From studying Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore and the expository text by John Pilger Freedom Next Time, we have been constantly reminded how American involvement is destroying the world of the countries ‘invaded’. But the word ‘invaded’ in my opinion is far too strong, the messages we have been sent from these two texts is that the involvement of American forces is further adding to the troubles in these countries, but is it really?
At what extent is the US damaging these places? Or is it that they are the only body who can police and control these areas. From this the US take it upon themselves to protect these nations from evil as they are the only ones able to do so. The way these texts portray the destruction made by the forces is concerning as these countries are firstly unable to defend or protect themselves and as a consequence the US take the leadership position of the globe to mediate these countries for the development of the world. If the US weren’t taking this role on, what position would these countries be in? At current state the governments of these countries don’t have sufficient military and social power to impact on the evils they face and hence would not be able to make an impact like the US forces can do immediately.
From previous atrocities that have impacted on the world it is evident that the United Nations don’t want to protect the globe and its stability and this has been shown through September 11, Middle Eastern Battles and the blood baths in Bangkok of recent times. With this lack of response and policing from the most respected global crime unit, it is evident that the US must take on this role to protect the well being of civilisation.
Even though both Pilger and Moore present ghastly statistics of the amount of deaths in areas of the Middle East due to US forces we can not underestimate the amount of deaths saved by the US by intervening in these nations. The two men use a range of techniques in order to influence the viewer similar to these statistics but common sense says that any intervention is better than none and that by standing up to these war lords and war criminals thousands of lives will be saved.
Other issues raised by Pilger include how the involvement in these countries is solely for the economic benefits. But realistically we must be reminded how war is the most deadly form of combat and if US soldiers didn’t see why they were invading they wouldn’t be there and hence the idea of humanity and its improvement must be considered. Along with this it is quite possible that the US may benefit economically but if the US is the only organisation in the world that can control these parts of the globe then possibly they deserve to reap the rewards from their leadership shown. It’s not like we criticise sporting captains who reap economic rewards for taking on leadership roles, because we understand the extra responsibilities involved. As a consequence US interventions can be considered to be of a similar leadership idea.
By understanding how the American government is taking on the leadership role of the globe to protect stability and sustainability we can see how their involvement is for the benefit of civilisation. John Pilger and Michael Moore even though very persuasive don’t recognise the fact that this body is the only one who can make an impact in these countries and how this impact is better than no impact at all. A different view needs to be taken in society to respect the work of the US government rather than to condemn them.
No comments:
Post a Comment