Sunday, December 7, 2014

A humanitarian lesson

If you are not a subscriber to the New York Times and you've used up your free monthly views (Does the Times still have those? I am a subscriber, so I don't know), you should get one of the 99-cent teaser signups just to read this.

This is the funniest, saddest, weirdest news story of the year. Nut graf:


Cliff Sloan, the State Department envoy who negotiates detainee transfers, expressed gratitude to Mr. Mujica in a statement. Several other South American countries, including Brazil, Chile and Colombia, motivated by news of the Uruguay deal, had opened talks about potentially taking in some low-level detainees as well, but were watching would what happen.

“We are very grateful to Uruguay for this important humanitarian action, and to President Mujica for his strong leadership in providing a home for individuals who cannot return to their own countries,” Mr. Sloan said. “The support we are receiving from our friends and allies is critical to achieving our shared goal of closing Guantánamo.”
So Uruguay, which must be about 149th in the ISIL hit list, is sticking up its head to take some low-level jihadis (or not, who knows?) off our hands. I hope they don't get bombed for their trouble.

Next time some 100% 'Murrican yammers on about how we are the greatest, most helpful country that ever was, you might mention to her that Uruguay took in Guantanamo prisoners when the Congress (largely but not entirely the Republican part) is so terrified that it will not allow any of them to be brought into the United States in chains for trial.

This despite the fact that the several terrorism suspects who have been brought in for trial have successfully been tried. Leonie Brinkema, who presided over several of those trials, is a smallish, gray-haired woman, and she is not afraid to judge terror suspects. (I recall her saying as much at a judicial conference in Kaanapali, back in my reporting days; it seems a long time ago.)

But there is no more pitiful, quivering puddle of self-staining fear than an open-carrying, Second Amendment-lovin', kill-'em'-all-and-let-God-sort-them-out coward than a superpatriot.

FUN FACT: Can you name all the countries that the benevolent United States has not yet invaded?

NOT SO FUN ANSWER:    “Andorra, Bhutan and Liechtenstein – those are the only three of the United Nations-recognized 194 nations that the U.S. has not invaded,” says Christopher Kelly, co-author with British historian Stuart Laycock of “America Invades,” www.americainvades.com, a global tour of Americans’ military impact around the world.

(I cannot confirm that and suspect that they are using a broad definition of invade, but it's right to a first approximation.)

Recall that the landing on the moon, which some (but not RtO) have been celebrating the 50th anniversary of, was achieved only because America welcomed in hundreds of Nazi murderers (in Operation Paperclip).

10 comments:

  1. I cannot confirm that and suspect that they are using a broad definition of invade, but it's right to a first approximation.

    A first approximation of what -- progressive axe grinding?

    Singapore. Australia. New Zealand. South Africa. Most of the rest of Africa. Israel. Ireland. Scotland. Norway. Sweden. Hungary. Portugal. Malaysia. Sri Lanka. Nepal. Mongolia (cheap shot -- Chinese got there first).

    Next time some 100% 'Murrican yammers on about how we are the greatest, most helpful country that ever was, you might mention to her that Uruguay took in Guantanamo prisoners ...

    Because that is so much more super important than stopping the Soviet Union from strangling Berlin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You might look up some Aussie veteran of the 7th Armored on your travels and ask him if they considered the Murricans invaded. Feelings among the Australians serving overseas were quite high.

    I am considering that the authors considered any landing of foreign troops an invasion, as, of course, the locals usually do. But if we restrict it to 'helpful' invasions, then ask a Cambodian.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am considering that the authors considered any landing of foreign troops an invasion ...

    Perhaps you should consider that the authors have cast such a wide net in defining "invasion" that way as to render the word completely useless.

    But if we restrict it to 'helpful' invasions, then ask a Cambodian.

    I'm going to Seoul in a couple weeks. Can I ask a Korean instead?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sure, be sure to look up one who was tortured by 'our' Koreans during the 1950s, '60s and '70s and ''80s. Too bad you won't be able to ask the ones who were murdered.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm sure you are right. Every Korean I might ask would much rather be a North Korean.

    That was the option on offer. Clearly you wish the North had taken over the entire peninsula. Just as you clearly know that South Koreans agree.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just would like our government to stop supporting despots and fascists. You don't. It's a sheep/goat thing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No Harry, it is a sparkly unicorns vs. reality thing.

    You somehow seem to believe you can change facts to align with your exalted progressive preferences.

    Unfortunately, those dealing with the real world have to play with the cards as they are dealt.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Except that the US usually deals off the bottom of the deck. Not in Korea but in, say, Congo. And many other places.

    And it ought to have been possible for the US to have sponsored democracy even in South Korea, but it chose not to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And it ought to have been possible for the US to have sponsored democracy even in South Korea, but it chose not to.

    Thirty-five years from a feudal Asian society to democracy.

    Yep, no doubt about it, the South Koreans would have been vastly better off if the Norks had conquered the entire peninsula.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But I didn't say anything to the contrary. It was a lot longer than 35 years, and it was no credit to the US, which supported despotism all the way.

    It is so easy to get rightwingers to defend despotism. I suppose it is because they don't recognize it when they see it.

    ReplyDelete