Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
Saddam was a direct threat to us...
Though I do agree if we could, then we should have helped those people. But, we don't have enough resources too (our military's in Iraq), and we can't help everybody at once.
Don't even open that can of worms. Russia was a direct threat to the US in the 1950s and 60s. The only reason we stomped Saddam is because we knew we could.
As far as aiding the crisis in Sudan... Obviously the way humanitarian and peace-keeping missions are handled.. well. It's one giant cluster-****. The UN is certainly more effective than the League of Nations, but it is painfully apparent that greater steps need to be taken. The First-World countries need to show more unity. We cannot operate with fear of bringing other nations to our level. We have to forget capitalism and nationalism for a moment and remember that we are indeed talking about real people here.
These situations needs to be split up, analyzed, and addressed. The US cannot be expected to handle every foreign affair. No one country is capable of helping all countries in the world. But the philosophy of "If you can't help everyone, help no one" does not make any sense. These are
people we're talking about. If we, as America, help one country get on its feet, that country may help another.. so on and so forth.
The problem is that we're allowing the cor-political to cloud our moral compass.
This is probably less than coherent. I'm about to vomit/pass out. But I think you'll all be able to catch my general drift.