Someone commented in The Australian (newspaper) that it isn't wrong to promote military intervention in a country such as Iraq that had been suffering for 30 years because of a "genocidal maniac". Apart from the Iraq-Iran war, when hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians on both sides perished, the people of Iraq suffered immensely when the long-lasting UN-initiated Gulf Blockade was in place and was carried out mainly by the US navy, our very own Royal Australian Navy providing token assistance. The Blockade caused many thousands of deaths because of a lack of food and medicines. Concerned US citizens who tried to send food-cum-medicine parcels to Iraq were threatened with long jail terms and heavy fines.
The invasion by the Coalition obviously has not meant an end to the suffering by the Iraqis, including members of the Christian minority which had religious freedom under Saddam but has for some time been subjected to genocidal attacks by all and sundry with no protection from the West's 'liberators'; priests and bishops have been kidnapped and murdered, churches have been bombed, women have been raped, men have been tortured and killed. What was that about military intervention to eliminate Saddam-induced suffering?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment