So there are some questions that I would like to know in the context of this interview that John Stewart did not cover:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| John Bolton | ||||
| ||||
How does the money and lives spent attacking countries make the world safer than if we used that same money and manpower to help establish infrastructure and business in that country? What happened to freedom and industry being our weapons of choice? We have said that these ideals are our weapons of choice but then by attacking countries and killing their population do we not cause them to rally together against us?
We want to be the liberators, the good guys but we can't do that with a gun in hand. Wouldn't we have greater success using political weapons like a shovel, pen and a handshake?
The current military budget is over $515 billion dollars, where would we be if we took $200 billion from this budget split it between Afghanistan and Iraq and invested into these countries?
If we could convince these countries to accept help establishing food, water, transportation and information services would they not fundamentally become allies because we both have the same goals of improving the quality of life for their citizens? How would that look in a history book instead of bombs and guns?
I don't pretend that this is the answer to all of our troubles, and that our military is not an important resource. Cases such as Rwanda, Darfur require immediate, strategic military action. I believe this because organizations involving themselves in the act of genocide are doing so with full knowledge of the international stance on genocide.
Where were you when these crimes were happening? Where are your plans to resolve these international issues? Instead you spend your time concocting ways to bomb Iran, a country that is full of mostly well educated young citizens who simply want to just become part of the global economy. It is the Ayatollah that is of concern, how is bombing an act that will kill Iranians a solution to our main concern?
Regarding the removal of Saddam, how is forceful removal of leadership better than establishing a better reputation with the constituents of a country than their own leadership? Like what is happening in Iran. By using a forceful removal you have acknowledged that we have had to stay in Iraq and help hold up their failed state. If the people organize together and take the steps to re-create their own government the hard way on are they not better off for it? Moving into a position where their leaders are a greater issue than other world leaders is an important change that has allowed these events in Iran to unfold.
Are we not supporting the movement in Iran more by keeping our mouths shut? If we were to speak up it would politically weaken the position of those we wish to support. Taking action against Iran at this stage in the game would only give the leadership the evidence they need to show that it is still Iran versus the world and not an internal schism between the people and the religious leadership.
Update: I'm backing off infrastructure to some extent because it has shown only to be mildly effective. The best pursuit still seems to be education, discouraging extremism, information and a secular government. So very hard in a region that would be lucky to achieve 10% literacy. No matter how you slice it this will take generations. But we can still talk about being tough. How about, December 16, 2001 where Rumsfield let Bin-Laden walk right out of Tora Bora?
No comments:
Post a Comment