Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus
The comments section below that article is really pathetic. Blame, blame, blame, thrown around everywhere. You can count the catchwords with just your fingers: Iraq, Oil, UN, America, Eurosocialists, etc. Don't go down that path, please.
|
I agree, it's pretty naive to blame the USA/UK for not intervening. The whole world(=UN) holds responsibility and has to make up a plan on how to get the situation under control, the fact the USA/UK entered the Iraq without permission of the UN and lied to the whole world doesn't change this fact.
Now that's the theory, in reality the UN is most of the time unable to do so and the USA/UK simply go ahead and do what they want to do when it is convenient and sit still and wait for the UN when there is unpleasant business on the to-do-list(Africa, Korea, Tibet, Burma). That's not something Bush has invented when it comes to unpleasant business, Clinton also did it the same way when he had to face the Rwanda genocide(he claims to regret it) and the UN did a bad job too, like most of the time.
So what can be done? There's no Oil and no Al Kaida in Zimbabwe which makes an unpopular war even more unpopular in the States/UK, so no "World Police" for Zimbabwe. The Europeans couldn't even deal with the situation in Chad, where the EUFOR under the leadership of the French sent their troops(iirc austrian/polish and some others) but they were quarreling and slow.. and their help wasn't always appreciated because of the French who are former colonial rulers and the general interference from outside.
So that's it with the first world countries, no hope in sight. The neighboring countries can't do much either on their own. So nobody is in the position to lay the blame on somebody..