Russia, Gays, Nigeria, Blacks, Moral Infantilism, and the Search for a Cure.

reply to post by SinMaker

Dear SinMaker,

Thanks for explaining things to me. Quite often it takes two or more tries for me to understand. I'm very grateful that you took the time.

In my defense, I said African countries. Not particularly Zimbabwe. It's common knowledge that Robert Mugabe wants to begin beheading homosexuals and he is running once again for election (what a farce) in Zimbabwe. Uganda also has a running anti homosexual purge going on. Both of these countries are primarily Christian. Christianity is known to be part of the imported Western culture.

You're quite right. My understanding is that, economically, Zimbabwe is worse off than Detroit. I thought, but I could have been misled, that the violence in Zimbabwe is (or was) largely racial, and that killing Whites and confiscating their property didn't bring the expected benefits to the country. I wonder if Mugabe is taking on the homosexuals as targets to distract the people.

I suspect you're right that China would reduce the importance of religion in the country, but I wonder if we're just passing the buck, so to speak. We don't want to change Zimbabwe's culture, so we'll sit back and let the Chinese do it. It gives us "plausible deniabilty," but will the people have more rights and freedoms, or are we just allowing another "dictator" to take control?

And again, I'm not arguing, just trying to understand. If we know of horrible crimes against humanity in Zimbabwe, is sanctioning the strongest tool we have? In the past, if I remember, crimes against humanity carried a death sentence. I'm not recommending this, but would a drone strike on the Presidential Palace be wildly unjust?

But the fact is, Russia is experiencing a dramatic loss in the number of births. This loss contributes to the weakening of their military and their economy according to Putin. I'm not floating anything that isn't well known or is in newspapers around the world.

I suppose Putin's most logical move would be to shut down the websites that promise model-quality women to American men. The US is also only keeping up our population growth through immigration and their children. I think you might have hit on something very important, but I can't see clearly enough to understand the causes or the likely results. You might have a thread idea if you cared to explore that.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Mugabe already said that sanctions against his country would be a joke. Yes, he said this. There are many concerned westerners about his regime. Frankly, yes.....Zimbabwe would suffer greatly through sanctions by western nations. Like you said, the Chinese want into Africa to exploit its natural resources. They will probably do it successfully and undermine the governments in place.......over time of course.

reply to post by littled16

Dear littled16,

I'm always delighted when you enter a thread. Your contributions are thoughtful and meaningful. It's good to know you. There is always much in your posts that I can agree with. And you have answered my questions.

One distinction I would make between the US in the last hundred or so years, and what I was thinking about, would be that the US government doesn't have a policy of killing Blacks or Homosexuals, or encouraging violence among its citizens. There's not much we're going to be able to do about hatred in the hearts of men (sadly), but I do think that a country's laws can be affected from the outside.

As for the UN, I agree that it is a broken reed, as likely to inflame a situation as calm it. I seriously doubt the usefulness of the UN for any purpose.

Just as a thought experiment, if the US had the military power and the support of the population, can you see any justification for force to stop crimes against humanity? The people of the country are often unable to resist, and the UN is not useful. Is there any justification for some other country to say, "You can't do that to your people, and if you don't stop, we'll stop you?" I think that's what this Administration used as justification for its Libya campaign.

I hope it will be safe to tell the other countries of the world "You guys can do what you want, we won't interfere."

Oh by the way, would that also cancel any mutual defense treaties we have? If Britain gets invaded do we send troops? That's off the subject, I know, but I wonder how complete our withdrawl from the world should be.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by SinMaker

Dear SinMaker,

I agree with you completely. I'm not happy about it, but I don't see an alternative under our present policies.

The part that frustrates me (one of many) is that it appears that we've given away our strength and authority to do anything to help advance human rights and freedoms in the world. My opinion is that we should be trying to do that, but it's nearly impossible to do now. Sending Michelle Obama to Africa to talk about proper diets and healthy habits isn't what I had in mind.

Am I correct in thinking that there are many governments that need to be "corrected," but we're no longer in a position to do it? If so, how will we ever answer the suffering of the world when they ask, "Why weren't you here to help us? We didn't need your money, we needed our lives and our freedoms."

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952
Good questions Charles! I will try to give my opinion as best I can for experimental purposes.

If the US were in excellent shape both in financial matters and in leadership, the citizens of the country in question were begging for our help, our own citizens supported the intervention and the majority of the rest of the world were in agreement and joined in the cause then of course we should give them our help- but there should be definite limits and strict time tables in advance of any assistance we would commit to giving that is agreed upon by ALL involved parties.

As far as mutual defense treaties with our allied nations we should honor those. But there should also be limits and time tables on the specifics in advance such as "We will commit X amount of dollars and X amounts of troops and equipment. We will assist but not take the majority responsibility for your defense- and when you have reached "this" point the rest is up to you."

I don't think we should totally withdraw from the world, but I also don't think that WE should be the one's who do everything for everybody else when they are not willing to do the same for us. Also, I think we're pretty much all getting tired of pointless conflicts that do nothing but kill our soldiers and put us further in debt when it doesn't gain anything for the people we are supposedly helping.

Did I answer right? What do i win?
Love and respect, littled16

reply to post by littled16

Dear littled16,

You win my undying respect and affection, stop by when you can and I'll buy you and your family a pizza.

It's 2:30 a.m. here. Now kiss your family and get to bed. It's late. I'll respond tomorrow. (Oops, later today.)

With respect,
Charles1952

Supporters of homosexuality think the world should be Gay-friendly, or at least, Gay-tolerant.

I think the world should be human friendly. Otherwise, if people are more friendly to gays, it would create unequality of which I must protest to. And people would have to wear markings visibly identifying so everyone knows who to be more friendly to than average. It should also work for all other problems, be extra friendly to the black community, repressed women (they should also have to wear markings so we all know) etc.

People should run their own country. Especially in some cases like imposing homosexuality. Those countries should just go in isolation if they don't want their culture exposed to homosexuality, of which references can be found in many western things, books, games, movies and shows etc. In that case there would be two worlds, one of a few African countries, ME countries and a few Asian countries vs NA/SA/EU/Oceania. I think the first would be stronger if only for the resources. It's may be a matter of time for them to find out they have important common truths and decide to strengthen diplomatic ties. Protesting more against the issue might only annoy the governments more, then they discover they like dealing with others more and the West would get a lesser business position at the trade table.

If the US would ever officially ask Russia to change it's policy on homosexuality, Russia should just decline and ask the US to change theirs. Neither would do that and we can all go on with our lives, maybe have homos ask asylum in other countries.

reply to post by charles1952

I used this article as an example of a country that has a firm social and cultural basis for rejecting what we would consider a human right...

This doesn't answer my question, which, I think, remains pertinent: what sort of 'Western pressure', if any, is being applied to Nigerians to try to make them more tolerant of homosexuals? How much coercion is involved, what threats or inducements are being offered – if any? Perhaps it's all a lot of hot air generated by Nigerian politicians.

If we are promoting better behavior, then we must be saying that their present behavior is not as good as it should be, and should be changed. Several posters have said that is none of our business. I take it you disagree with them.

First: who exactly are 'we'? Individuals, civic groups or governments?

Second: whichever 'we' you mean, there are severe ethical as well as practical limits on what, how and how much can be done.

Individual efforts and collective efforts by civil society are fine so long as no-one tries any kind of freelance regime-change. State policy, if backed by a popular mandate, must operate within narrower limits: criticism is okay, while sanctions and the withdrawal of aid or trading privileges are all acceptable provided they are applied with care, so that innocent citizens are not punished along with the guilty. Beyond that, it is very difficult to justify any kind of action.

The hardest of all actions to justify is boots on the ground. Has foreign military intervention ever improved the condition of a country? I have seen it in action and observed its aftermath at first hand. It is horrible; occupying armies are like plagues of locusts, stripping everything bare.

But I have also lived through a civil war that generated untold crimes and atrocities. Many have been the times when I wished some friendly foreign power would intervene to bring the guilty to justice and save my country from itself.

The truth is that there is no good solution to this problem; and there is much to be said for the policy of leaving insoluble problems well alone.

You seem to be saying that we should disregard claims of "culture" when a group tries to justify doing something we don't like. Something, in short, which is against our culture.

The great mistake is to equate 'what I like' with 'my culture' and 'what I don't like' with 'against my culture.' That is exactly what those atavistic patriarchal bullyboys I mentioned earlier think, and they act on it.

I am far from saying we should 'disregard claims of "culture".' On the contrary, I think we should be exquisitely sensitive to them, and to all the other things that can get broken when different ways of thinking and living confront one another. Here is a test case for you: what could, and/or should, the international community done about the Rwandan genocide? Was there anything they could have done to make things better?

reply to post by littled16

Dear littled16,

Thanks very much for sticking with me through all this. I know it's going to sound like I'm picking on you, but really, you're just causing me to explore new paths of thought. That's exactly what I hope for when I start a thread, it's the only way for me to grow.

But in case others are a little confused by my thread (admittedly not one of my best) I'd like to mention what I thought the main issues were.

Various people in this country seem anxious to "adjust" the behavior of other countries for various reasons. Things which we consider as violations of human rights, cause us to apply various degrees of pressure to bring about that change we think necessary. Many people seem to want to impose their attitudes on the rest of the world. The thread I mentioned about Gay rights in Russia is only one example.

Can we create a standard, which is not biased by individual desires, to rank violations by degree of "wrongness?" My first attempt was to put government policies taking large numbers of innocent lives at the top, followed by violations of freedom of speech and religion, then banning a free press, followed by citizen election of it's leaders. But I'm hoping for people to improve that list.

My second goal was to determine how far we should be prepared to go to stop those violations. War? Sanctions? A scolding?

Now to your thoughts.

You place a pretty high standard to reach in order for us to get involved via an intervention.

If the US were in excellent shape both in financial matters and in leadership, the citizens of the country in question were begging for our help, our own citizens supported the intervention and the majority of the rest of the world were in agreement and joined in the cause then of course we should give them our help-

I can't think of a time when those conditions have been met, not even World War II. Unfortunately, with our polarized world, I can't imagine a time when the majority of the world joined the US cause in any military action for any reason. But even if there was a tremendously evil crime against humanity being committed we'd be only partially committed.

but there should be definite limits and strict time tables in advance of any assistance we would commit to giving that is agreed upon by ALL involved parties.

And, of course, the victims would be shouting "We don't care what it takes, we're dying here. Stop them!" As far as getting everybody to agree to those limits? That might very well be six months of talking before anything happens.

I don't think we should totally withdraw from the world, but I also don't think that WE should be the one's who do everything for everybody else when they are not willing to do the same for us.

Are there any practical alternatives?

Also, I think we're pretty much all getting tired of pointless conflicts that do nothing but kill our soldiers and put us further in debt when it doesn't gain anything for the people we are supposedly helping.

I agree.

I'm wondering if we could say, "Any nation out there commiting serious crimes against humanity will be stopped. By diplomacy if possible, by force if diplomacy doesn't work?" Are there any rights or freedoms that we believe every person should enjoy? Rights that we believe in strongly enough that we are willing to sacrifice to ensure those rights?

Or is our position, "We will protect you if it doesn't cost us too much?" Doesn't that mean that we are putting the value of our own comfort and safety above the rights of any who don't happen to be American? I can understand that there is an argument for that, I think Ron Paul had considerable support for that position. I'm just trying to get things clear in my head.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952
Good afternoon Charles, a pleasure as always!

Yes, those are very strict guidelines that would cause extremely long delays in action- if any action were to be taken at all. If we make it regular policy to intervene in other cultures for what we might consider crimes against humanity and civil rights violations in your opinion where would it stop? When we have turned every third world country on Earth into a "Mini Me" version of the US? Say we stop genocide, then we must stop hate crimes and force equal rights for women, gays and minorities, we establish safe work practices with minimum wage requirements, democratic elections, freedom of religion, legalize abortion and gay marriage, make divorce cheap and easy, spread rampant consumerism and sexualize first their entertainment and advertising- then their children. Spread flat screen TVs and internet access along with smart phones so their children stay glued to their screens. Feed them food that has been genetically modified and pumped full of chemicals and hormones and put a McDonald's and Walmart on every corner. How is that working out for our own country anyway?

Or we could continue doing what's happening now, start war in countries under the guise of battling supposed human rights violations when in fact it is only happening for the purposes of gaining control of their resources. Does anyone honestly believe we entered Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or now Syria because we were "trying to stop human rights violations"? The only reason we will ever find ourselves involved in "human rights violations" in Africa is to gain a foothold in the region before China completely takes over control of most of it's natural resources. And as far as what's happening with gay youth in Russia? The US wont touch it with a ten foot pole I assure you. There wont be even the first economic sanction in protest. Why? Because the US doesn't want Russia meddling in any of our own affairs.

As far as World War 2 went we didn't actually really get involved until we were directly attacked even though Nazi Germany was raining human rights violations upon the larger part of Europe at the time. I don't think that's a great example of the US championing human rights.

We cannot nor should we be the police force of the entire world especially when our government picks and chooses which countries need our "help" based on the resources and strategic positions that can be gained. If citizens want to help they can join civic groups to contribute through donation of their time and skills or through monetary means because as long as there isn't something in it for our government they're not going to do anything.

Love and Respect, littled16

reply to post by Astyanax

Dear Astyanax,

Thanks for your patience, I hope I won't disappoint you.

You're absolutely right, I didn't answer your question. At first, I thought that it didn't matter, and I had no knowledge of what was going on in diplomatic circles because it almost always is confidential. But now I feel an obligation to make a cursory search to see what is available in the press.

The official Nigerian government website was hacked by an Irish homosexual who boasted he could take down the site whenever, and for as long as, he desired.
76crimes.com...

Another source reported the following:

Opposition has been stoked by several developments, including remarks by President Obama during a visit to Africa last month; his nomination in June of five openly gay political appointees as ambassadors; and British Prime Minister David Cameron’s comments last week about his desire to “export” same-sex marriage around the world now that Britain has legalized it.

www.cnsnews.com...

First: who exactly are 'we'? Individuals, civic groups or governments?

Excellent question, I wasn't clear at all. I'm talking only about influencing governments. By "we" I mean all of the above, but in different ways. Only our government can conduct diplomacy or war, but individuals and groups can attempt to apply pressure on governments. I'm hoping to explore the ethical considerations each individual, group, or government considers when reaching a decision on when to intervene to the extent they are able. Are they applying some personal desire of the moment, or some standards reasonably arrived at which are more generally fixed.

Second: whichever 'we' you mean, there are severe ethical as well as practical limits on what, how and how much can be done.

Absolutely right. I believe some do not acknowledge ethical limits, that is very important to me.

You next provide two paragraphs of very important and clear thought which might be labelled "The Just Intervention Doctrine," and a new "Geneva Convention" on intervening forces. I like your thinking on how to conduct an ethical and effective intervention. My concern is to determine a way to decide which offenses are worth a particular level of intervention.

Many have been the times when I wished some friendly foreign power would intervene to bring the guilty to justice and save my country from itself.

I agree. There are times like that when the UN can't be counted on, and someone must step up in the name of humanity and justice, even at cost to themselves. There are some things which can't be ignored if we want to claim the title of "human."

there is much to be said for the policy of leaving insoluble problems well alone.

Again, I agree. But I'm reluctant to call a problem "insoluble" until we have worked on it to the limits of our ability.

I agree that culture is very important and is very difficult to affect. I suspect the best we can do is prevent horrible crimes being committed by a govenment in the name of "culture," or "religion" for that matter. I'm afraid that, as a society, we are not clear on the meaning of "horrible crimes."

Here is a test case for you: what could, and/or should, the international community done about the Rwandan genocide? Was there anything they could have done to make things better?

It's not my area of expertise, but I'll offer a few uninformed thoughts. The Belgian colonial rule exacerbated the separation and hatred between the Hutu and the Tutsi in an unnecessary way. The Hutu rule, while understandable, still increased the level of hatred. The UN was useless, partially because Rwanda had a seat on the Security Council at the time, and discouraged or prevented investigation and action. The UN also failed to realize their mission should have been peace-keeping and protection, instead they switched to a mission of evacuation.

But, finally, in an interview after he had left office, President Clinton said that if the US had sent in 5,000 soldiers, they could have saved 500,000 lives. I didn't expect we'd change the years of hatred, but we weren't even able to stop the killing. I believe we could have said "Sure, you guys hate each other, but if the government ever gets involved in killing it's citizens again we'll send in more troops until you get the message that genocide is not an acceptable approach. We'll wipe out the entire government, and keep wiping them out until you find a different way."

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by littled16

Dear littled16,

I am blessed by the presence of so many thoughtful posters, I'm learning a lot. You, of course, are among my long term favorites. Will you believe me if I say I agree with almost everything you've posted? (Well, I do.)

If we make it regular policy to intervene in other cultures for what we might consider crimes against humanity and civil rights violations in your opinion where would it stop? When we have turned every third world country on Earth into a "Mini Me" version of the US?

Exactly right. That is the danger we have to avoid, and I don't think we can do it if we don't have some reasonable and ethical guidelines established ahead of time which are known to the citizens of our country and the world.

It's a little bit like a mother making rules for the children. They're supposed to be home at 6 for dinner, and they're not supposed to hurt each other. Everybody knows that arriving at 6:01 will rate a brief scowl, but if Sally comes home all bloody because Billy beat her, Mom will skip the scowl phase and get right to a vigorous "talk" with Billy, which Billy will very much regret for days.

If some nation bans a performance by Lady Gaga because she's bad for the country's morals, we might send them a note. But if some nation declares war on half it's citizens and starts killing them because of their color or opinions, we might deliver that note via the 82nd Airborne.

The examples you provide include some things which we have no business even noticing. Some of them rate a note, or sanction, and some rate destruction of the government perpetrating them. (All, of course, in my opinion.) Would you like me to break them into categories based on my opinion? Let me know.

I'm not sure that I agree completely that Iraq and the other countries were based on a desire for their resources. If it was, we even failed at that. In Africa, if we want their resources, we could send in businessmen instead of troops. They could get into a bidding war with China, not a shooting war. I'm sure Africa would be pleased.

And as far as what's happening with gay youth in Russia? The US wont touch it with a ten foot pole I assure you. There wont be even the first economic sanction in protest. Why? Because the US doesn't want Russia meddling in any of our own affairs.

I'm not sure how involved in Russia I would want to be because of their treatment of Gays, but assume for a moment that was an issue worth our most serious efforts. We've backed ourselve in a corner if we say we don't want Russia, or China, or other countries meddling in our affairs.

Let's say that a tiny country called Wiberstulau is doing something we think is a serious crime against humanity and we are prepared to take some kind of action. What happens when we get a note from the Russians saying that Wiberstulau is there best friend, and a strategic partner. Do we then give up on that tiny country because Russia might meddle in our affairs? With that kind of threat always hanging over us, we would never be able to take action against anyone. That threat didn't work in the Middle-East because, I believe, the world saw Bush as a crazy cowboy who had no trouble deciding to shoot when he thought he was in the right.

