Solidarity the chameleon

Solidarity the chameleon

Politically correct??????
It is one of the strangest things in modern society. If, for some vague reason, politicians are convinced of something, or want to push it through, than everybody is supposed to think the same. It is a kind of mind-terrorism. Take the political idea of solidarity. Everyone, according to the politicians, should feel solidarity with whatever the politicians see necessary. However, most of the times it is used as an excuse to silence public opinion.

In the Netherlands, for example, it was used to send Dutch policemen and soldiers to Afghanistan to train people over there to become a policeman. Talk to people in the street, and you get the idea that the politicians are living on a planet called “deceive”. The average man in the street is not so sure about the necessity of such a mission. To start with the fact that you can not produce a policeman in 16 weeks of training, besides that, people wonder about the costs of such an operation, they know very well that it is the taxpayer that is financing a very doubtful operation. How to make reliable police officers in a country where corruption is a normal fact of live and where politicians have their own rules concerning (democratic) elections and often have connections in the drugs trade or are traders themselves.

We are bringing “democracy” to that country, according to our politicians. Democracy to a country that lives in tribal traditions and where most of the population haven’t got a clue about Western democracy. This time our politicians are living on planet “dream-on”. But don’t forget it is a nice life on planet “dream-on”, because someone else is paying all the bills and the only thing you have to do, is put on a very serious face and declare that it is a matter of international solidarity and very important for the democratic development of that country.

What is wrong with our world? States are drowning in their debts and still they dive into very expensive adventures like Afghanistan and Libya, all in the name of democracy. It reminds me of the United States, entering the First World War (1914 – 1918), also in the name of democracy. Correct me if I am wrong, but one of the reasons of the United States was that they were very concerned about the enormous amount of money they had lent to Great Britain and France and the only way to secure those loans was to join the Great War. Or is it not politically correct to say things like this?