I missed this piece of agnosticism a while back. So I'm linking to it now. It's worth a look.
In summary, it's author, isn't interested in bickering about foreign affairs because he can't find a level playing field to argue about it on. It's not that he doesn't care. Just that he doesn't know.
I've had my own versions of it here and here.
When Zhou Enlai was asked his views on the French Revolution, he's supposed to have replied that "It's too early to say." I'm constantly amazed at the trenchant views that I see expressed on political questions - particularly ones that have so many controversial dependencies.
I've been thinking of a few exam questions that I'd like to see a lot of the blogging oracles answer before they carry on explaining what's happening in Iraq, Palestine, or even London.
Here's some examples;
- The pre-2003 government in Iraq has been characterised as brutal and corrupt. Was there a moral obligation on other countries that have the ability to replace that government to do so? And if so, is there any ceiling on the number of casualties that can be incurred in achieving this?
- It has been widely argued that the US was primarily persuing it's own economic self-interest in invading Iraq. Is this fair? And does this undermine the wider cause of democratisation in the Middle East?
I've got loads more questions where those ones came from.
Personally, I don't think anyone has a responsibility to come up with their own coherent positions on either side of these big arguments.That's part of the beauty of representative democracy.