I think we disagree on the extent to which we

Posted on: January 9, 2018 at 10:46:23 CT

intervene or interfere in other nations.

I believe we are as the slogan goes, the last best hope of planet Earth. I believe there are things we can do and have a moral obligation as the leader of the world to help people throughout the world.

We have the resources and the ability to help people.
And we should.

The question gets clouded when we talk about military intervention. When the two countries or cultures clash, and people are being slaughtered somewhere in the world, should we help?

That is a very difficult question and a very quicksand like situation.
What do we do?
How much do we do?
And for how long?

And while we have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering, we do not have to do that in a way that damages our nation, our culture and risks the lives of American civilians.

As many have said regarding the current refugee crisis in Europe, why not set up a place in or around their homeland where they will be safe, instead of dragging them halfway across the world to a place where they are unfamiliar and uncomfortable?

If the decent nations of the world got together and developed a dare I say, sanctuary area in an African country, why not let them stay there, safe and sound and free from the fear of torture and murder.

Intervention, even militarily, is not always bad. Clearly it is not always good, but it needn't be depicted as something so onerous as to never, ever, friggin ever be done.

There are times for it, in my opinion.