Yes, you have 20,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan.
Oh! You’re peacekeeping in Germany and the Republic of Korea? Wow, I didn’t realise they needed peacekeeping.
Yes, you have military bases in those countries, it is not similar to that of Afghanistan, where there are still attacks, though mainly in the southern most province - Or Iraq, where constantly, on a daily basis, there are attacks - This, and only this, is what I was referring to, not “military bases”, or “installations”. But hey, if Germany comes under attack from Neo-Nazis and Communists, I’ll be the first one to say “I was wrong!” - but until then, I fail to see an adequate similarity.
Yes, I know America, and many other countries are protesting. I guess it was my fault for letting on that I didn’t know otherwise. You certainly do not control them, but you can not justify going to the opposite end of the spectrum, and distancing yourself largely from that nation, a nation which you changed the course of, by invading, and changing its government. If you do that, you are responsible for intervening in another country, you are responsible for how that government acts in the future, if you help a country, then a year down the line it massacres 10,000,000 people, you can hardly say "Oh, wasn’t our fault!
" - Why? Because without you, there would’ve been a different government, which may or may not have been as despotic (Taking into account that at the start, the government set up was not despotic, but later turned on its people - as a hypothetical example)
It is your responsibility to see that a country, a country which you intervened in, which makes you responsible, does not oppress its people, any of its people. Whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Atheist anything!
What of the genocidal acts in Africa? In my opinion, the colonial powers, which once ruled these territories, and America, the worlds foremost economic and military superpower, should take responsibility for seeing that these acts stop, and do not re-occur - why should it be different in a country, in which America’s responsible for the creation of the government?
I wouldn’t be as critical, were it ten or so years down the line - Why? Because it wasn’t the initial government, it obviously wouldn’t have the fresh new links with America, it would have changed over time, over different elections. Take for example when a colonial power decides to pull out, and instead of seeing that the government is capable, stable and not oppresive, they just pull out, causing the government to collapes, which may cause a civil war, which may in turn cause genocide and the like - That country, which was responsible for the creation of that government, failed to make adequate measures to stop civil war, genocide and oppression. Now, of course, it’s only a similarity, in the fact of a newly created government, while it is common opinion that colonial powers pit different racial, or religious groups against eachother, therefore causing the problems - Though it can be said that America chose a form of government - democracy, and imposed it on that government, those that are not in power oppose those that are in power and therefore, through the legal term of causation, America could be held responsible, like in the example I stated above. Though, I’ll just say that these last few lines, starting at “Though”, were just last minute additions to this, and are only thoughts and ramblings on, I’m not saying: “Yes! America’s responsible, destroy the capitalist beast!” or anything like that, heheh.
Just a simple thought, relating to causation, and the example of colonial powers above.
