I'm not so sure that, if that had been a realistic option - had the question REALLY been posed as "should we nuke Afganistan" - that a majority of Americans would've said yes. Loudmouths popping off in casual conversation is one thing. Actually authorizing the use of nuclear weapons is entirely another. Would the vox populi of Sudan, really given the option of stoning this woman to death, do it? I don't know. I hope not.
I would think that the appropriate response is to give Sudan the diplomatic cold shoulder. Of course, that would require ignoring their oil deposits. Aid groups could decide they'd rather work elsewhere.
I don't really understand trying to defend this. It makes no sense.
This doesn't mean we should invade, or bomb, or treat Sudanese people like ****. It does mean that the Sudanese goverment/judicial system is worthy of criticism... and maybe even the culture that underlies it, too. Is that so wrong?
I mean, it's awfully fashionable to criticize certain cultural trends in my country (and I do it plenty myself). But criticism of conservative Islamic law/custom... that's beyond the pale, I guess.
-Arrian
I would think that the appropriate response is to give Sudan the diplomatic cold shoulder. Of course, that would require ignoring their oil deposits. Aid groups could decide they'd rather work elsewhere.
I don't really understand trying to defend this. It makes no sense.
This doesn't mean we should invade, or bomb, or treat Sudanese people like ****. It does mean that the Sudanese goverment/judicial system is worthy of criticism... and maybe even the culture that underlies it, too. Is that so wrong?
I mean, it's awfully fashionable to criticize certain cultural trends in my country (and I do it plenty myself). But criticism of conservative Islamic law/custom... that's beyond the pale, I guess.
-Arrian
Comment