On the brink of decision of whether or not America should embark in the war in Syria, I have many many thoughts about this absurdity. Sometimes, I honestly wonder if our country would be better off if the people were actually in charge, and didn't just vote for one person to make all the decisions for four years.
First off, Syria is in a civil war. Civil wars happen everywhere almost all the time. When a country goes to war with itself, the worst thing to do is intervene. How do I know this? Korea. Viet Nam. Afghanistan. Nameless others. Every time there's been a civil war and the United States has gotten involved, more and more people have hated us as a nation, we lost the war anyways, hundreds of thousands of men (and women) die fighting for someone else that had nothing to do with us, and even more veterans killed themselves afterwards from experiencing such bull crap. And in these cases, no one really asked for our help; we put it upon ourselves to "fix" them.
Second, we have no hard evidence, only speculation, that Syria has chemical weapons. I was watching segments from British Parliament over the debate of whether or not Britain should go to war as well. The opposition posed great points including this statement: evidence should not proceed decision, decision should proceed evidence." Syrians did not ask anyone to help them fight. I understand that the Geneva Convention outlawed using chemical warfare - I do understand the severity of that. But no one has hard evidence of the Assad Regime being the culprit of a chemical attack in Syria. YES, I agree that what's going on there is horrible, and lots of innocent people are dying but us getting involved would only make things worse...Because we just got out of a war in the Middle East. We cannot handle it! We will go into this too soon after bringing troops out of Iraq and other places. We simply are not strong enough to do this right now. If we were to get involved with Syria right now, it would be one stupid decision - and how long would we be there for? What would our relationship be with Syria once we leave? And how will the world look at us? As that annoying bully who just can't stay out of other people's business. This video is somewhat of a good representation of how I see the US in the world as an American citizen:
[There are a few instances of suggestive language, but no impropriety.]
Imagine the guy in the red shirt as the United States, and the other two guys are the rest of the world - that's the only part you really need to see
My whole point is that things go on in the world, in a way effect the world, and the US thinks, "Let me show them how to live right and how to be more democratic, and how dumb they're being in blowing each other up! How will I do that? Invade their country and kill a lot of them and then try to instill a democratic government because that's why they have so many problems!"
And of course, the people who are leading our country right now are thinking that exact thing: no one asked for us to help, so we're thinking about forcing our help again. HAven't we learned anything from the other civil wars that we've gotten involved in? It doesn't work!!!!! We lose!!!! Every time!!!! And then the whole world gets ticked at us and the people of America find more reason to turn on their own country. Hello!?
So my opinion on Syria? They're in their own civil war. But what if other countries invaded our civil war? How messed up would things have gotten? We just need to leave them alone and let them figure out their own problems. The only time to consider intervention is when they start taking their war outside their own country. That's when it's okay to step in. We need to stop focusing on fighting other peoples' wars, and start focusing more on rebuilding what we have here. WE DO NOT NEED TO GO THERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave some love?