But now the United States is expected not merely to stand by allies, but also to topple governments and regimes. And to what end? More than 1,000 people lost their lives this May in protests in Iraq, the nation we "rescued" under President Bush. It is hard to make a case that America's policy of "intervene at any cost" still makes sense today.
Few other than academicians and some members of the U.S. Senate truly understand the full implications of not sending American tax dollars to arm protesters in Syria. And one might argue they know too much for their own good. The factions in Syria are diverse, and motives on all sides are murky.
Yes, there are tyrants and bullies around the globe. The poverty that hundreds of millions endure around the world is unimaginable and, in fact, truly not comprehended by most Americans.
But with so many here who cannot read or find a job, who have children with empty stomachs and little future, why are we supposed to rescue those who, ultimately, if given power, probably would dislike us as much as those they wish to replace?
Does this mean the United States should become an isolated country with a similar foreign policy? The answer is no, except in instances in which our efforts likely will not advance our nation's long-term goals and will more than likely create more enemies determined to attack us from within for our "imperialist" ways.
We have reached the point where we are in no position to be the policeman in a so-called "Arab Spring" that is unlikely to produce anything but "April showers" that lead to more "May deaths" such as those we witnessed last month in Iraq. It appears Palin is correct. We should let the authority those in such nation's ultimately respect determine their future, and that certainly is not the United States.
Jon Stewart Attempts to "Slay" Food Stamp Fraud Allegations; Misses Real Point | Christine Rousselle