AT 30 seconds past 9 minutes into this video, while Mr Obama acknowledges being a "direct consequence of Dr King's work" and walking on the steps of Mr King who had said "violence never brings permanent peace; it solves no social problem, it merely creates new ones" while accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, he goes on to say that he cannot sit quiet after being head of State, thereby supporting his warring (violent) route to install peace and his mantra that "war is sometimes necessary."
While this mantra may be true in its own essence, when it comes out of a powerful state such as the USA it exposes how poor its diplomatic abilities are and how weakened its peace-making abilities have become after the days of King and Gandhi, and especially so after existing nearly three centuries as a constitutional democracy.
By accepting that "war.. at some level is an expression of human folly" is Mr Obama hinting that some wars, especially those participated by the USA and other NATO allies are not consequences of human folly? Who is to decide - the NATO forces or Syrian civilians in this case? Will attacking Syria by air be so precisely selective so as to not inflict pain on any civilian and only impact the Syrian armed forces? Even if that precision was achieved does this set the right precedent to future attempts at correcting international wrongs and who needs to correct such wrongs? How is democracy being upheld in a nation (such as Syria that elects its own leaders) when its internal wrongs get corrected by external, unrelated, international and brutal pressures?
Time to stop this hypocrisy and talk about democracy as something that settles organically in the minds of people and as a bottoms-up process based on internal demand and the love for absolute self-rule.
While this mantra may be true in its own essence, when it comes out of a powerful state such as the USA it exposes how poor its diplomatic abilities are and how weakened its peace-making abilities have become after the days of King and Gandhi, and especially so after existing nearly three centuries as a constitutional democracy.
By accepting that "war.. at some level is an expression of human folly" is Mr Obama hinting that some wars, especially those participated by the USA and other NATO allies are not consequences of human folly? Who is to decide - the NATO forces or Syrian civilians in this case? Will attacking Syria by air be so precisely selective so as to not inflict pain on any civilian and only impact the Syrian armed forces? Even if that precision was achieved does this set the right precedent to future attempts at correcting international wrongs and who needs to correct such wrongs? How is democracy being upheld in a nation (such as Syria that elects its own leaders) when its internal wrongs get corrected by external, unrelated, international and brutal pressures?
Time to stop this hypocrisy and talk about democracy as something that settles organically in the minds of people and as a bottoms-up process based on internal demand and the love for absolute self-rule.
0 comments
ನಿಮ್ಮ ಅನಿಸಿಕೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿರಿ: | Pass your comment: