Monday, August 15, 2005

To interfere or not?

There have been many a times where I thought America interferes too much with other countries' businesses. For example, getting involved in Afganistan and the middle east. The entire Iraq war is another example.

However, recently someone pointed out to me that I was contradicting myself with that opinion. It was me who said that the "Western Powers" should've done something to stop the carnage and genocide at Rwanda (with reference to my post on Hotel Rwanda). It made me think quite a bit. Sure enough, I (and a lot of other people) blame the US for not being humanitarian enough when they don't respond with enough money to something like the Dec 26th, 2004 Tsunami. Time for me to reconsider my seemingly confused point of view on America's foreign policy.

4 Comments:

Blogger FSN 2.2 said...

Going in to help a country with resources is one thing. But hearing voices in your head and taking out an entire regime looking for imaginary WMD is another thing entirely.Especially when the deficit runs to billions of dollars.

1:15 AM  
Blogger Manu said...

I agree. I'm not supporting America on that. We ALL know that there is an ulterior motive (spelt O I L ) in doing that. But, I'm merely trying to not have such a staunch stance against American interfering in others' business.

1:20 AM  
Blogger FSN 2.2 said...

There's a difference between Interference and Assistance. I would only like that America provide Assistance when ASKED - because otherwise it turns into interference. I'm dead against interference and hell bent on assistance.

5:43 AM  
Blogger Manu said...

Yes.. I totally agree with you. The WMD fiasco should've been a good lesson to them.

6:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home