Ok folks, this seems to be something cropping up a bit in the news lately… Once again some other country has some problems and we’re (US) debating whether to do something about it or not.
If you haven’t heard, Syria has been accused and “found” to have used chemical weapons against the rebels trying to overthrow the current government. The US has been siding with the rebels, but only offering humanitarian aid as well as with some European countries. Russia has been backing the operating government for some time as well. So that’s what makes this a sticky situation. Both sides have been reluctant to offer anyone in Syria weapons, though now that the “line has been crossed” with the chemical weapons thing, we might be handing out those too. (that’s another comic for another time)
While we here like to poke fun at current events, this has been a particularly terrible encounter for everyone in that country. Which all comes down to one big question… Should we get involved?
Well, historically, America has been pretty isolationist. Even George Washington (prez#1) said in his 1796 farewell address that getting involved in other peoples’ drama was just asking for trouble. (paraphrased) But on the other side of that, we were overly reluctant to engage in the first 2 world wars, which by the second in retrospect, we should have jumped into the fray much sooner.
I guess the point is, sometimes you can’t be too hesitant to stick your nose in. But then again, we’re not the global police force and there’s real concern that the conflict will spread to the backers of the civil war… which… nothing good will come of.
Anyways… I’m pretty split on this. Sure, we need to help folks and stand behind the underdog if it’s for a good cause, but also be mindful about our intentions and how things effect the world stage.