Yeah, right. After all the hell you people put Bush through for going into a country to fight radical Islam, like he's going to do that again. Indeed, no good deed goes unpunished.
I think we're at a point in history were the USA just says "Good luck to you" and stays the hell out of other country's business. The ONLY reason for getting involved anymore shold be to stop possible threats to us before they reach our shores. The USA has been the worlds "Big Brother" for a long time, and all it gets in return is shit like this magazine cover from ingrates, or mouthy Frenchmen who should thank us daily that they don't speak German and bow to a madman!! And, the rest of the world should appreciate the fact this country isn't hell bent on world domination or they'd all be singing the Star Spangled Banner.
Here is my question. If we (the USA and any other rubes who want to hitch their wagon to that train) go an get into a war in Africa to save the hundreds of thousands of illiterate tent-dwellers of the Sahara ... what exactly is in it for us?
At some point the Military Social Workers AKA US marines, have to consider that those who may be 'saved' will then need food, water, energy, housing, clothing, health care, jobs and transportation ... so I think that is not a good idea to get involved. We have enough of those folks here already.
Perhaps the real estate developers in the twin cities will see it as an opportunity to dump some of their inventory, but then, you would have all those Darfur refugees living in town with their needs.
Christ, this world is now reduced to two basic camps ... those who need help and those rich bastards who just don't help enough.
I have helped people in my life and I learned this ... When you help someone, they will always remember you ....... the next time they need help.
The job of government is to protect it's OWN citizens and interests not those of the whole world. Our only function (not responsability) in Darfur would be to aid the good guys with material and intelligence but let them fight their own war.
I don't know the answer to Darfur, but I don't think the US ever should have gone into Iraq. Saddam Houssein was not an immediate threat from us, and he was a monster of our own creation (probably the "president" of Pakistan is going to be a similar problem for us in the future.) Worse yet, we never did bring in Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" even though I think going into Afganistan was the right thing, since the government there was in cahoots with Al Queda. In addition, Al Queda was not it Iraq while Saddam Houssein was in power, or at least it was severly repressed, but now that Iraq has become a free for all, Al Queda seems to be flourishing there. It makes you think about where the United States really should be interfering, if at all.
As much as I feel bad for the people of the Darfur region (and I do), we need to quit getting involved in other people's battles. And I'm sorry, but that picture is emotional blackmail. It's supposed to me you feel guilty enough to call your congressman and tell him we need to get involved. And I hate emotional blackmail on principle.
I can remember having an eerily similar conversation circa 15 years ago with my little sister, who was appalled at the horrible way the Bosnian Muslims were being treated by the Serbs. And there was a picture in the local paper of a child with schrapnel in her back. My sister wanted us to get involved, which we (well, the UN anyway) did. THAT worked out well. Seems to me I just read in the Economist that the people there are not keen on how we drew up the borders, and there have been rumblings.
Iraq is another example. The Sunnis and the Shiites have had issues for a millenia. Do we really think that 3 years of our presence is going to change that?
We need to leave well enough alone. Whatever happened to the concept of "sovereign nation?" It should be a hit with hippies, because it's basically "you do your thing, and I'll do my thing." What a GREAT IDEA.
Those type of scar on guy's body is called `keloid' which is common condition in Africn. Keloid has nothing to do with type of injury. Let us face it, American only involved in the war which will be beneficial to power structure in this country.
Sadam made big mistake by trying to assasinate Old Bush. Young Bush gonna kill him. Yeah, he did kill him like Roman did with Jesus.
No wonder in acient time, if you want to kill some, kill the entire family clan so no body left over for future revenge.
"Our only function (not responsability) in Darfur would be to aid the good guys with material and intelligence but let them fight their own war."
Whoa, who're the good guys again? There's no such thing in war or politics. Even WW2, the classic good vs evil story (or so people seem to think) was just a mess of fascists and communists duking it out. Who are the good guys there? Stalin? Churchill? Yeah, Churchill sure was a great guy. Like when he authorized the use of poison gas on rebellious Kurds and Arabs in Iraq in 1920. Way to go, good guys!
We could just start randomly carpet bombing the entire area. We'd liberate the hell out of everybody. "Taste Democracy, you napalm-charred bastards!"
