Strife

Watching the world burn

American foreign policy is a curious creature.
Ever evolved from the once meek isolationist country it once was.
The nation has accomplished great things for itself as well as the opposing foreign country who we took an interest in.
Our involvement in the Korean war, whatever the reasons, brought out a great outcome for the South Korean people;  the eventual creation of an extremely powerful country. Lest we also forget the countless aid we have given to improvised countries or in events of natural and man-made disasters
The sword swings the other way as well, with such stains on the American flag as the Iran-contra scandal, marines in Mogadishu and supporting plenty of unpleasant dictators or terrorist at some point.

Basically this nation has done it’s far deeds of good rebuilding nations and promoting powerful capitalistic ideals that have caused certain nations to become incredible world powers however there in the shadow of this proud flag lies countless bodies and broken nations.

How is it that we have not learned from our violent mistakes? Is there a sort of corruption within the governmental spectrum that has influenced the nation to partake in these dirty wars? I believe to a certain degree, yes.

My first instinct is to promote reverting back to an isolationist policy to fix the serious domestic problems rather than pissing away all the money in international causes.  However this approach to foreign affairs cannot work in this era.
As technology improves we are further connected to people all around the world whether they be our Mexican neighbors to the south or some farmer in Kazakhstan, individuals are more in tune to how the world is turning internationally.

Such is the case with the situation in Haiti as of now. Thanks to countless media outlets, the out pouring of news has resulted in an outpouring of donations from the American people themselves that has actually surpassed the amount the government has promised to aid.
With all of this on the news there is a certain degree of enlightenment for the masses who might have been ignorant of the terrible poverty and violence that has plagued Haiti for far too long.

It is common knowledge that simply giving a poor country some money for food and shelter will solve nothing in the long run, rather a need for a drastic infrastructural change is required. Many countries similar in poverty level to Haiti have the potential to rise as a nation if the proper political and economic changes occur.
Although I would love to say that we could simply influence the people to create the change themselves, their will always be those wonderful dictatorial governments, cartels and mobs that aim to keep the working class bowing there heads.

It is my personal belief as well that we cannot simply waste our time and resources on actions that yield no viable results.  Which is also the same belief that certain people had when invading a certain raq-i (get it?) country.  I don’t believe there is anything wrong with this as a belief however the action in which it is carried out is crucial to the national ethics.
War, oppression and all of the components that go hand in hand are the root cause of animosity for the United States. Since our hand has been caught in the cookie jar far too many times, we have subsequently made enemies.
I believe that this hateful method can be avoided by us avoiding these tyrannical governments and dealing with its people in a positive sense.
A well fed, educated and secure people will not stand for their own oppression and strive for better living standards by upheaval through the political body.

I’m not the smartest man in the world. I’m your average 20-year-old dude. This is simply what seems logical to me. If this nation uses its resources for helping these underprivileged people by giving them food, education and security not war and corruption the effects would be overwhelmingly positive. There could be generations of people who are appreciative of a positive American intervention. It spells out more than good diplomatic relations but also economic prospects that aren’t mixed with the blood of others.

Could this idea have worked for Iraq instead of the United States plowing through them? I’m not sure cause I’m just a simple guy trying to make some simple sense of what I hear and see. There are so many complexities that foreign policy entails now. This entry alone is an extremely over simplified and cluttered mess that is only a small fraction of what foreign policy really entails. I’m pointing the shell of a handgun in the right direction, it’s just missing a lot of the parts, and of course the bullets.

---