04-08-2017, 07:22 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-08-2017, 08:11 AM by Bob Butler 54.)
Back in Clinton 42's time, I declared the Clinton Doctrine a week before 42 did. If a failed state or warlord government is committing crimes against humanity, specifically genocide, organized rape or political famines, the international community ought to intervene. Towards the end of the Clinton administration, it almost looked like the international community was going to get into this habit.
Then came Bush 43. At a time when Saddam was just about to sign oil contracts with Russia and France, the US went in and forced the oil contracts to be signed with US companies. A whole lot of other things went wrong about that time. Between them, the notion of the international community organizing to systematically stabilize failed states and prevent crimes against humanity thoroughly fell apart. The Middle East got uglier instead of better. The price of intervention in gold, blood and iron became clearer. Trust among the major powers became less. The notion of an international obligation to stabilize failed states committing crimes against humanity faded.
I can still see the advantages of the developed countries stepping on rogue states committing genocide.
I'd like to see it as a coordinated cooperative international effort, though. The US playing world policeman without the consent and assistance of other countries is not ideal.
I also have a healthy distrust of Trump's motivations. If he had a coherent policy that he had campaigned on and cleared with Congress before hand, that might be one thing. The cynical part of me wonders, though, if Assad's use of chemical weapons was taken as a personal affront by Trump. Whenever anyone opposes Trump, he is apt to swing back wildly. Now, in this case, a swarm of Twitter posts wouldn't be considered an appropriate and balanced response. Thus, he used the military illegally. Trump himself has stated he speaks and acts intuitively, rather than with fact and well thought out policy. This makes me nervous.
So, I've mixed feelings.
Then came Bush 43. At a time when Saddam was just about to sign oil contracts with Russia and France, the US went in and forced the oil contracts to be signed with US companies. A whole lot of other things went wrong about that time. Between them, the notion of the international community organizing to systematically stabilize failed states and prevent crimes against humanity thoroughly fell apart. The Middle East got uglier instead of better. The price of intervention in gold, blood and iron became clearer. Trust among the major powers became less. The notion of an international obligation to stabilize failed states committing crimes against humanity faded.
I can still see the advantages of the developed countries stepping on rogue states committing genocide.
I'd like to see it as a coordinated cooperative international effort, though. The US playing world policeman without the consent and assistance of other countries is not ideal.
I also have a healthy distrust of Trump's motivations. If he had a coherent policy that he had campaigned on and cleared with Congress before hand, that might be one thing. The cynical part of me wonders, though, if Assad's use of chemical weapons was taken as a personal affront by Trump. Whenever anyone opposes Trump, he is apt to swing back wildly. Now, in this case, a swarm of Twitter posts wouldn't be considered an appropriate and balanced response. Thus, he used the military illegally. Trump himself has stated he speaks and acts intuitively, rather than with fact and well thought out policy. This makes me nervous.
So, I've mixed feelings.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.