As far as World War 2 went we didn't actually really get involved until we were directly attacked even though Nazi Germany was raining human rights violations upon the larger part of Europe at the time. I don't think that's a great example of the US championing human rights.

I wonder what would have happened if the US had intervened when Hitler's armies started moving through Europe? Ah well, hindsight.

We cannot nor should we be the police force of the entire world especially when our government picks and chooses which countries need our "help" based on the resources and strategic positions that can be gained.

I largely agree. The US should claim to be the "Police" only when a serious "Law" is broken. I don't like claiming humanitarian motives when they don't exist.

as long as there isn't something in it for our government they're not going to do anything.

I hope that, in some situations, what's in it for the government is simply knowing that they did the right thing.

With respect,
Charles1952

We should let the Countries run their people the way they want. The U.S. should mind its own business IMO. There's too much here, at home, that should be taken care of before butting into other peoples lives.

reply to post by kimish

Dear kimish,

I'm not sure I'm following you.

We should let the Countries run their people the way they want. The U.S. should mind its own business IMO. There's too much here, at home, that should be taken care of before butting into other peoples lives.

You seem to be saying two things. One, while there are some rights that we value and have sacrificed nearly a million Americans to attain (Revolutionary War and Civil War), we have no business helping others achieve those same rights. Americans deserve to have rights that the rest of the world doesnt.

Two, evil should not be stopped if it isn't happening in our neighborhood.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952
I'm enjoying our discussion much and appreciate your opinions and questioning nature Charles! Shall we continue? I will do my best to address the points you have raised.

It's a little bit like a mother making rules for the children. They're supposed to be home at 6 for dinner, and they're not supposed to hurt each other. Everybody knows that arriving at 6:01 will rate a brief scowl, but if Sally comes home all bloody because Billy beat her, Mom will skip the scowl phase and get right to a vigorous "talk" with Billy, which Billy will very much regret for days.

The difference in the comparison is that most mothers love their children and know not to push punishment to the point of abuse of power. We can't trust our government to stay behind such a fine line with it's own citizens, much less a third world country.

I'm not sure that I agree completely that Iraq and the other countries were based on a desire for their resources. If it was, we even failed at that. In Africa, if we want their resources, we could send in businessmen instead of troops. They could get into a bidding war with China, not a shooting war. I'm sure Africa would be pleased.

Do we know that for a fact? We haven't a clue as to what they have actually accomplished in shadowy back alley dealings whilst armed conflict distracts our attention. Besides, haven't you considered how much money has been made from these conflicts by major corporations such as Halliburton, etc.? All of the companies that supply our ground forces with everything from arms to toilet paper and beyond? Not as much profit and kick backs from above board business dealings.

I'm not sure how involved in Russia I would want to be because of their treatment of Gays, but assume for a moment that was an issue worth our most serious efforts. We've backed ourselve in a corner if we say we don't want Russia, or China, or other countries meddling in our affairs.

We are already backed into a corner. We've transitioned from troops on the ground in Afghanistan to limited drone strikes and secretly arming rebel forces in Syria so as not to get Russia too peeved, and only approved sanctions against Iran because Russia wants their oil. China shoots at Japanese vessels in the waters off Japanese islands because China decides they want them and the US does nothing so as not to make the Chinese mad- wouldn't want to muck up our trade deals over something like abiding by our defense alliance agreements.

I hope that, in some situations, what's in it for the government is simply knowing that they did the right thing.

That would be wonderful, but sadly long gone are the days when our government did things simply because it was the right thing to do. There is always a hidden agenda and something in it for them. A sad situation, but we have allowed it to happen. Unless something drastic were to happen (world wide category 10 earthquake, alien invasion, world war 3, the second coming of Christ, etc.) I'm not so sure it will change any time in the near future.

