Mosquito nets vs. "humanitarian" airstrikes
Options
Jonas.dini
Confirm Email Posts: 2,507 ✭✭
The other day the Economist featured an article that essentially asked the following question:
Wouldn't there be a greater net gain for humanity if we were to take all the resources that the world has provided toward this intervention in Libya and instead spent that money on mosquito netting to prevent the spread of malaria in Africa?
Did the humanitarian community sign a deal with the devil when it became intertwined with the military industrial complex?
Is "humanitarian military intervention" an oxymoron?
Wouldn't there be a greater net gain for humanity if we were to take all the resources that the world has provided toward this intervention in Libya and instead spent that money on mosquito netting to prevent the spread of malaria in Africa?
Did the humanitarian community sign a deal with the devil when it became intertwined with the military industrial complex?
Is "humanitarian military intervention" an oxymoron?
Comments
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »
Is "humanitarian military intervention" an oxymoron?
I have to think this sentence out for a little bit.
But my first impression is that this ? it brilliant.
Humanitarian...Military...Intervention...because killing saves lives. -
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." -H.L. Mencken
-
zulfiqar ali wrote: »"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." -H.L. Mencken
I hate that phrase. I absolutely hate that phrase. -
Libya has oil.
nuff said. -
Oil rules the world, and Obama knows that.
Being the head of an imperial empire, Obama is looking out for his best interests. He could care less about the people of Libya, he just wants to protect Europe's oil supply. He wants to make sure the rebels share their future oil with Europeans and Americans, not just their own people.