You get to wondering about one thing and it leads to another
I was thinking about Egypt this morning. I don't know much about what is going on in Egypt other than that their military has taken over and if you are there you'll soon pay a price at the gates of hell if you're someone the military doesn't care for. Never the less I'm sure there either have been or soon will be calls for us to intervien. With luck this will be a stupid move that we at least narrowly avoid.
And that got me to wondering, just what are we doing in the Middle East at all? We've got our military out there from the border of Pakistan and India all the way to the Sahara. Why? Its not to stabalize governments, hell when we show up they fall to pieces. Its not to take anyone's oil, its not even to insure the availability of oil - who every has the crude is going to sell it on the world market one way or another and a ship at sea will always take its cargo to sell at the richest port. I won't even entertain the joke that says we are there to promote freedom or human rights. So I don't know why the hell we have some many "warriors" spread all around the globe.
So then I figured we need a new rule. The rule came to me while preping for tonight's dinner (Shrimp creole, brown rice). Here it is, Congress should pass a law limiting the number of military personel stationed (for 30 days or more) in any country against which the Congress has not declaired war to the number of employees of the State Department concurrently has stationed in that country.
It just seems right that if we aren't at war with a country that we should have at least as many diplomats there as we do soldiers. By the way, I'd count every drone as 1,000 troops and every submarine and carrier group within striking distance as 1,000,000.
= new reply since forum marked as read
