Do ministers really expect us to believe they don't know what a fallacy is?
"Is the report saying it was a mistake to allow Afghanistan and Iraq to exercise their democratic rights?
"These are the hard questions the report does not address."
Their argument goes like this:
"If we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the people of these countries wouldn't have known democracy"
Well, that's debatable. Who can assert as a fact that democracy couldn't have come from within?
"Those who oppose the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq must therefore be pro-Saddam/Taleban".
This is a 'guilt by association' fallacy. Saddam Hussein and the taleban were dictators, therefore to oppose their removal (by the US, UK and others) is to support them.
This fallacy ignores the real reasons for opposing the invasions, the first of which is to oppose illegal intervention in a sovereign state. Next is that the invasion and war exacerbates resentment towards the 'West' and attacks on the 'West'.
Leading on from this, Blair claims there can be no link between the war in Iraq and the bombings in London because there were terrorist attacks before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Another red herring. The fact that terrorists had other reasons to attack 'western' targets does not mean that the war in Iraq is not one of them.
Of course, those responsible for the attacks are first and foremost those who perpetrated them. That Blair and Bush are also responsible through their actions in the Middle East and elsewhere, is also clear.
For years, the world watched the ongoing genocide in the Balkans without taking any real military action. Most European nations (to include France) believed that talk alone would resolve this humanitarian crisis. Indeed, if you read about the 444-day seige of Sarajevo, you'll learn that the inaction of the French troops (i.e. under UN control) allowed the Serbs to continue its lock on the city.
RépondreSupprimerSometimes, it takes the use of military force to stop the killing. For example: Only Vietnam's military intervention into Cambodia stopped the Khmer Rouge's genocide against their own people. Better yet, what about France's recent interventions into the Ivory Coast?
Anyhow, in terms of Afghanistan, by and large, the removal of the Taliban (supported by NATO) has been a success story. The people of this country (after 23 years of war) finally have a chance at peace.
While the verdict is still out on Iraq, IF democracy takes hold, then there is indeed a chance at a broader peace throughout the Middle-east. Believe it or not, the world once thought it was impossible for Germany & Japan to become democratic nations.
v/r
On the Balkans:
RépondreSupprimerWhy do you bring up France? I have said it: I am British AND French. We are discussing topics which relate to Britain. I have a blog in French. Also, I have posted articles relating to France.
On Ivory Coast: same. If you think I am an embittered frenchman blaming the British/Americans for all the world's woes, pull yourself together: some of us are interested in truth, not patriotic bullshit.
On the Middle East go here
From genocide to Afghanistan and Iraq (where there was no genocide)? I'm confused. If genocide is the issue, you should be mentioning Darfur, not Iraq or Afghanistan.
RépondreSupprimer