thought triggered
"There is a big rumour these days that the US is actually helping the Taleban to keep the war going. The Taleban were created by the US and the US has all the powers in the world, so people here find it very difficult to believe that the US can't take them out. It just doesn't make sense."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6763865.stm
Reading that statement reminds me of a Boston Legal episode. A man from Sudan was attempting to press charges against the U.S government for their military practices. It was a long shot, the longest shot in the world. The purpose was not to win the preliminary trial, but to draw attention. The man bringing the law suit was from Sudan, and his family still lived there, but recently one of his (brothers? uncles?) was killed after the Sudan military broke into their house. He said that the media did some hype and coverage on the Sudan situation, the government said they would step in, but they have not. So the situation continues. Other countries have not stepped in because the U.S said they would handle it.
The judge questioned whose responsibility was Sudan, really? Why should the U.S be responsible for everyone? We can't fight all the wars, right all the wrongs, can we? She came to her own answer. She thought that yes, America should be responsible. Because of what we say we stand for. Because we do step in to situations that don't really involve us. Its expected now. We might not always do it the best way, or the right way, but we are there. So as with all laws, the military should remain consistant, and see their words through into action.
So this man in Afghan is thinking "Well, why can't they do it?" and I cannot find a satisfactory answer. There are dozens of reasons, I've herd them, I generally keep up on the news, but it doesn't feel like enough. The article is leaving me wondering what exactly we have accomplished. I'd like to see a list sometime, of what we've accomplished vs. "to do" in the middle-east. Then consider how long we've been working there. Do the math. And if it doesn't add up... I don't know.
I honestly don't have a head for politics. I know that I don't want the war to continue, and I don't think it has to, but I also don't want to pull out all the troops too soon. Is 7 years too long? Grandly, not really. But must so many troops (ours and hired) be over there?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6763865.stm
Reading that statement reminds me of a Boston Legal episode. A man from Sudan was attempting to press charges against the U.S government for their military practices. It was a long shot, the longest shot in the world. The purpose was not to win the preliminary trial, but to draw attention. The man bringing the law suit was from Sudan, and his family still lived there, but recently one of his (brothers? uncles?) was killed after the Sudan military broke into their house. He said that the media did some hype and coverage on the Sudan situation, the government said they would step in, but they have not. So the situation continues. Other countries have not stepped in because the U.S said they would handle it.
The judge questioned whose responsibility was Sudan, really? Why should the U.S be responsible for everyone? We can't fight all the wars, right all the wrongs, can we? She came to her own answer. She thought that yes, America should be responsible. Because of what we say we stand for. Because we do step in to situations that don't really involve us. Its expected now. We might not always do it the best way, or the right way, but we are there. So as with all laws, the military should remain consistant, and see their words through into action.
So this man in Afghan is thinking "Well, why can't they do it?" and I cannot find a satisfactory answer. There are dozens of reasons, I've herd them, I generally keep up on the news, but it doesn't feel like enough. The article is leaving me wondering what exactly we have accomplished. I'd like to see a list sometime, of what we've accomplished vs. "to do" in the middle-east. Then consider how long we've been working there. Do the math. And if it doesn't add up... I don't know.
I honestly don't have a head for politics. I know that I don't want the war to continue, and I don't think it has to, but I also don't want to pull out all the troops too soon. Is 7 years too long? Grandly, not really. But must so many troops (ours and hired) be over there?