Kipling: If a country like the US or England sends troops in to perform relief aid, to save the country's native population from death, they're lauded. And there'd be pressure put on them by the international community if they didn't. But if there's a dictator killing his own people, and the US or England sent troops in, they'd suddenly be imperialist invaders.
Icarus: In the first instance the term "peacekeeper" isn't used in its typical, not-really-so-peaceful way. They're not going into the country to shoot anyone.
Later, when I mentioned the conversation to Phoenix:
Phoenix: If we know that a country's citizens are being murdered, and we have the capability to send troops in to help them, how can you say that isolationism or non-action would be the morally acceptable response?
No comments:
Post a Comment