Wars USA goes to liberate other 'people'? Your thoughts and beliefs

[CelticKing]

Asked a question to Denny in the other thread and Blazer Prophet suggested starting a new topic with it, so here it goes.

Denny so do you support the wars US takes to liberate other people? Like they did with my country Kosovo?

Just want to know where your belief on that point is.

My view is that US needs to help other people that are being punished by other groups, but it might be biased view since I experienced it myself in Kosovo, where Europe did absolutely nothing and was against bombing ex Yugoslavia until the end, while US was strongly for it. In the end more than 7,000 people died as a result, 90% of them elderly, children and women.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It sounds appealing for the USA to be the world’s policeman, but as a practical matter I question sending our troops in alone to a conflict just to die for those on the weaker side.

I mean, isn’t that’s what the UN is for? The answer is supposed to be “yes”, but as we saw with Iraq when over 300,000 people called out from the grave and beyond to save them from a mentally deranged madman and his sons, when France had an illegal arms agreement with Iraq they used their veto power to force an alliance to essentially go it alone. The result is a major screw-up and thousands of US soldiers dead. What did we get in return? A real mess and now we’re the bad guys. That does not minimize the problems we brought to those people, but do you see the issues it creates?

Now, all that said, when a people are completely defenseless and being brutally treated by an oppressor, something has to be done. But again, why is it up to the US to send people to die for it all when the UN won’t send in a coalition? Should we expect something in return?

 

[yakbladder]

Personally I think much of the world has become complacent about sending troops in to clear up any conflict. They have a hard enough time even performing economic sanctions. It may just be appearances but they seem to want to rely upon the U.S. to do all the dirty work. Yes, it makes us a shining beacon of freedom, blah blah blah...but it also costs us quite a bit in terms of human lives and money. Not to mention the fact that we are the lightning rod for every incident that occurs in the world that has a tinge of bad around it.

With our economy spiraling a bit (even before Obama), I'd like to see us regroup a little and push policing duties onto a regional partner or set of partners. Let them take care of it for a few years and see how fun it is. And if push comes to shove I'm sure we could still do a few bomber fly-bys w/o having to land troops again.

 

[CelticKing]

It sounds appealing for the USA to be the world’s policeman, but as a practical matter I question sending our troops in alone to a conflict just to die for those on the weaker side.

I mean, isn’t that’s what the UN is for? The answer is supposed to be “yes”, but as we saw with Iraq when over 300,000 people called out from the grave and beyond to save them from a mentally deranged madman and his sons, when France had an illegal arms agreement with Iraq they used their veto power to force an alliance to essentially go it alone. The result is a major screw-up and thousands of US soldiers dead. What did we get in return? A real mess and now we’re the bad guys. That does not minimize the problems we brought to those people, but do you see the issues it creates?

Now, all that said, when a people are completely defenseless and being brutally treated by an oppressor, something has to be done. But again, why is it up to the US to send people to die for it all when the UN won’t send in a coalition? Should we expect something in return?

Problem is UN is garbage. After Kosovo was liberated, from 1999 up until 2004 or 2005 everything was going wrong there, with UN controlling everything, you had bastards from every country thinking its their little project on how to run their country, in a place where we've had Greeks, Romans and even Ottoman Empire, it's not like we were animals who just became free. UN is a joke IMO and should be, especially with Russia having veto powers there.

 

[CelticKing]

Personally I think much of the world has become complacent about sending troops in to clear up any conflict. They have a hard enough time even performing economic sanctions. It may just be appearances but they seem to want to rely upon the U.S. to do all the dirty work. Yes, it makes us a shining beacon of freedom, blah blah blah...but it also costs us quite a bit in terms of human lives and money. Not to mention the fact that we are the lightning rod for every incident that occurs in the world that has a tinge of bad around it.

With our economy spiraling a bit (even before Obama), I'd like to see us regroup a little and push policing duties onto a regional partner or set of partners. Let them take care of it for a few years and see how fun it is. And if push comes to shove I'm sure we could still do a few bomber fly-bys w/o having to land troops again.

That's what happened in my country, for 78 days it was bombed, no solider died. That should have been the plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, just bomb all military areas, govt buildings, Saddam's house and then let the people decide for themselves.

