Sunday, July 01, 2007

The Moral Emptiness of the Left

Zimbabwe's archbishop has called on the UK to invade the country and rescue it from the famine and other forms of death caused by Robert Mugabe and his so-called government. Sadly, I'm at a loss as I marvel at some of the online comments from lefties regarding the archbishop's request:

With all respect, it was British intervention itself which painted Zimbabwe into this corner. It wasn't an armed intervention; but it was just as deadly -- or worse. It was an attack on an entire nation, with the express purpose of (1) showing Africans that so long as Europeans aren't at the helm of a country's governance that country cannot survive; and (2) to dissuade any person of African decent, looking in at Zimbabwe, from believing that nationalism is a proper course to take.


How about this one?

Removing tyrannical rulers is a starting point on the road to failure; vacuums are created with their removal. It seems crass to say but do we really want another Iraq? Mugabe is an old man, his time on this world is going short once he is gone the country will correct itself saving thousands of lives in another botched and illconcieved (sic) invation (sic).


That leftie is too stupid to see the flaw in his own argument. Wouldn't Mugabe's death also lead to power vacuum, only one that occurs later than an invasion would? And how many more deaths would occur in the interim? I guess to lefties, African lives aren't worth saving.

There's more, of course.

As for Zimbabwe it should be noted that its people are sovereign unto themselves; therefore they should be able to sort out Mugabe if they want to. If they stick with him, its their problem, not ours.

They stick with him at the point of a firearm.

Let nature take its course. There are too many people on the planet as it is.

Nice one. Very humane.

Of course I am sympathetic to the plight of the Zimbabwian (sic) poeple (sic), who couldn't be & for sure that despot Mugabe should have been removed from power years ago.
However, Britain should not consider opening up another war front as we have enough on our plates with Iraq, Afghanistan and domestic terroism (sic). Let someone else act as the Worlds (sic) policeman, maybe Russia or perhaps China.
We need to retreat to our island fortress and bring our boys home.


Ah yes, you're very sympathetic. A very good person indeed.

Are you lefties proud?

8 comments:

David said...

Someone (usually identified as Churchill but may have been Clemenceau) said (approximately) "Anyone who is not a leftist before 30 has no heart; anyone who *is* a leftist after 30 has no head."

We now have a substantial population of leftists who have *neither* heart nor head.

Eric said...

Do you support intervention in Darfur?

Darren said...

It would be morally justified. I hate to admit it, but I'm coming around to Michael Walzer's "just war criteria" in his book Just And Unjust Wars.

I've written about Darfur before.
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2006/02/helping-people-of-darfur.html
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2006/10/cases-for-us-intervention-in-darfur.html

allen said...

Man, that's a tough one but I think I have to come down on the side of no intervention.

If the folks in that part of the world have taken it into their heads to settle their differences to rhythm of automatic weapons fire then leaving them alone to do so is the prudent, maybe even moral, thing to do.

Has getting between two warring factions ever put an end to violence? From what I've been able to observe, no. So intervention would amount to sending young Americans off to be killed doing a job that can't be accomplished. Now that's immoral.

Still, there ought to be something we can do to put stick in the spokes of the Sudanese government's bicycle.

Darren said...

Yet another example of debate on the right.

Ellen K said...

Isn't it funny that for years many of the ex-colonies tried to distance them selves from the UK, but when the chips are down, the try to guilt the UK into saving their collective bacon. While the argument might have been valid 50 years ago that Britain's colonial rule weakened the attempts of native persons to form working governments, after some period of time you have to put down failure after failure to a cultural acceptance of tribal law over civil law. And tribal law doesn't work in nation building because it is specific to each tribal unit-which in turn caused civil wars. So perhaps the structure that the Brits left behind was worth saving after all. But then again, so many of these nations' leaders have been in the pay of China or Russia in the bad old days, that with the fall of the USSR, they are looking for another sugar daddy. And so it goes....

Michael Shirley said...

Churchill didn't say it.

Darren said...

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112