03.03.06
On international meddling
One of the easiest ways to upset some friends of mine is to question the involvement of the United States of America in international squabbles. To hear many of them speak (or read what they write) about this, if one questions the US’s involvement in foreign affairs then one obviously is a “pinko communist homosexual liberal demoncrat”. I beg to differ. My political leanings are so far to the Right that the Republican Party looks like Stalin, Lenin or Mao in perspective. Individual accountability is the center piece of my faith and belief. Each person should be accountable for their own actions and respond for them appropriately. In “The Late Unpleasantness” otherwise known as “The War Of Northern Agression” my sympathies lay entirely with the South. The so called “Civil War” was not fought over slavery as history revisionists would have one believe, it was fought over whether the country should be run from Washington DC, thousands of miles away from many of the people, or whether local governing bodies should have greater say in their local affairs.
Now my sympathies lay with those who say “Local Government” should have greatest input and impact on decisions that effect local matters. What do folks in New York City know about the issue of water rights in Colorado, Wyoming and other western states? What do city dwelling ignoramuses in Los Angeles know about the damage inflicted by wolves upon the wildlife and livestock in Idaho, Wyoming or Montana? For that matter, what do ranchers in New Mexico know about the subway system in New York? The obvious answer to any of these questions is simply “Not enough to make important decisions about them.” That is why the US was set up as a Federal Republic. To grant local autonomy in matters of concern to the local inhabitants of any given state. Many states are set up as well to allow each county a great amount of lee way in handling many matters of local concern. After all, folks who live with any given situation should know more about it than folks who live hundreds or thousands of miles away.
This translates readily to the international arena as well. And it is even MORE pertinent to that arena because of the even GREATER differances between cultures, languages and situations that exist between vastly separated regions of the earth as compared to different regions of the same nation. After all, what do Christians in the United States of America know about the Muslim religion and the folks who practice it in “The Middle East”? Why, if we often can’t tell the differance between the various branches of the Baptist Church, not to mention the horrendously fractured Church of Christ, what do we know about Sunni or Wahabi or Shiite Moslems? If we can’t keep our own folks from throwing stones, molotov cocktains and sundry other missiles at each other over questions of race or sexual perversion, what makes us think we can keep folks from killing each other who have an ENTIRELY different outlook on the world than we do?
If we would wake up and “smell the coffee” we’d realize that we really have no business trying to “Police The World”. Our own home is in disarray, we have no business trying to “set other folks straight” when we ourselves are in such a mess.
Should we as a nation “turn the other cheek” when we are attacked? I don’t think so. But neither should we wage an invasive occupational war against anyone. When Pancho Villa invaded the southern US, the US did not occupy Mexico. They chased Pancho down in what was known as a “Punitive Expedition”. What has changed in the past 100 years that gives us the right to occupy another country and try to force them to see things our way? That’s a good question I’d like to know the answer to.