PS: I would love to hear your opinions on what human rights violations would merit what in the way of sanctions, etc. Picking the recesses of your brain is interesting to say the least!

reply to post by charles1952


You're kind of following me.

Evil is going to happen regardless. You cannot have good without evil. It's part of life, the yin and the yang, it has been since the dawn of man and it will be until man no longer exists. It's out of our control. It's a sad reality. What I'm saying is that we, us in the U.S., should take care of our matters first before intervening into others affairs.

Granted, it's wrong what's going on in other Countries but are there not atrocities happening in our own Country? Why waste energy elsewhere when that energy can be used in our own "neighborhood". If we were to do that, use all the energy in our neighborhood, then in the long run we'd have more energy to go into other neighborhoods, we'd be a stronger force due to having more energy.

Charles, I know that you're an intelligent man, how many problems is the U.S. facing now for intervening in other neighborhoods? IF we'd stay and take care of our own neighborhood first, everything else will fall into place, unlike it is now. Dr. Paul had it all right.

Btw, I enjoy your threads, your logic and your approach/responses. Thank you.

reply to post by littled16

Dear littled16,

If I haven't mentioned it before, ATS should really set up a Hall of Fame for great posters, and you should be in the first class of inductees. Even when we disagree, it always comes out as a pleasant, gentle discussion.

And before you other ATSers start shouting "Get a Room," you should know that littled16 is happily married, and I don't do that sort of thing. (Although, I do sometimes envy her husband. ) OK, to work.

The difference in the comparison is that most mothers love their children and know not to push punishment to the point of abuse of power. We can't trust our government to stay behind such a fine line with it's own citizens, much less a third world country.

I agree, but is this one of those "insoluble" problems that we could still wrestle with before we give up? The Founders believed that the Constitution would provide checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power which they were sure would tempt future leaders. Can we do that again? Maybe approval by Congress and the Supreme Court (unlike in the case of Libya)? Maybe approval by a group of three to five nations who agreed to the same values and principles we hold? I'd really hate to give up completely.

Besides, haven't you considered how much money has been made from these conflicts by major corporations such as Halliburton, etc.? All of the companies that supply our ground forces with everything from arms to toilet paper and beyond?

You're right. In the case of a "legitimate," "justified" war, I don't have any problems with the profit they might make. As far as the kickbacks, we seem to be willing to control everything else that companies do. (unless they're big enough to be huge Presidential supporters), and we could increase our staff of auditors and Inspectors General. I suspect they'd spot enough fraud to pay for themselves many times over.

We are already backed into a corner. We've transitioned from troops on the ground in Afghanistan to limited drone strikes and secretly arming rebel forces in Syria so as not to get Russia too peeved, and only approved sanctions against Iran because Russia wants their oil. China shoots at Japanese vessels in the waters off Japanese islands because China decides they want them and the US does nothing so as not to make the Chinese mad- wouldn't want to muck up our trade deals over something like abiding by our defense alliance agreements.

If we have become that feckless and impuissant (my vocabulary words for the week), then we either have to recover our moral courage, or be laughed at every time we open our mouths to protest anything. We'll be left with small groups of citizens putting up Youtube videos calling for non-GMO foods, gay marriage, freeing the dissidents, and every other fashionable cause. A disorganized and powerless effort.

but sadly long gone are the days when our government did things simply because it was the right thing to do. There is always a hidden agenda and something in it for them. A sad situation, but we have allowed it to happen.

Can we allow it to "unhappen?" Your discouragement is contagious. I have no idea how to tell the voters that we need to reinstill moral considerations in our foreign policy. We can't even teach simple things. Certainly, morality itself is largely ignored in this society. We may be trapped in "Infantile Morality," which tells us that the things we want are moral.

Picking the recesses of your brain is interesting to say the least!

I didn't even know I had recesses. Where I grew up a 350 pound woman wearing a thong to the beach was politely described as "interesting." So was a lime Jell-o and squirrel dessert. But no offense taken.

