Pixelated Semantics

Deplorably egregious

Compare the Australian government's "deploring" of a reported use of WMD [poison gas] by the Burmese junta against Karen tribespeople, with the hysterical language over the non-existent WMD that occasioned the Irak invasion. If, as Man of Steel blithely claimed, in Irak's case, Australia "participated with just cause, in an action properly based in international law", then surely the criminal use of WMD in Burma should result in the same action, and not merely "deploring", which in diplomatic terms is equivalent to a mild scolding that is unlikely to be followed by any firm action? And in a parallel, and somewhat astonishing admission, Harvard in responding to pressure over its investments in Burma with Unocal, is forced to admit "oil seems to be a common link between companies and repressive regimes", while stonewalling action on the grounds that "egregious circumstances and extraordinary evidence" are required for action. Perhaps the use of WMD by one of its business partners may be egregious enough?

Item posted by AutoEditor at 2:08 pm ::