I think we're at a point in history were the USA just says "Good luck to you" and stays the hell out of other country's business. The ONLY reason for getting involved anymore shold be to stop possible threats to us before they reach our shores. The USA has been the worlds "Big Brother" for a long time, and all it gets in return is shit like this magazine cover from ingrates, or mouthy Frenchmen who should thank us daily that they don't speak German and bow to a madman!! And, the rest of the world should appreciate the fact this country isn't hell bent on world domination or they'd all be singing the Star Spangled Banner.
ReplyDeleteHere is my question. If we (the USA and any other rubes who want to hitch their wagon to that train) go an get into a war in Africa to save the hundreds of thousands of illiterate tent-dwellers of the Sahara ... what exactly is in it for us?
ReplyDeleteAt some point the Military Social Workers AKA US marines, have to consider that those who may be 'saved' will then need food, water, energy, housing, clothing, health care, jobs and transportation ... so I think that is not a good idea to get involved. We have enough of those folks here already.
Perhaps the real estate developers in the twin cities will see it as an opportunity to dump some of their inventory, but then, you would have all those Darfur refugees living in town with their needs.
Christ, this world is now reduced to two basic camps ... those who need help and those rich bastards who just don't help enough.
I have helped people in my life and I learned this ... When you help someone, they will always remember you ....... the next time they need help.
Ouch, if I may quote Peter Lorre from Casablanca,
ReplyDelete"You are a cynical man, if you forgive me for saying so."
How do I know you're a real person and not a robot?
ReplyDeleteThe job of government is to protect it's OWN citizens and interests not those of the whole world. Our only function (not responsability) in Darfur would be to aid the good guys with material and intelligence but let them fight their own war.
ReplyDeleteI don't know the answer to Darfur, but I don't think the US ever should have gone into Iraq. Saddam Houssein was not an immediate threat from us, and he was a monster of our own creation (probably the "president" of Pakistan is going to be a similar problem for us in the future.) Worse yet, we never did bring in Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" even though I think going into Afganistan was the right thing, since the government there was in cahoots with Al Queda. In addition, Al Queda was not it Iraq while Saddam Houssein was in power, or at least it was severly repressed, but now that Iraq has become a free for all, Al Queda seems to be flourishing there. It makes you think about where the United States really should be interfering, if at all.
ReplyDeleteJunam
As much as I feel bad for the people of the Darfur region (and I do), we need to quit getting involved in other people's battles. And I'm sorry, but that picture is emotional blackmail. It's supposed to me you feel guilty enough to call your congressman and tell him we need to get involved. And I hate emotional blackmail on principle.
ReplyDeleteI can remember having an eerily similar conversation circa 15 years ago with my little sister, who was appalled at the horrible way the Bosnian Muslims were being treated by the Serbs. And there was a picture in the local paper of a child with schrapnel in her back. My sister wanted us to get involved, which we (well, the UN anyway) did. THAT worked out well.
Seems to me I just read in the Economist that the people there are not keen on how we drew up the borders, and there have been rumblings.
Iraq is another example. The Sunnis and the Shiites have had issues for a millenia. Do we really think that 3 years of our presence is going to change that?
We need to leave well enough alone. Whatever happened to the concept of "sovereign nation?" It should be a hit with hippies, because it's basically "you do your thing, and I'll do my thing." What a GREAT IDEA.
The Big Seester
Those type of scar on guy's body is called `keloid' which is common condition in Africn. Keloid has nothing to do with type of injury. Let us face it, American only involved in the war which will be beneficial to power structure in this country.
ReplyDeleteSadam made big mistake by trying to assasinate Old Bush. Young Bush gonna kill him. Yeah, he did kill him like Roman did with Jesus.
No wonder in acient time, if you want to kill some, kill the entire family clan so no body left over for future revenge.
"Our only function (not responsability) in Darfur would be to aid the good guys with material and intelligence but let them fight their own war."
ReplyDeleteWhoa, who're the good guys again? There's no such thing in war or politics. Even WW2, the classic good vs evil story (or so people seem to think) was just a mess of fascists and communists duking it out. Who are the good guys there? Stalin? Churchill? Yeah, Churchill sure was a great guy. Like when he authorized the use of poison gas on rebellious Kurds and Arabs in Iraq in 1920. Way to go, good guys!
We could just start randomly carpet bombing the entire area. We'd liberate the hell out of everybody. "Taste Democracy, you napalm-charred bastards!"