Solon's problem, as I see it, is that for some reason he has gotten locked into a need to chastize a foreign country (in this case the United States) for a decision it took during war time nearly sixty years ago. Since in reality the decision was, at the time, eminently sensible and probably saved hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives, he is arguing a losing battle. But he's incapable of admitting it. So it goes on.
What I find most -- amusing is perhaps the best term -- is that he has fixated on this particular issue when there are so many other issues he could far more legitimately have picked. How about the German blitz on London, which was not a military target but on a civilian population? Or the use of rockets against London near the end of WW II, when the rockets had no military purpose whatsoever but were purely intended to punish innocent civilians? But of course, those weren't the US's actions, so Solon and his ilk have no interest in criticizing them. Nor does he have any expressed concern for what Iraq has done to the Kurds, what China has done in Tibet, and on and on.
If an American takes the position of criticizing America, at least they have the justification of self-examination. But Solon, as a foreigner, has no such justification.
Ah well, I guess he has nothing better to fill his time with. Which is its own comment. |
