The world can certainly do better than this. Here's why.

Friday, April 1

Balance of the 'Force'

A response to articles from the New York Times and the BBC sent to me by very good friend.

I believe that the world must remain engaged in Africa's conflicts — from Cote d'Ivoire, north to Tunisia, east to Somalia, and south to Zimbabwe — for no other reason than to reinforce the idea that this world is a single body. What affects one nation will eventually affect us all. This is not to imply that a world state is the logical conclusion. Clearly, though, the decisions of one person make a great deal of difference. Ghaddaffi, Obama, an others can be cited. Clearly human disasters spread the pain around. Soaring energy and food prices are evidence of this. Clearly, one natural disaster has broad ramifications. The plight of Japan makes this clear.

I started, then stopped, watching a talk about Ayn Rand's views as they play out in the world today. I stopped when the speaker started talking about the prospect for 'gain' by America as a product of intervention. Rand, and the cabal that follow her ideas, are hyper-capitalists. Any studious reading of Rand would reveal that American-style big-C Capitalism would have been permitted to FAIL in September of 2008. Similarly, any studious reading would hold that an armed response to armed aggression is just. For the naysayers, remember this. As a nation of weapons manufacturers your GDP goes up almost every time someone fires a rocket. Defending the faceless rebel faction is profitable. That's the cynic in me talking.

The idealist in me realizes that balance is a nigh impossible thing to strike when both ends of scale are so 'forced'. Obama, to save himself, continues to walk the tightrope. He can't make enough of America believe that there is just cause there. Furthermore, I argued against arming the rebels in Libya for some of the reasons cited here. If they are armed, they will eventually have to be disarmed.

America won a bloody revolution in 1789. The French intervened in support of the breakaway colonial republic known once as New England. The French were a little too busy to disarm them in 1789, the French Revolution had just begun. Imagine trying to disarm America now.


At 7:43 PM, Blogger 8p said...

By "engaged" I don't mean militarily. I mean aware.


Post a Comment

<< Home