 

[Wheels]

whoah I had no idea you were from Kosovo, CelticKing... I had an uncle who went to help there.. although I'm not entirely sure what he did there, he is a police officer though.

 

[CelticKing]

whoah I had no idea you were from Kosovo, CelticKing... I had an uncle who went to help there.. although I'm not entirely sure what he did there, he is a police officer though.

That's pretty cool man. Americans are treated like heros there. Definitely a cool place to visit if you're American.

 

[hasoos]

That's what happened in my country, for 78 days it was bombed, no solider died. That should have been the plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, just bomb all military areas, govt buildings, Saddam's house and then let the people decide for themselves.

Well in Iraq, that is what we pretty much did until the surge. What happened? The people killed each other like mad and we had to send in troops to stop th madness.

Then if you look at Afghanistan, there wasn't really a government to begin with. It is a bunch of tribes loosely that were loosely affiliated with the Taliban. There wasn't a real way to just bomb government structures and such. They really didn't have any to speak of.

My opinion is that every time we go into someplace to "free" people, all we end up doing is making more enemies. We are better off letting the people there uprise themselves if at all possible, and funding assistance as necessary.

Iran is one area we are making inroads in now. The best thing that we could do is inundate them with cool shit that only our freedoms here can provide, and eventually they will overthrow their conservative government on their own. The question is, can we keep their government from causing some major damage until then. I don't think anybody has answered that yet.

 

[CelticKing]

Well in Iraq, that is what we pretty much did until the surge. What happened? The people killed each other like mad and we had to send in troops to stop th madness.

Then if you look at Afghanistan, there wasn't really a government to begin with. It is a bunch of tribes loosely that were loosely affiliated with the Taliban. There wasn't a real way to just bomb government structures and such. They really didn't have any to speak of.

My opinion is that every time we go into someplace to "free" people, all we end up doing is making more enemies. We are better off letting the people there uprise themselves if at all possible, and funding assistance as necessary.

Iran is one area we are making inroads in now. The best thing that we could do is inundate them with cool shit that only our freedoms here can provide, and eventually they will overthrow their conservative government on their own. The question is, can we keep their government from causing some major damage until then. I don't think anybody has answered that yet.

Problem is they cannot do it themselves. For example in Kosovo, we did protests, and everything else peacefully until 1998 when a group was armed and started fighting but even then it was maybe around 5000 armed guys against a full army with tanks, helicopters, heavy weaponry.

Same thing in Iran now, I'm sure majority of people there don't like Ahmedinejad and that nutcase who is treated like god there (forgot his name, old dude with long beard), but the people have no power, like we saw the demonstrations, many of them are jailed now, lot were killed. It'll take US (and NATO) bombing their military and then let the people there decide. Personally we should let Israel do the bombing.

 

[Wheels]

That's pretty cool man. Americans are treated like heros there. Definitely a cool place to visit if you're American.

never been even to that side of the earth.. but glad that things have worked out for you many people and that they are now safe! have you always spoken english and stuff too?

 

[Buzz Killington]

Seemed ok for the Philippines. They're now fairly independent of the US!

 

[yakbladder]

Well in Iraq, that is what we pretty much did until the surge. What happened? The people killed each other like mad and we had to send in troops to stop th madness.

???? We were already occupying the country before the surge...

Perhaps we have two different definitions of when the "surge" occurred?

 

[CelticKing]

never been even to that side of the earth.. but glad that things have worked out for you many people and that they are now safe! have you always spoken english and stuff too?

Had a class when going through elementary school, but could only do basic, maybe 100 words or so. (pretty much clueless)

We moved here 1999, and I finished high school here, now going through college. My dad also speaks pretty good now, while my mother never tried much, she understands somewhat but doesn't really speak it. lol (as for my brother who was 11 when we moved, he's fluent, no accent etc)

 

[CelticKing]

???? We were already occupying the country before the surge...

Perhaps we have two different definitions of when the "surge" occurred?

I remember very well, we bombed it, then the troops entered, everything was at peace for few weeks then the killings started. Suicide bombing happened much later I think.

 

[maxiep]

This is a complicated issue, so for me the answer is "sometimes".

