What does it mean exactly? How far does that extend? What's the scope of all those that end up paying the price when such basic rules of thumb don't get followed?
Sometimes it's the right thing, the best thing, like America's getting involved in World War II. The generation of Americans that fought against the Nazis is considered one of the greatest here in America, and they should be. They helped stop the evil of the Nazis from spreading, and, along with the rest of the allies, helped purge the world of their disease. We can feel safe knowing they are gone and a bit of pride knowing we helped to turn the tide against them.
Sometimes interfering may not have been the right thing, as when Zbigniew Brzezinski convinced us to help foster the spread of radical Islam starting in Afghanistan, when the Soviets were fighting a war there, and Pakistan and later spreading it northward in order to inspire extreme Islam throughout the USSR. We actually trained and set up Osama Bin Laden to become a leader in that movement, originally called the Mujaheddin, later called Al Qaeda.
Brzezinski was asked in January of 1998 by a French Magazine about it. The interviewer asked, “do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?” His answer was, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html)
That was in 1998, and we all know what happened just a few years later in September of 2001. Oh how short sighted people focused on their own bitterness, and a sense of hatred for another group of people (in this case the Soviet Empire), can be. We could have left it at helping the guerillas there without spreading Muslim Extremism with US taxpayer dollars around the world. At that point we probably should have left them alone.
We have foreign bases all around the world most of which are left over from the Cold War, and originally they were there for a reason. The Soviet Union did wish to see their brand of political ideology spread and had no issues forcing other nations to become satellite states. We saw that as a threat and moved to contain that perceived danger to the sovereignty of important allies and to what we worried might be our own eventually.
We used bases to keep them at bay and contain their spread. It seemed like a reasonable investment of taxpayer dollars at the time to most of us. But, then again we had no idea the things that were actually happening with those dollars. Certainly not like we do now. Eventually the Cold War came to and end, yet the bases remain.
We still pay vast sums of money, and for what? They tell us it's to help fight the War on Terror, but we already know all of the major Al Qaeda guys were taken out by small special forces teams and drone strikes. We didn't need 47,000 troops in Germany to kill all the terrorists we have killed in Pakistan. So we know that's a lie.
They tell us it's to protect US interests. By that they mean large corporations like oil companies, cheap labor factories that used to be here but left to hire non-Americans, mining concerns and the like. But how are those things in the interests of the majority of US taxpayers? We're not a communist country, so most taxpayers don't own those corporations, nor do they even work for them, certainly not in those countries.
Those “US interests” are corporations owned by less than 1% of the country. They are privately owned companies doing business as corporations based in America perhaps the symbol of a free market system the world over. It is in the interests of that less than 1% of us, yes, but not the interests of the rest of us.
Instead of spending so much on making them wealthier, maybe it's better we just leave them alone. Maybe it's better we let them run their big, huge wealthy businesses on their own, in following with free market principles. Maybe it's better we just allow them to be on their own and keep a hands off approach when it comes to business in that sense. It's not as if most of us are benefitting from it anyway.
We also give financial aid to many nations that want to take our money to oppress others or wage wars of terror against others. We want to help them for varying reasons, but we want things from them in return. Sometimes this includes them ceasing with certain behavior towards neighboring countries, historically oppressed populations, destabilization efforts, terrorism, intrigue, land grabs, etc. We are merely asking for some certain thing or things in exchange, and we have that right.
Sometimes people do what we would like and other times they do not. When they do not and we are giving them large amounts of money, why should we continue the arrangement? When they turn around and demand that we keep giving them money, and shut our traps about any demands as thought they are entitled to US taxpayer dollars, we are then just making fools of ourselves to give them anything, let alone what they are demanding.
We should just leave them alone. No interference and no tax dollars. We are a generous nation, but not dupes. And we work hard for our money. Sometimes it's better just to leave others alone to sort out whatever issues they may or may not have onna their own.
To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.