A THOUGHT FOR NOW - WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, WE CANNOT DELEGATE THE NAVIGATION OF OUR FATE TO OTHERS!

As sentient and, for most of us probably most of the times, compassionate humans, it is not surprising that we should express our compassion and concern for other less fortunate humans in great numbers.

We do not like to see people being harmed, being oppressed or exploited, so, when we see this happening, we tend to make much ado of it. We demand that our government does something about it. Take some action to end it, and to do so immediately or as quickly as possible.

We have seen this over the ages, probably especially since the 1960s, whether it be the Vietnam War, the Liberation wars in Southern Africa, the independence struggles in the former British and French colonies in Africa and the Middle East, or, more recently, the Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Israel/Palestine conflicts. Sane people do not take pleasure in people dying and being maimed, even when they are devils like the followers of Daesh/Isil. 

And even in situations where we apparently contradict ourselves, by arguing for military intervention, on the pretext or believe that killing the people we and/or others have designated the 'the enemy' or 'the bad guys', will result in the best outcome or, for the more discerning amongst us, the 'lesser evil' or 'the least detrimental outcome.'

And so it is, that, if our government does not have the control or power to do so, then we insist that it acquired such control and power; immediately, so that this 'injustice', this 'slaughter', this 'barbarity' can be stopped immediately.

Yes, there are times when we expect the impossible from our governments, in it stopping some occurring catastrophe.
With the assistance of our governments and the dominant influencers and manipulators of 'public opinion', we, oftentimes, passively and even imperceptibly, 'receive' and act on the 'message of who is right and who is wrong' in the particular issue, or conflict or wars. The 'received view' which is reinforced by the relevant 'responsible and official media and spokespersons.' Yes, the propaganda of the protagonists.

In general, us humans are not very good at intervening before things get out of hand, as it were. Instead, the clamour for action by the indoctrinated public usually takes place after the conflict, the killing, the maiming and the destruction has started. Not surprisingly, it is at that stage when the preferred response or reaction tends to be, ironic as it really is, for our governments to intervene by 'attacking the 'bad guys', the 'the people or side which is responsible for the killing and the destruction.' 

Of course, too often, such a governmental or elitist orchestrated response tends to make the situation worse than it might otherwise have been. Being, the equivalent of trying to put out a forest fire by dropping bombs on it, with the hope that it will obliterate it. Of course, there is always the risk of lighted embers setting of new fires somewhere else in the region.

And so it seems to me, that, especially for the people of the more affluent and developed western nations, you cannot expect to bring 'democracy', 'justice', 'freedom' and, yes, secularity, to other countries by the exercise of military might and force of arms, whether directly applied, or applied through proxy armies.

With the affluent western nations having achieved a good standard of economic freedom and independence, it is probably only natural that they should have what is probably an obsession with the proliferation of 'democracy' and 'freedom of expression', et al. But there needs to be this realisation that the quest for these 'values' are not the priority of the poorer and more destitute populace of the world, who are endeavouring to achieve 'freedom from poverty and economic destitution.' 

We should not be surprised if people who are weighted down with poverty have a different mindset from the people living in the more advanced and industrialised world. Yet, both share a common humanity, and a desire and aspiration to be freed from the oppression of poverty. 

However, with the people of the advanced industrialised and mostly northern countries having achieved that goal, as well as more enlightened and societies, they are at risk of foisting the realisation of the latter on the rest of the world, as 'the priority.' Even though, arguably, they, the more advanced western countries, could probably not have achieved their more enlightened societies, had it not been preceded by the achievement of of their freedom from poverty and economic advancement. 

It is greater economic freedom, which gives rise to greater enlightenment and societal advancement, and not the other way around. At best, it would be desirable if both objectives could be achieved simultaneously, but, if not, it is more than likely that most people would prioritise being freed from economic oppression and destitution.