|
|
Of course- there's the diplomatic pressure to let in inspectors. Or spies. Sometimes I forget the difference. But... it looks like that's not even gonna count anymore.
I know this sounds dumb... but we haven't tried REASONING with the guy in, like, fucking ages. At least not when we've been prepared to listen to his answers.
Look, don't get me wrong- he really doesn't seem like my kind of people. I just don't think we have the right to just change regimes as and when it seems fitting TO US. In this case, it may be a good idea. But we've set enough dangerous precedents before- why add to 'em?
Personally, I'm all in favour of intervening when there are abuses of basic human rights. Such as we missed out on doing in Iraq long ago. But I think any such policy should be applied across the board.
I think it comes down to whether our moral argument holds water. In which case, it should be applied universally. A selective moral judgment is no moral judgment at all. (And let's face it... we ain't about to take on China, are we?)
As far as alternatives go- I don't really think it's up to the West to come up with alternatives. Not because it's "someone else's problem"- just that I don't think we have the right to impress our models on others.
The irony being- my personal favourite outcome would be a popular uprising which the West would support. That way, it's still the will of the people, they're just no longer so outgunned.
Unfortunately, they'd be fools to trust us again, having sold 'em out so many times.
The alternative to war is always peace. The real question is, can that be achieved, and if so, how? |
|
|