Skip to main content

View Diary: John McCain: I'd send U.S. troops to Nigeria 'in a New York minute' (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Using what criteria? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There are people in dire straits all over the world -- from Gaza to Syria to Colombia -- including kidnappings, being held hostage, etc. including children.

    This particular group has gotten a lot of publicity and sympathy, including their own hashtag. OK, I get that. And it's girls and school, so extra sympathy.

    But on what grounds do you send the US military in to rescue one group of a few hundred people, but not another? especially without the host government wanting you there (or, apparently, lifting very many of its own fingers to try to do it themselves)?

    And on what basis does the US do something that, if any other nation on the planet did it to us (liberating Guantanamo, say?), we would consider it an act of terrorism (if a non-state actor) or war (if a national government), and punish them instantly and severely?

    •  I get your point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      about "where does it end" because a lot of bad shit happens in the world, so why help here when we don't help there.  It's a valid point.  Where does it end?  If the powerful stand up for the weak here, well, that just leads to a slippery slope where the powerful will always have to do it, doesn't it?  And slippery slopes are always bad, even a humanitarian slippery slope.

      The real answer to this is that the US alone shouldn't be playing world policeman.  However, I'd be happy to see the role of the UN expanded to do so, and for the US to step out of said role.  There is a lot of evil in this world, and I, for one, cannot simply turn my back on it and shrug my shoulders, even if I think the US shouldn't be the one playing the world cop.  Call me a bleeding heart, but as a Democrat, shouldn't I be a bleeding heart?  Or is my compassion supposed to stop at the edge of our nations borders?

      As for the rest - a bunch of hyperbole about being "terrorists", etc, maybe you should reread caveats A thru C, where I specify we get involved in nothing else but rescuing the girls.  Fuck the Nigerian regime.  We're not there to support them, and our guys aren't going to do their dirty work for them.  But we're not there to depose them either.  If they'll let us help, we can help - and only provide that help on rescuing the girls.  I don't know how I could have been any clearer there, since I said "only help the girls" in 3 different ways to emphasize that was all we would do in a perfect world.

      Then note what I end with:

      Unfortunately, none of that will ever happen, so sending our men and women in is a bad idea.
      So concluding by acknowledging that we'd never follow such strict rules so we shouldn't do it wasn't clear enough to point out that I recognize that given our current political environment - one packed full of war mongers - that this is a slippery slope - and a bad one at that?

      You're welcome to express a different opinion as my own - but please, don't attempt to paint me as naive or ignorant because you failed to comprehend what I wrote.

      "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

      by Darth Stateworker on Wed May 14, 2014 at 02:48:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site