Mar 15 2009
Pretty darn stupid (answer to previous post)
Hello folk.
I received this as a response to my previous post:
“Americans are by nature nosey little buggers who think we can cure the world’s troubles just by showing up and helping out. As an American myself, I think we should all stay in the U.S. unless we are on vacation and keep our noses out of other people’s business. Unfortunately, there are a lot more Americans who feel it necessary to correct everyone else’s problems even when we are not asked to do so. Personally, I think he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he’s got nobody to blame but himself. His head was probably too hard to allow that cannister to knock some sense into him, but it takes all kinds of nuts to make a world! Peace to you and yours!”
I really love this opinion.
Nevertheless, I struggle with it each and every day. It all goes back to a classic question of isolationism vs. interventionism. Do we interfere only when someone requests help from us?
But then I wonder: Who must request that help? Does it need to be a recognized government? Is it always the underdog? Are there exceptions to whatever rule is created?
An despite the fact that deep down I agree with the isolationist approach, I also think there should have been a world wide effort to physically stop the Holocaust. How can I say that isolationism is correct and also believe this?
If I say we should always intervene when faced with a genocide, then we need to define a genocide. Is it about numbers or brutality? Can 100 people be a genocide, in which case America would never stop interfering?
Every day I have trouble definining a position that I’m really comfortable with!!
