Agnostic.com

2 2

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Ethnocentrism at its worst

3

I am firmly in the camp of Butt Out. I cannot think of one incident where out intervention, whatever the reason, made things better for the indigenous average person. And when we Should have stepped in, as for example against the Khmer Rouge, we did not...nor into WWII, for that matter, before millions of Jew, gays, Catholics, Gypsies, handicapped people etc were tortured & slaughtered.
Which in my lifetime is where this idea that we should and must intervene started......a necessary war against Hitler turned into "oh, let's be do-gooders" with poor understanding, worse information, and questionable motives. And then the profit motive showed up.......
I firmly believe that people in any given area must decide what they want for themselves, and get it themselves, or it will not be sustainable anyway.

Well said Anne.

Intervention by the USA in any other country is for the benefit of the USA. Any benefit the other country is just coincidental. According George Friedman, founder of STRATFOR, the USA will rule the world for the next 100 years. I am am currently reading his book "The next hundred years, a forecast for the 21st century" and he seems pretty spot on. Climate change may interfere but if half of Florida is flooded and the centre of the country becomes a desert it doesn't matter. it's a huge country with a ready supply of cheap labour south of the border.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:259578
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.