Things from your list which we should ignore:
Hate crimes (committed by individuals, unless the government approves or ignores)
Abortion rights
Gay marriage
Easy divorce
Consumerism and offensive ads
GMO issues
Technology
Shopping methods and fast food
Minimum wage (maybe)

In all of those cases we should provide information to the government, and offer them help to change their policies if they want it, but not threaten them in any way.

Sanctions for:
Equal rights (to some degree)
Fair Elections (Considering existing form of government)
Government sponsored hate crimes (If limited in extent, and we define what a "Hate Crime" is.)
Freedom of religion
Minimum wage and safe work conditions (Maybe. Are we talking about slavery? If so, sanction away.)

Bombers for:
Genocide
Flagrant, wide-spread and repeated violations of some of the things we sanctioned for. (depending) Yes, I know it's fuzzy, but the entire situation needs to be considered. An otherwise great country with too few fire extinguishers? Maybe put in the ignore column.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


The only way to change culture void of dogmatism and violence is to change our own, and hope that through art, expression or display of personal culture, that it inspires the personal cultures of others, and is absorbed and spread by the greater cultures of societies.

That was a good write up, sir, and important questions.

reply to post by kimish

Dear kimish,

Thanks very much, I think I understand more clearly now and I appreciate your kindness. It's just one more example of how much I have to learn from ATSers.

Evil is going to happen regardless. You cannot have good without evil. It's part of life, the yin and the yang, it has been since the dawn of man and it will be until man no longer exists. It's out of our control. It's a sad reality.

I absolutely agree with you. But I wonder how that ties in with this:

What I'm saying is that we, us in the U.S., should take care of our matters first before intervening into others affairs. . . . are there not atrocities happening in our own Country? Why waste energy elsewhere when that energy can be used in our own "neighborhood". If we were to do that, use all the energy in our neighborhood, then in the long run we'd have more energy to go into other neighborhoods, we'd be a stronger force due to having more energy.

Because evil is so wide-spread, we will always have it in the US, we'll never be free of it no matter how many resources we pump into solving evil. I think we've put over a trillion dollars into the "War on Poverty" alone over the last 50 years. We're no better off on that front now, we may even be worse off.

May I abandon reason for a minute and simply speak emotionally? When I'm walking down a street, even in a different country, and I see an empty pop can next to a garbage bin, I'll feel badly about myself for some time if I don't pick it up and throw it in the bin. If I have a few extra dollars and don't give one to a beggar, I'll kick myself. (And I do mean A dollar. I'm unemployed and scratching.) If I get into a boring conversation with someone who just needs to talk, I'll listen for a few extra minutes.

There are things that just strike me as the right thing to do, even if it costs me a little. I don't think I could continue to ignore needs for very long without becoming the wrong sort of person. My "feelings" are the same about America. I have an image of America, or what used to be America, that I'd like to see return to reality. A generous, helpful, protecting country. A country which cries out in sympathy with ". . . Your huddled masses, yearning to be free." As I admitted, it's something found in my heart, not in my bank book. Nor is it easily analyzed by a dollars and cents, cost-benfit analysis.

But, I also realize that we can't go around the world helping everyone with a sore toe. We only have so much authority and force, and they must be used carefully. I would say they must be used morally, if at all. I'm not sure I can agree we should never get involved, my "heart" won't let me say that. But if we are to get involved, I want something more reliable than the feelings of a moment, or a crowd's roar, to determine when we should involve ourselves.

Again, thank you very much. I appreciate your contribution and your seriousness.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Ahaha, I see where I confused you now. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Seeing that we are trillions of dollars in debt and give out more financial aid then anyone else, perhaps we should drastically cut back on the aid and concentrate on us more.

I say, we still give them aid but stay out of other affairs. This is what I meant to say in the first place but it didn't quite come out like that.