Well, it's starting already, homeless vets from the war in Iraq.
(Tangentially that reminds me of a song, "Homeless vets, foreign debts, AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz. . . " Ahh, Billy Joel, why did you have to write that damn song, now it'll be in my head all day.)
5 comments:
And it is only just staring. Wait until next year and we'll start to see the true scope of this problem.
But it really is just another example of history repeating itself. It happened after the Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, Vietnam and to a much lesser extent after the Gulf War.
Those that have force available to use are most likely to use it when it costs them nothing.
That is why the US is not suppose to have a standing army that can just be used by the president.
Congress is suppost to have to declare war BEFORE troops can be used, but once again they have failed in their duties, and handed the arm over to the president.
And it will remain like this until the Republicrat hold on government is broken.
Clearly the President (and other past presidents) has overstepped his Constituitional powers in sending troops to Iraq without an official declaration of war.
What I wonder is, what kind of mechanism do you forsee for the intervention in places like Darfur? Clearly, there is no threat to American lives. Just as clearly there is a genocide being perpetrated. Absent an immenent threat to Americans on American soil, can we help those people militarily? Or does the doctrine of selfishness prevail, and we let them be slaughtered becuase they had the ill luck to be born outside of America, and because their persecuters aren't stupid enough to directly threaten the U.S.?
Do you think humanistic compassion has a place in forming our foreign policy?
Sad thing is, it's us Dutch who more or less thought up the way of "going to war without declaring war officially". Because it was a handy way to control colony's who where troublesome. :S
Aldo, surely we can spread the blame around to other imperial powers? Spain? Britain? Portgal? France? :)
The problems in Sudan will remain unresolved until the people of Sudan resolve them. And since no one except Colin Powell seems interested in Sudan, thankfully it does not appear that we well be sucked into that abyss.
As for what should be done, I would like to ask you a question.
Make me understand how going into Sudan to overthrow a brutal regime is in anyway different than going into Iraq to overthrow a brutal regime?
If you believe it is our responsibility to do so, then you have given the government permission to go anywhere at anytime to stop what they decide is a brutal regime.
Should Russia invade us, since we lock up more people than any other country in the world? That is a sign of a brutal regime don't you know?
You have expressed your anger towards the fact that you brother is deploying to Iraq and your stance towards the war, but how would it be any different if I opposed going into Sudan, and my brother was being sent there?
People calling for the use force of by Government for their personal gains whether they be financial, spiritual, moral or emotional, is just plain cowardly.
I believe that if someone says that something is important enough doing to risk someones life, then they should step up and be first in line to go risk thier own life. Your life is yours, my life is mine. If I agree with you, I will help you, and if I do not I will not. To force another to face death for your gain is pure evil.
I have no problem with someone orginising a group to go to Sudan and take care of business, but I would be the last to force anyone to do it, no matter how noble the cause is claimed to be.
Post a Comment