I think the answer is yes, when one agressive dictatorship attacks and tries to take over a democracy, a country friendly to us or one that affects our national interests. Therefore when Iraq attacked Iran or China attacked Vietnam, it wasn't really our concern. However, when Iraq attacked Kuwait, it did concern us. Korea and Vietnam were appropriate actions because they helped stem the tide of Communism.

I think we also try to take action where a government is killing its own citizens wholesale, where other sanctions haven't been shown to work and we have the wherewithal to impact the situation favorably with military force.

This question is complicated and I'm well aware I've left open some huge holes in my answer. The bottom line is that we're the world's only superpower and the only superpower in the history of humankind that has ever used military force to remove another government without trying to permanently occupy the country. Being the "world's policeman" comes with that territory.

 

[hasoos]

Problem is they cannot do it themselves. For example in Kosovo, we did protests, and everything else peacefully until 1998 when a group was armed and started fighting but even then it was maybe around 5000 armed guys against a full army with tanks, helicopters, heavy weaponry.

Same thing in Iran now, I'm sure majority of people there don't like Ahmedinejad and that nutcase who is treated like god there (forgot his name, old dude with long beard), but the people have no power, like we saw the demonstrations, many of them are jailed now, lot were killed. It'll take US (and NATO) bombing their military and then let the people there decide. Personally we should let Israel do the bombing.

Was it the same thing when the people overthrew the Shah in the 70's. You bet it was. What is funny is that the same group that overthrew the Shah because of his heavy handed tactics, now has come full circle, and practices the same heavy handed tactics he did. They basically campaigned under one message, and then became total hypocrites when in power and did the exact same thing he did.

So I don't agree. It can be done, but you have to have a majority of the peope backing it. The facts are, most revolutions against governments are done against governments with superior firepower and armed forces.

 

[Wheels]

Had a class when going through elementary school, but could only do basic, maybe 100 words or so. (pretty much clueless)

We moved here 1999, and I finished high school here, now going through college. My dad also speaks pretty good now, while my mother never tried much, she understands somewhat but doesn't really speak it. lol (as for my brother who was 11 when we moved, he's fluent, no accent etc)

thats pretty friggin awesome! Crazy stories too that you would never know about people.

 

[bluefrog]

Where do you draw the line? One could make a strong case to invade North Korea, Burma (Myanmar), Sudan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Chad and half a dozen other nations. I think if the U.S. is going to be the world's police it should be consistent about it. It it's going to liberate people in Kosovo then it should also have liberated (or at least stop the killing of) the Tutsis in Rawanda.

 

[mook]

It depends.

If the likely blowback is extremely minimal and if the action required is:
-Primarily utter domination of airspace, bombing military targets, etc (Kosovo) or
-To take a weekend to stomp right over everyone who resists (Grenada, Panama)
Then I'm ok with killing the leadership just because they are undemocratic assholes.

But those are the easy decisions. It gets a lot harder when you start talking about managing civil war, repairing/inventing infrastructure on a massive level, decade-long commitments, trillions of dollars, pissing off a billion muslims, etc.

Man, I miss the days when we could win a war by blasting rock music into Manuel Noriega's living room.

 

[Denny Crane]

My preference or ideal would be that we have zero troops overseas, and our military simply used to defend the nation from military attack.

Too utopian, no doubt, but nothing wrong with striving for that ideal, IMO.

On the other hand, if we're actually welcomed by the people to have a military base in their country, then I see some argument for having the base there. I really don't want to interfere with how other countries are run, and I am not fully sold that a govt. saying we're welcome and the people saying we're welcome are the same thing. It does add some benefits to the people who volunteer for military service - they get to see the world, and I expect they're our real ambassadors (among the common folk).

We have treaty obligations. NATO is an obvious one. If any member nation is attacked, we are obliged to come to their aid. The kicker, though, is that NATO has a force of 2.6M soldiers and I bet you can guess what country provides the vast majority of that figure. US.

We should be getting more commitment from our NATO allies, but I don't believe that Germany can ethically or morally build another army (after WWs I and II, ya know). Their entire army is 100K. Japan isn't part of NATO, though I believe they are forbidden by the terms of their WW II surrender from having a military; any aid they've given that I can recall has been in the form of ambulances and medics. France? Heck, they'd surrender before putting up any sort of real fight; more seriously, they have a military not much larger (300K) than Germany. The Brits have a similar sized military. And so on. So we're the suckers doing the heavy lifting.

Perhaps it's a price we pay for being less socialized than they are; they don't spend much less as a % of their GDP than we do on their military. Our economy is just so much more productive that our spending in actual dollars dwarfs what they spend.

In general, I believe we have the moral authority to do the policing. We don't conquer countries and make them into the next states in the union. Our military occupations have mostly been for nation building purposes (Iraq? How about post war Germany and Japan!).

So there's a horrible genocide happening in Rwanda - the worst in history, perhaps. Are a few dollars worth the lives of the slaughtered? Probably. Is one US soldier's life worth 1,000 or 10,000 or just 100 Muslim lives (as in Kosovo)? At some point we lose our moral authority if we just let those things happen. Though there's clearly a difference between stopping genocide and using military might when diplomacy fails...

I felt that Iraq and a few other places are the exception to these rules. Where we prop up and deal with a dictator who commits crimes against humanity, we have blood on our hands and a duty to make things right. These other places? Numerous nations in South America where we installed banana dictatorships on behalf of the United Fruit Company. Get the picture?

The alternative is quite clear; thank you Jimmy Carter (NOT!). Iran overthrew the Shah, took 50+ of our citizens hostages for over a year. Why? Because we propped up the Shah, and even after he was overthrown, Carter welcomed him to the USA as a place of asylum. You just don't do that to people; I don't blame the Iranians for being so hostile to us for all these years in between. It's a blueprint for what Iraq could have become. I guess I'm saying we should have taken out the Shah way back when, too, for the same reasons we took out Saddam.

I'll finish by saying that War is Hell. I hate just about anything to do with it, other than the people who risk their lives on our behalf.

 

[CelticKing]

I agree if a country wants a US base, then why not. I hope they never leave Kosovo, they actually have plans to make Bondsteel (the base there) biggest in Europe. The people there want them to stay for the next thousand years, to keep peace and protect from future possible attacks. (mainly serbia lol)

As for Germany, I cannot understand why they can't have a fully blown army with them being a damn good ally of US now, they're as Western as you can get at this point, majority of them love Americans. (same with Japan) Let them have armies and they will help us around the world where they're needed.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Fuck that.

We should never be the world policemen again. It didn't start until after WW2, and look where our country is now.

We don't have the money to police the world, and all it gets you is anti-americanism around the world because how we intervene in places where we have no right.

Because it doesn't stop at "defending" countries, lol. We stage coups to overthrow regimes we don't agree with. We invade countries because we don't like their leader, though they pose no threat to us directly. Its simply retarded, and we are heavily paying for it now with more to come.

Its amazing how different our country is now then is was before Korea. I mean two wars at the same time? Jesus Christ. Time to change our foreign policy, starting by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan by January 2011. Take Ron Paul's approach and have a non-interventionist foreign policy. Stop with the US bases, stop trying to make America into an Empire. It was never supposed to be that.

Denny, the first line of your post is spot on.

As for Germany and Japan not having armies, IDK if its the U.S. preventing it. I think their constitution prevents anything outside of defense forces and police forces. It prevents nukes as well, no? After WW2, they wanted no part of any war anymore, and I can't blame them. Both of them don't have the best history.

I like to study America from the early to mid 1900s. I think that was America's prime and Golden age, with a peak during the 1920s before the crash, and then after WW2 and before Korea (the little amount of time we had there). Its been down hill ever since we decided to go into Korea, then Vietnam, etc...

Just protect our home land. That is all that matters. Our national interests and national security. The other side of the world isn't too important to those causes. There are plenty of other countries right now that have the power to police their region. Go after the high priority targets and training camps with intelligence and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) like we have been doing for a while and has been extremely effective. Those targets/camps are vital to our national security.

 

[maxiep]

Fuck that.

We should never be the world policemen again. It didn't start until after WW2, and look where our country is now.

We don't have the money to police the world, and all it gets you is anti-americanism around the world because how we intervene in places where we have no right.

Because it doesn't stop at "defending" countries, lol. We stage coups to overthrow regimes we don't agree with. We invade countries because we don't like their leader, though they pose no threat to us directly. Its simply retarded, and we are heavily paying for it now with more to come.

Its amazing how different our country is now then is was before Korea. I mean two wars at the same time? Jesus Christ. Time to change our foreign policy, starting by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan by January 2011. Take Ron Paul's approach and have a non-interventionist foreign policy. Stop with the US bases, stop trying to make America into an Empire. It was never supposed to be that.

Denny, the first line of your post is spot on.

As for Germany and Japan not having armies, IDK if its the U.S. preventing it. I think their constitution prevents anything outside of defense forces and police forces. It prevents nukes as well, no? After WW2, they wanted no part of any war anymore, and I can't blame them. Both of them don't have the best history.

I like to study America from the early to mid 1900s. I think that was America's prime and Golden age, with a peak during the 1920s before the crash, and then after WW2 and before Korea (the little amount of time we had there). Its been down hill ever since we decided to go into Korea, then Vietnam, etc...

Just protect our home land. That is all that matters. Our national interests and national security. The other side of the world isn't too important to those causes. There are plenty of other countries right now that have the power to police their region. Go after the high priority targets and training camps with intelligence and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) like we have been doing for a while and has been extremely effective. Those targets/camps are vital to our national security.

The days of Fortress America are done. We can't dismiss the problems of the world by relying on the protection of our oceans anymore. Our military might is only one leg of the three that make us a superpower. It's the one used as a last resort.

Our political power is the second. People need to know that if we intervene, what we want for their people is the same power of the citizen we have here. I think we've demonstrated it in Iraq and need to find a "Third Way" in Afghanistan between our idea of a representative democracy and the tribalism of the Pashtuns, Tajiks and other ethnic groups. However, our real power is economic. When you become a peaceful member of the world, you get all the benefits of free trade and the economic system which we run and protect. When you're out, it's tough to enrich your country.

I'd love to be able to turn our backs on the world and let the maggots fight it out among themselves. However, if we do that, then the forces of opression win. I don't want to face a world run by Russia and China. I want the world run by the ideas of Western Europe and North America.

 

[MrJayremmie]

what we want for their people

That is exactly it. What WE want for them. Who are we to tell them what they should or should have. I've seen articles where Iraqis were saying "We don't want you or your 'democracy' here" or "take your "democracy" and go" or stuff like that (sorry, was a couple years ago).

I want the world run by the ideas of Western Europe and North America.

I don't want it run by Russia or China either. But I could care less if it is run by the West or not. The people should do whatever the hell they want. We can openly disagree and condemn opression, but its not our place to kill American soldiers and civilians (along with waste a TON of money we don't have) to try and impose our will on the world.

Like I said, national security, and national interest. We tried the world police thing, and now half of the world strongly opposes America, doesn't think America stands for all that is good anymore, and we are flat broke with a financial system in shambles. It is time to try something else.

I'd also argue that at the rate we are going, there will really be no superpower anymore. I think that the EU, America, and China will be on an even ground (which may already be here). Hopefully by then, when we will have to finally respond to someone, we will realize to just stay out of people's business.

China and India will pass us economically in a few decades. The EU has matched us economically (but it took them almost a whole continent to do so, which makes me LOL). And military, well, if they spent 20% of their budget on defense, they'd probably have a large military also. But as China grows, I also believe their military will match ours, as they are already arguably the second strongest military in the world (they spend the 2nd most money on it).

I mean, we haven't invaded Iran or North Korea like Iraq and Afghanistan even though they effect our national security (more than Iraq for sure). We haven't stopped oppression in Sudan, Burma and so on. We have given aid, let the UN do what they can do, and openly condemn and call for a stop to this madness. I would strongly oppose sending in American troops to do the work.

 

[Denny Crane]

Fuck that.

We should never be the world policemen again. It didn't start until after WW2, and look where our country is now.

We don't have the money to police the world, and all it gets you is anti-americanism around the world because how we intervene in places where we have no right.

Because it doesn't stop at "defending" countries, lol. We stage coups to overthrow regimes we don't agree with. We invade countries because we don't like their leader, though they pose no threat to us directly. Its simply retarded, and we are heavily paying for it now with more to come.

Its amazing how different our country is now then is was before Korea. I mean two wars at the same time? Jesus Christ. Time to change our foreign policy, starting by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan by January 2011. Take Ron Paul's approach and have a non-interventionist foreign policy. Stop with the US bases, stop trying to make America into an Empire. It was never supposed to be that.

