT, why are the Iraqis any different? Why agonize over the choice not to go in using force to stop the genocide of the Tutsies and rail against doing the same for the Shias? Were there not mass graves in Iraq? Did these people not live in abject fear for DECADES and not just months? Did Uday not deflower young school girls only to have their fathers and brothers stone them for no longer being virgins? Did Saddam lock up young children (some as young as two) in despicable prisons for infractions committed by their parents?

What is the differnce? How do you make the distinction? How do we decide who deserves the saving grace of the West? Do you just ignore all the Iraqis that asked our troops "What took you so long" upon thier arrival? How do you justify the hypocracy?

No comments: