Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome, add a great deal to a blog, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled insults, or links (unless pre-approved).




Thursday, June 21, 2012

Wars wars and more wars

Has anyone noticed that since McCain lost the 2008 election, he's been a bitter old man who smiles and uses any possible opportunity to try to convince people what a mistake they made not choosing him and Palin. Figuratively he regularly stabs Obama in the back. Latest example is we should get involved in Syria by sending arms to... well there you go-- which side? Whoever is fighting the dictator except is there only one side doing that?

Should America get involved in more wars in the Middle East? Should we put ground troops or even our weaponry in the hands of anybody in Libya, Egypt, Syria or anywhere else over there? Can we afford to get into another situation that escalates into us having another ground war?

Here's one take on it: Take a deep breath America

We should have learned this lesson before but more powerful nations rarely do. They intervene with what they hope will be a side more friendly to theirs (or profitable) except wasn't that the argument in Afghanistan when we helped the Taliban against the Soviets. Although technically speaking, that was not a civil war but an invaded country. Still look at who we aided-- bin Laden.

So we see these terrible massacres in Syria, and they have been terrible. We read about the election and the argument going on in Egypt with two sides trying to claim power.  

We must do something. 
 Must we? 

That's the debate we should be having. Ours is a nation that claims it has a nearly crippling debt, cannot maintain its infrastructure or care for its weak, cannot even govern itself because of the disagreement between two warring (with words) sides, and yet our people are easily stirred into thinking they need to fight somewhere in the world to right wrongs and bring peace... and you know the spiel as well as I do by now.

Can we even afford to think of getting into the Syrian or Egyptian potential civil wars. Both have a potential to get very ugly fast and pull us into another land war. Good idea or bad?

8 comments:

Rubye Jack said...

It's that evangelical fervor of so many fundamentalists that always gets us in trouble. I really am far from understanding any of what is going on in other countries and only hope the U.S. will let them be. But then of course I don't know the big picture.

Anonymous said...

For decades I've been hoping that we would get smart enough to let the rest of the world alone. There should be no arms sales, of any sort, to anyone except our closest allies - maybe not even to them. I don't even like the fact that our own people gobble up arms. The military/industrial complex is full of people who want to have money/power at all costs. Bah! Humbug!
Cop Car

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

I feel deeply about the struggles of Middle Eastern countries. I am very sad but cannot think of a way out of the mess our forefathers created there. We need to stay out of their military conflicts. They need to know we will not and can not take sides any more.

Dick said...

No, we can not and should not get any more involved than we already are. There are no good outcomes for our country available over there. It is looking as though the only thing we had going for us was strong rulers who kept things under control. Now that that is gone or going, our influence in that part of the world is also leaving. Sending money, arms or heaven forbid our troops to "help" will just make those things drag out longer.

Egypt is about to return to a more traditional Arab country likely governed by Sharia Law. Is that to our benefit? Not in any way that I can see but we did help bring it about. Often it seems that our meddling in the affairs of other countries and cultures turns out to make things worse, both for us and for at least certain peoples (like women) in those other countries. When we leave Afghanistan (if ever) how long do you think it will be before the Taliban return and it is just like it has been for centuries over there? A hell of a cost for us both in dollars and American lives, for nothing.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

I am sad to think so many have died for nothing. I cannot accept that so much love and sacrifice was for nothing. I wish we could convince the families of the fallen soldiers that they have a different victory than what they were hoping for. A more important and lasting victory is one we all deserve. Their sons and daughters were instrumental in teaching us the most important lesson of all - humility. The wars of our time in the Middle East were fought not resulting in winning or loosing for anyone but for our gaining a greater awareness in an increasingly more technologically sophisticated world. New technologies which promise better living also have made wars more devestating.

Robert the Skeptic said...

Both Iraq and Afghanistan wars were the first in our history where taxes were not increased to pay for the wars. That is probably partially why they both have also been the longest wars in our history.

Ingineer66 said...

Part of the reason the Afghan war has been so long is the reason for being there keeps changing. We went their to defeat Al Qaida and drive the Taliban from power. We did that in a few months with a few thousand soldiers. Since then we have been on a nation building / narcotics interdiction / training / counter insurgency / you name it mission that is just costing money and getting our boys killed. We should have left in 2002 or 2003 and said "If you let the Taliban back in power we will be back to kill more of them and maybe you too". And called it a day. We tried to play nice and it has backfired. We should be operating a small special ops group in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa and wherever else the Islamic terrorists are hiding and that should be enough.

Rain Trueax said...

I agree, ingineer, and the same thing happened with Iran. Constantly changing the reasons to keep us at war.