Denny, the first line of your post is spot on.

As for Germany and Japan not having armies, IDK if its the U.S. preventing it. I think their constitution prevents anything outside of defense forces and police forces. It prevents nukes as well, no? After WW2, they wanted no part of any war anymore, and I can't blame them. Both of them don't have the best history.

I like to study America from the early to mid 1900s. I think that was America's prime and Golden age, with a peak during the 1920s before the crash, and then after WW2 and before Korea (the little amount of time we had there). Its been down hill ever since we decided to go into Korea, then Vietnam, etc...

Just protect our home land. That is all that matters. Our national interests and national security. The other side of the world isn't too important to those causes. There are plenty of other countries right now that have the power to police their region. Go after the high priority targets and training camps with intelligence and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) like we have been doing for a while and has been extremely effective. Those targets/camps are vital to our national security.

You think we should sit idle while genocides like Rwanda happen? There was nobody who stepped up from that region, and certainly not the UN. I don't see it as interfering with another country when there is no real country and it's a powerful bunch on one side murdering millions with machetes.

I'm not talking about occupation or nation building, just stopping the violence.

What about our treaty obligations? Constitutionally, we are obligated to fulfill those.

Otherwise, note that I voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004, and he would have brought the troops home. One of the only major candidates who would have (major == on ballot in 48+ states). My idea of doing Iraq was to go hunt down Hussein and his family and then leave.

As for Japan and Germany, WE WROTE THEIR CONSTITUTIONS.

(For emphasis, not yelling)

 

[MrJayremmie]

WE WROTE THEIR CONSTITUTIONS.

we helped them write them.

You think we should sit idle while genocides like Rwanda happen? There was nobody who stepped up from that region, and certainly not the UN. I don't see it as interfering with another country when there is no real country and it's a powerful bunch on one side murdering millions with machetes.

I'm not talking about occupation or nation building, just stopping the violence.

What about our treaty obligations? Constitutionally, we are obligated to fulfill those.

I don't think we should invade the country to stop the violence. And I think it should be more than just America's problem.

 

[Denny Crane]

we helped them write them.

You say you study history... What do your studies say about the "unconditional surrender" terms that FDR and Truman required of the Japanese and Germans? My studies say that those terms were required so we could rewrite/write their new constitutions...

I don't think we should invade the country to stop the violence. And I think it should be more than just America's problem.

I think it should be the world's problem to do the nation building thing. The world has no ability to step in and stop the violence without us doing 99% of the work.

 

[MrJayremmie]

You say you study history... What do your studies say about the "unconditional surrender" terms that FDR and Truman required of the Japanese and Germans? My studies say that those terms were required so we could rewrite/write their new constitutions...

Yeah, I think you are right. I don't know if any Japanese person even had a say in it. But there have been some Japanese tweaks since then.

 

[CelticKing]

Denny, why can't they change it though? Both Germany and Japan are our strongest allies (right after UK), so it would make sense if they had strong military.

 

[RR7]

all it gets you is anti-americanism around the world because how we intervene in places where we have no right.

I dunno. Look at CelticKing in this topic. He doesn't seem anti-american at all. He seems rather thankful for the American intervention in his country. I've heard from many different people about how much they like having America on their side. It's generally from groups that have dealt with being beat down, and them being powerless to stop it. Many Poles that are grateful for us as an ally, thankful we are by their side, because of their fear of Russia to the east.
I'm not pro-war. I'd love, like Denny said, if we could just pack up and guard our borders, and build up missiles, knowing full well a whole army isn't going to be able to land on our shores to attack us. But there seems to be a morla obligation to help those that can't help themselves. I wish we could help more than we do, usually. I wish we had smaller, more elite forces we can send all over, to help in all of the places named earlier, as opposed to sending very large, not as well trained forces into a few places, like Iraw and Afghanistan.

I don't think we should invade the country to stop the violence. And I think it should be more than just America's problem.

I agree it is more than America's problem. But if we know that what happens in, say, Africa affects us as well sa France, adn France choses to do nothing about it, does that mean we should allow it to affect us, because someone else isn't going to do anything? Do we sit by and watch France sell hundreds of thousands of machetes to one side of a genocide, and say well, I guess that's how they handled it. No need for intervention there. Can we afford to?