We are responsible, yet we do nothing. We talk of freedom from oppression, about the unalienable rights of man. We claim to be just, but we do nothing. We intervene, protect, nation-build where our interest is best served, where a prize is to be had. The suffering and squalor of the rest, unluckily born to a nation low in natural resources or strategic military value, is placed on exhibit nightly, to be browsed and digested, mined for all its shock and fear and then to be forgotten, as though merely having heard about such things is its own kind of heroism.Over on Sushicam, Jeff incited a debate with his post concerning the Alaska oil drilling (the last bit of the entry). In the comments on that post, Kryn stated:
If the US would not hold an agressive role towards some countries/factions and tell them what's wrong and what's right, they wouldn't oppose the US so much and the US would therefore not have the need to wage war on those countries/factions. Please consider who started it, and don't say "they did by not being democratic according to the American way" because it doesn't roll. The US should just stop interfering with countries and enforce them a different policy. The only REAL reason that the US enforces their policy is because their administration is power hungry and comprises mostly countrol freaks. You already confirm this point by regarding China and Russia as potential enemies. They are no threat to the US, they just want to be left alone and deal with their internal affairs themselves, without the US bullying them and interfering. The US simply does not have that right. It is that attitude that will result in WW3. Where did Iraq actually start? Because the US didn't approve of Iran's ways, so they installed Saddam Hussein (yes, the US put Saddam in power and provided him with financial aid and weapons in the first place). Why did the US lost the Vietnam war? because they interfered with someone's internal affairs. He is not the only dictator put in place by the US. The US had no business there. If they want to be communists, let them, they'll find out themselves: How do you most effectively teach a small kid that a bowling kettle is hot? By not stoping it when it wants to touch it. It gets burned and it learned a valuable lesson. Unfortunately the US doesn't seem to learn from its mistakes. STop interfering and the terrorist attacks will stop as well. The same happens with european countries. We get aggressive tones and threats when we interfere with others. when we don't there is no problem. Can you explain? ANother thing, is why does the US always complain about countries having nuclear power and weapons of mass destruction? Why does the US always want to remove those with force? It is hypocritic, because the US is the number one when it comes to the possession of nuclear armaments, biochemical weapons of mass destruction. How can the US tell others off for it when they have the largest capacity in these monstrosities?Here are two opinions censuring American society for completely different reasons. The first states that wrong is wrong, and we should put at stop to wrong when we see it, regardless of where it occurs. The second states that countries are sovereign, that no one has the right to impose their culture on others.
I feel, oddly, like both of them are right.
This is why I have such a hard time making decisions concerning politics.
I guess the only thing we can do is make choices on a case-to-case basis, and hope we are doing the right thing--that our elected officials are doing the right thing. In the Information Age, the prospect of weighing every single thing that happens between countries is overwhelming, but it's really the only way to be fair. I don't think we can make a hard and fast rule of non-interference or total interference.
3 comments:
Hi Heather. Here's the link I promised to send. This little book has been recommended by many counselors for help in nurturing a healthy self-esteem. I have found it helpful and I hope you or your friends do too.
"The Portable Therapist" -- A Review:
http://daltonhammond.blogspot.com/2005/03/how-to-be-happy.html
Thank you :) The first paragraph of your review has stuck with me for days now. I love beautiful, extravagant things, but recently I think I've decided that I don't really need to own them. Instead, I'd like to live a simple life in a small, cute house...and go adventuring, to see all the other stuff. I'd like to stay in fancy hotels, and eat expensive, delicious food, and travel to exotic locations, and all that expensive jazz, but I don't feel like I need to have 20 acres of my own, or a huge mansion, anymore. (This is a relatively new development!)
At any rate, the book sounds interesting. Thanks for the recommendation.
Both are, in fact, wrong. I can sum up.
To Luke's point. The United States IS the most powerfull, richest nation in the world, but we have neither the money or the military resources to invade everyone who really needs invading. Mayhap Iraq was the wrong choice, I dunno. The answer to that lies in the question of whether or not Syria has WMDs. (Remember Hans Blix's inspectors on the ground held the opinion that Saddam had them and was hidingg them. It's wasn't naked US agression.)
Kryn's rambling tirade: We couldn't ignore RUSSIA since it had plainly stated imperial abmitions towards our treaty partners (the people whose bacon we'd pulled out of the fire in WWII) Russia, with it's population and size could absorb it's losses and roll on. Our Allies couldn't. We could. A job to be done, no one else to do it. Result: Cold War (We won that one, BTW.) CHINA had a little revolution. As a result of that revolution a democracy was born. Not in China. Tiawan. We got firendly with Tiawan, but China wants to rule that island. The US is in a tight spot. We will (I hope) keep out treaty and defened Tiawan, but let's keep something in mind. We, Tiawan, our Australian and Japanese allies ALL view China's posture toward Tiawan with alarm. One could call the Tiawan thing "meddling", but are we really supposed to abandon an alliance? Lastly, VIETNAM. This one is big. I'll try to keep it short. French Colonialism. French kicked out by alliance of two "armies" one leaning democratic the ohther just plain commie. The UN got involved, as did we, saying you two play nice and split the nation. We'll have a referendum to put things right. Both side stonewalled (with backing of both sides of the foreign debate) and finally the North invaded the south. We went to support our allies. And despite our losses, we did a damn fine job. We held the line, pushed back advance after advance. But the North kept throwing lives at our meat grinder. Politically, we couldn't attack for fear that Russia and China would come in on the side of the north. If we could have, we would have won. All of this came about because the French didn't know quite when to let go.
The US has made mistakes, and we aren't always right. (Vietnam really is one. We made some bad calls in the name of protecting the peace. But the French started it.) These two are being too simple, though. (So am I. The full truth is some place in the middle, but closer to my side, I should think. I, at least, have facts.)
Post a Comment