War
On the recent "Criminalize War" compagin led by Dr.Mahathir, he made a remark intended to show his neutrality.
"If Iraq had invaded United States, I would support USA".
Suppose he really means what he says, then a question follows. Iraq had invaded Kuwait in 1990, and USA had helped Kuwait defend itself. According to his line of reasoning, he would support the victim, and naturally, all people who help the victim. Why did Mahathir NOT support USA during that time?
Mahathir could further argue that, Kuwait was invaded, not USA. He had no reason to support USA, an outsider. USA had no reason to stick a foot in, and uphold justice by itself.
However, this leads to another question. Now that Iraq was "invaded", why does Mahathir, an outsider, has any right to meddle with middle east affair, and establish a justice system to help Iraq fend off its enemy (USA). Isn't Mahathir trying to do exactly the same thing USA was trying to do 17 years ago? Mahathir and USA are both outsiders, they are not the victim themselves. And they both tried to work out a solution based on the common belief that they were trying to protect the victims. Interestingly, American's solution was backed by United Nation in 1990, whereas Mahathir's campaign was outside the UN's system, because he is of the view that Geneva Convention is not adequate. From this perspective, USA's action was more legitimate than Mahathir's.
Mahathir could again argue there is a difference in motives : USA intevened based on its personal interest in the gulf area, in particular the control of oil and gas. Meanwhile, Mahathir is really trying to uphold a global justice based on the fact that war is cruel, and all war initiators should be tried and punished.
However, Mahathir higlighted only the cruelty suffered by Iraqis as a result of american troops. Hamas bombing Israel citizens does not really count. Saddam Hussein's torture and mass murder of certain tribes do not count. September 11th does not count. The selectve definition of war and cruelty is really bothering me. If Mahathir's campaign is larger than just the Iraq's misery, he has to give a fair, just, and accurate definition of war. For the moment, he sounds like he is defining war as American wars.
Maybe Mahathir has all the good intentions : Bring peace to the middle east. By the same token, we have every reason to believe that USA has its equally noble cause : Bring democracy values to the middle east. If you must doubt USA, you have to doubt Mahathir. Let's be fair.
As I drove past Jalan Tun Razak today, I saw many banners placed upon the lamposts along the street. Those banners featured the photos of suffering iraqis. There was one photo particularly gruesome : One muslim lady looking on at a dead baby. These banners are very powerful to create an emotional outburst among the public. Deep down, I'm very worried. Are these banners going to promote peace ? Or are they more likely to ignite hatred and revenge? Are we really talking about peace and ending all wars, or are we talking about only ending American influence?
To all the people who quickly think that Mahathir is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize, answer me : Crimalize War ? What War ? What is War? Why just Bush and Blair?
"If Iraq had invaded United States, I would support USA".
Suppose he really means what he says, then a question follows. Iraq had invaded Kuwait in 1990, and USA had helped Kuwait defend itself. According to his line of reasoning, he would support the victim, and naturally, all people who help the victim. Why did Mahathir NOT support USA during that time?
Mahathir could further argue that, Kuwait was invaded, not USA. He had no reason to support USA, an outsider. USA had no reason to stick a foot in, and uphold justice by itself.
However, this leads to another question. Now that Iraq was "invaded", why does Mahathir, an outsider, has any right to meddle with middle east affair, and establish a justice system to help Iraq fend off its enemy (USA). Isn't Mahathir trying to do exactly the same thing USA was trying to do 17 years ago? Mahathir and USA are both outsiders, they are not the victim themselves. And they both tried to work out a solution based on the common belief that they were trying to protect the victims. Interestingly, American's solution was backed by United Nation in 1990, whereas Mahathir's campaign was outside the UN's system, because he is of the view that Geneva Convention is not adequate. From this perspective, USA's action was more legitimate than Mahathir's.
Mahathir could again argue there is a difference in motives : USA intevened based on its personal interest in the gulf area, in particular the control of oil and gas. Meanwhile, Mahathir is really trying to uphold a global justice based on the fact that war is cruel, and all war initiators should be tried and punished.
However, Mahathir higlighted only the cruelty suffered by Iraqis as a result of american troops. Hamas bombing Israel citizens does not really count. Saddam Hussein's torture and mass murder of certain tribes do not count. September 11th does not count. The selectve definition of war and cruelty is really bothering me. If Mahathir's campaign is larger than just the Iraq's misery, he has to give a fair, just, and accurate definition of war. For the moment, he sounds like he is defining war as American wars.
Maybe Mahathir has all the good intentions : Bring peace to the middle east. By the same token, we have every reason to believe that USA has its equally noble cause : Bring democracy values to the middle east. If you must doubt USA, you have to doubt Mahathir. Let's be fair.
As I drove past Jalan Tun Razak today, I saw many banners placed upon the lamposts along the street. Those banners featured the photos of suffering iraqis. There was one photo particularly gruesome : One muslim lady looking on at a dead baby. These banners are very powerful to create an emotional outburst among the public. Deep down, I'm very worried. Are these banners going to promote peace ? Or are they more likely to ignite hatred and revenge? Are we really talking about peace and ending all wars, or are we talking about only ending American influence?
To all the people who quickly think that Mahathir is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize, answer me : Crimalize War ? What War ? What is War? Why just Bush and Blair?
posted by steve tan at
3:18 AM
8 Comments:
Anytime now, another heart attack should strike, to take us out of the misery of having to listen to his bullshit. Insha'Allah.
i still recall, that grumpy old man immediately made a statement sympathetic to Bin Laden's action right after 911.
It isn't about peace or war. It's all about getting back at americans, whom he love to hate.
I like your pun.
Recently, John Howard did something stupid too. I think you know what he did. Leaders nowadays get too big on their ego, that they think they can just piss off anybody they don't like.
"Say No to War" is always a good theme to promote for, regardless its motive and method.
The old man is campaigning for his Nobel Prize's nomination, give him a break lo...
Nobel prize nomination?? I can't fucking believe my ears.
February 16 passed by silently
Age takes away and never gives
But here I am your loyal friend
Wishing you a happy 31-th birthday, dear Steve
Four people remember my Bd.
1. Jaya Jusco
2. An insurance agent.
3. Jobstreet.
4. you.
Jaya Jusco and Jobstreet aren't even people. So to be exact, two people remembered your birthday, apart from your wife, sister, brother, dad and mom.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home