I saw this headline and the first thing that happened, was I got a flashback of Lethal Weapon 2, where Riggs and Murtaugh walk into the South African embassy and Murtaugh asks for information about traveling to South Africa, then starts to shout, “Ban Apartheid Now!”
What I find even more amusing is that Danny Glover is demanding a peacekeeping force to go into Dafur… and yet he protested against the ousting of Hussein in 2002.
So genocide against the African villagers in Sudan isn’t okay, but acts of genocide against the Kurds is?
I find it very exasperating that people seem to find one cause or another that seems to fit with their political agenda, but can’t seem to say that genocide is genocide and there is no justification for genocide. Even more frustrating is the idea that peacekeeping forces can be sent in, but only in specific circumstances. And we all know that “sending in a peacekeeping force” is simply a nice term for military action.
How is it that someone can draw the line between one form of genocide or another? What makes one appropriate and the other not? Could someone explain this to me please? I don’t understand it. To me, neither one is morally correct, and both deserve military action, if necessary, to bring the atrocities to an end.
Maybe someone should point that out to Mr. Glover.
