If the United States was to intervene, Sierra Leone would still not know how to handle the situation on their own if this was to happen again. The only way they can learn to run their country is from learning from their mistakes. Because we chose not to send troops over, Sierra Leone is more capable of repairing the damage independently. Although it sounds cruel to disagree with trying to save lives, Sierra Leone will benefit from our lack of help in the future.
This situation is similar to the African colonies during Imperialism. When the Europeans divided up Africa and enforced their government, Africa was immediately trained to live they way the Europeans had forced them to. Today, Africa is still struggling with creating a stable government because they never really learned to do this on their own. Similarly, sending troops would have damaged Sierra Leone's chance of becoming independent in the future. I believe the United State's decision to not aid Sierra Leone was a smart one because of the impact it will have on their ability to be independent in the future.
I agree with Mel to some point. I think that yes, if we helped Sierra Leone, then it would not be able to help itself in the future. I also recognize what she said about African colonies not having a stable government today because of imperialism in the past. However, I believe that now is a crucial time for people not only as citizens of the United States or of Sierra Leone, but as citizens of the world. Now that the United States has ascended to become one of the best places to live without worrying about poverty or an unstable government, we need to help those that are in need. We do not need to imperialize Sierra Leone and control it, we simply need to send them enough food and supplies to last them for a little while, so that they can get a good foundation for the building that is their country. If the United States helps them without ruling them, then it will be okay. I watched an episode of this show on nbc a couple of months ago called "The Philanthropist" and it was about a village in Africa not wanting food and supplies from a big American company, because the village wanted to be independant. It turned out that the better choice was to give the country the supplies. If the people die from lack of food or supplies, then there is no point to having a good government, since there are no people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mel on most points of her post, however, Jeremy brought up a valid point. Although we cannot rope ourselves into the chaotic and violent warring there, we do not want these people to live in hideous poverty and die from starvation. It is a very kind-hearted decision to want to send food and other neccessities over to Sierra Leone, but it may create a more volatile environment since the rebel parties want food too. The child soldiers aren't exactly lavish eaters and I'm sure they wouldn't mind pillaging a recently supplied village for more food. It does seem selfish and inhumane to not want to get involved but Sierra Leone's government needs to, someday, be stable. The only way to try and push them along to self-dependence is to let them work out their own problems. On the flipside, however, if the horrific wars continue for a long time without any effort from their own governement, I think we should intervene. If they can't handle this soon enough, we as human beings cannot let this happen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Melanie that if the United State sent troups into Sierra Leone they would be dependant on other countries. However if they let Sierra Leone it would only get worse, sending food and water would have no point, if the people who eat and drink it are dead.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the fact that Sierra Leone's governmment woon't work peoperly if hte US help them in the war. It is true that the US will save some people from suffering and end this macabre war, but what would happen if there is another war in Sierra Leone again? Would the US help out again? Sierra Leone would rely on other countries more and more ever time if they help SIerra Leone and their government would just do nothing about it. This way, Sierra Leone won't learn anything from it. Failure always comes before success. You always gain from pains. So I think the US shouldn't actually physically send troops in Sierra Leone and fight for them. They should give the Sierra Leone's government suggestions to help them govern its country and improve it.
ReplyDeleteAlso there is no natural resource that can be gained from helping Sierra Leone. After all, it is one of the poorest countries in the world. The US fought in Iraq mainly because they wanted to get the oil as their payment. SO I think other than saving people in Sierra Leone, ther is no point of risking our men's life to get nothing back.
I think that the united states made the right decisoin not becouse of saving lives and such topics but becouse we must let countries develope and come up with there own sistum of goverment. This same type of thing happened in iraq a couple of yerss ago and we always try to force our ways onto other people even if they don't want them i think that we should help with food but not in politics.
ReplyDeleteI agree with melanie also because if we were to send troops their country would just become dependant onours and they wouldnt be able to see the signs and stop it by themselves. We would also lose many casualties if we sent our troops over there and they would only force more children to fight it would be a neverending masacure
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete