Toad wrote:
I simply no longer see the value of that kind of sacrifice for an unappreciative world.
The injured wolf will show no appreciation for your efforts to save it. It shall harass and try to bite you, even as you clean its wound. When cured and released, it'll angrily disappear into the woods, with no thought other than getting away from you.
Yet it is in your power, and no one elses, to save the wolf, or leave it to die.
Not doing anything is a choice. Not doing anything when tens of thousands of men, women and children are starved to death. Nor raising a hand when thousands are mutilated, and innocents are forced to dig their own graves and thereafter forever rest in them.
A deed is not truly altruistic if one expects some kind of reward - be it monetary or spiritual. And with power comes responsibility. If one deliberately fails, by choice, to live up to that responsibility, one cannot call oneself a conscientious and moral being.
Demanding gratitude or other rewards for behaviour is something almost universal in children and common in grown men and women. Yet for the true moral being, the act of helping is reward enough in itself - seeing a doomed wolf eagerly leaping for freedom and knowing that one made it possible - that is the reward.
How this applies to the US is simple: I am not asking the US to be the worlds police. Am just saying that with great power comes great responsibility, and electing to turn a blind eye to torture and crimes against humanity is akin to indirectly supporting it. Because of its power, the US, in my mind, is morally obligated just like all other nations, to take a responsibility that is directly related to its power.
60 years gone. And how are they viewed now? I've seen enough here to draw my own conclusion.
You're suggesting that the US efforts aren't appreciated? I don't know how many times I've given my thanks. I don't know how many times other have given their thanks. I have yet to see a post where an European says 'those f@rking Americans intervened in the war, I am not grateful for that'. I think it is wrong to equate resistance to some aspects of US foreign policy to lack of gratitude for the efforts in the first and second world war.
Enough for me to tell my sons "never again."
And what shall you do when a foreign power wages war against you, and another declares war and begins to sink your merchant vessels? Fight back. Like in WWII. It is impossible to realise this dream of 'never again', for several reasons. Like it or not, the world is interconnected, and the US will be dragged into the mess made by others. In Europe, it was not all European countries fault that WWII happened, even though many Americans say 'we tended your mess'. It was one man who started it - or possibly the allied after the capitlation in 1919 - and that included the Americans. Anyway, the US will be dragged in and forced to act, possibly dealing with a monster that as as infant was helpless, but that, thanks to time, has grown strong and resilient.
Do not misunderstand me Toad, this is not an attack on you on your ideals. Just trying to hold a dialogue here to see where you stand, so I can view the difference and adapt.
Also, the US intervention around the world and the imperialistic march of American culture, which has spread because it's convenient and people like it, means that there'll be people with interest in the US. Some of these people will remember past grudges and opt to retaliate in one way or another, sooner or later.
Angry? Nope? In a rage? Nope.
Disillusioned and tired, feeling old and worn? I get this feeling, as if you've fought long, hard and brave, but simply does not have the energy for the fight anymore. I might be utterly wrong though.
Merely being a realist and doing a "cost/benefit" analysis under my parameters.
Does the cost/benefit analysis include the economical loss that comes with losing big financial and national interests abroad?
You might find it comical that I, who on one hand thinks the US meddles too much and uses strong arm tactics too often, am arguing for a continued US participation in world affairs. The difference to me is in how the participation is done. Am not asking the US to be a magic bullet or to fix the problems of troubled countries. But as it is, the US is the only country which alone can stop ethnic cleansing anywhere on earth. As such, it has a responsibility to do it.
Of course, this is just my opinion - I strongly believe that the power I have as a person is directly proportional to the responsibility I have to other humans and all beings and things that are. Even though I'm an atheist, I consider myself a moral and spiritual person. My conscience is too big for my own good, but how can one ignore the suffering of other individuals, who have just as much capacity for love and joy as one self?
And no, am not doing nearly enough to ease my conscience. I have the classical 'we're well off and people are suffering, is it right that I eat all this food and sit comfortably at home consuming enough resources to feed 10 families abroad'. Perhaps it reflects on how I envision the role of the US in the world.
But it is also a reflection of the respect and trust I have in the American people. The role I suggest is a hard one, and the trials will be ardous. The people to undertake them must be tough, passionate, objective and capable of being individuals that can treat wolves, knowing full well that there'll be bites instead of gratitude. Knowing full well that in the end, there'll be a wolf alive that otherwise would have been dead, and that that goal is reward in itself.
I'm an idealist battling cynicism. Flame away.
