Commentary by Floyd Bayne
So, when we are not being regaled with yet another theory on where the missing Malaysian airliner is, we are being beaten about the head and shoulders with news about Russia, the Ukraine, and the Crimea. We are told that Obama must do something, we must make a stand, we simply cannot allow this to pass. Funny isn't it, all the Democrats and other lefties who absolutely loathed George Bush for "his wars," but seem to be just fine with their fearful...uh, I mean, fearless leader continuing Bush's wars, and maybe starting a few of his own. It would be funny if it weren't so dangerous and if so many innocent people, American military (Who are simply used as pawns) and foreign civilians were not to be killed. It is also fascinating to watch the hypocrisy in action and marvel at how people switch sides from one day to the next, depending on which political party is for or against something.
But let us explore this belief that "America must do something." OK, do what, exactly? Wag a finger at Putin? Draw a line or ten in the sand? Tell Americans not to vacation in that country anymore? Threaten military action? What?! But a better question would be, "WHY?" Why must we do anything regarding Russia and the Crimea? What is our national security interest there? How do the actions of Putin and the Russian government and those of the people of Crimea affect the U.S. at all? Is it merely because we are supposed to be seen as the world's police force and we cannot have government leaders acting arbitrarily, unilaterally, and without our permission? What are the guidelines by which we decide that we must intervene? Are those guidelines applied across the board or are they selectively applied? If selectively, why?
You see, there are many countries around the world that are experiencing upheaval and strife. If we are the world's police force then should we not be intervening in all of them? After all, isn't it our duty to "spread peace and democracy around the world?" Why do we seem to apply righteous indignation to some countries, but not others? Why do we insist on "proper behavior" from some and not others? Why do we insist on our right to intervene in some, but not in others? And why do we continue to allow our allegiance to a political party or ideology to undermine commonsense and create hypocrites of so many of us?
I have listed links below to news stories about other areas of unrest throughout the world. Maybe you can find others. If you are not already aware of them then I encourage you to read about them. After doing so I want you to ask yourself, and ask others, why are we not intervening there? What are the differences that preclude our meddling in those countries? When will we start to mind our own business and fix our country before demanding that others fix theirs? So many questions, so few intelligent answers.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/02/201422122028512719.html
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e45c366.html
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/missingcountry.htm
http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/central-african-republic-unrest/
http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/world-unrest-2014/
http://www.dw.de/central-african-conflicts-risk-spreading/a-17360624
No comments:
Post a Comment