Unless we want to become a colonial empire, we need to stay out of it.
If the argument is that we must stop the murder of innocent people, then why have we not stepped into the situation in the many countries in Africa? Does the weapon matter? Is some form of gas more bad than thugs in trucks with mounted automatic weapons shooting up a village of rivals? What about the situation in S. Africa?
If we are going to put soldiers in harms way to defend those who cannot defend themselves, we should be doing it all over the world. And then we should completely wipe out those who were responsible. Those people will probably use innocent people as human shields. In which case, we'll have to be ok with taking out some innocent people so that we can get the bad guys. Otherwise, we wind up with another place like Afghanistan or Iraq. Then once we are done wiping out the bad guys that are there, we need to stay and rule the place. If we don't there will be plenty of other bad guys waiting until we leave to fill the gap. And when, I say stay and rule, I mean we need to treat it like a colony. We install our own government there with governors that we appoint. At a certain point, we may be able to let the people of those colonies begin to gradually vote in their own representatives, but not early on. If we do it too soon, we risk allowing radical factions to take over in an unstable situation. We must stabilize the colony first before we had over rule to the people there.
This is extreme, I understand that. And please understand, I do not actually want this situation to take place. But if we do go in and take out the Syrian leaders, we are going to have another Iraq on our hands, unless we give it to Russia. I don't think we would actually do it.
Bottom line for me is that we be consistent across the globe. We take our everyone who is harming innocent people and then govern the place ourselves or we stay out of it. This plan that we've been on the last 17 years isn't working.
Sorry, end of rant. I'll go get lunch now.
If the argument is that we must stop the murder of innocent people, then why have we not stepped into the situation in the many countries in Africa? Does the weapon matter? Is some form of gas more bad than thugs in trucks with mounted automatic weapons shooting up a village of rivals? What about the situation in S. Africa?
If we are going to put soldiers in harms way to defend those who cannot defend themselves, we should be doing it all over the world. And then we should completely wipe out those who were responsible. Those people will probably use innocent people as human shields. In which case, we'll have to be ok with taking out some innocent people so that we can get the bad guys. Otherwise, we wind up with another place like Afghanistan or Iraq. Then once we are done wiping out the bad guys that are there, we need to stay and rule the place. If we don't there will be plenty of other bad guys waiting until we leave to fill the gap. And when, I say stay and rule, I mean we need to treat it like a colony. We install our own government there with governors that we appoint. At a certain point, we may be able to let the people of those colonies begin to gradually vote in their own representatives, but not early on. If we do it too soon, we risk allowing radical factions to take over in an unstable situation. We must stabilize the colony first before we had over rule to the people there.
This is extreme, I understand that. And please understand, I do not actually want this situation to take place. But if we do go in and take out the Syrian leaders, we are going to have another Iraq on our hands, unless we give it to Russia. I don't think we would actually do it.
Bottom line for me is that we be consistent across the globe. We take our everyone who is harming innocent people and then govern the place ourselves or we stay out of it. This plan that we've been on the last 17 years isn't working.
Sorry, end of rant. I'll go get lunch now.
Comment