Don't support the suppliers of gases
I'm guessing that this resolution to our Mid East problems has been kicked around, but would probably cost our illustrious military-industrial industry some distress.
How about not supporting the folks who supplied the deadly gases? We prosecute the "suppliers" in drugs, why not go after the "suppliers" of deadly weapons? We really can't control the outcome there. Do we really need to contribute to the chaos there or should we try to limit the amount of damage that will occur because of the chaos?
I know that there are many nations who supply "weapons of mass destruction," but do we really need to be one of them? But I think most of us would prefer not to be known as one of those suppliers. As one train of thought for controlling drug abuse, that we go after the suppliers not the users, I think that may be a better way than going after a country that doesn't have a cohesive government.
So here's the options, as simple as they may be, to getting ourselves out of the Mid East morass. Let the region settle its differences according to the will of the people, which of course means that we may face hostile governments. Basically, we deal with the winners. The second option would be to reduce them all to the Stone Age and see what happens.
We do not have any leverage on what's happening on other continents. When we held all the cards as far as weapons and such, we could affect government in other countries, however, now, they can get all they need from other countries because we sold them the ability to do that.
What should be our response to these countries that are neither scared of us nor beholding to us? Why should we be involved in their politics?
Mary T. Gaudio