"I understand the hard truth, more than you can know. However, I still wish to make 2 points. The first is that I would like to know which national interest of the US was protected in Vietnam, Bosnia and Somalia? The US went to war in those countries."
Vietnam, Bosnia and Somalia. Three different cases, so here is my take. The first example was the defense of South Vietnam. This was one of the two major 'hot' fronts in the Cold war against the communist empire of the Soviet Union, the other being South Korea. The ability to confront the Soviet Union strategically was limited on the nuclear front by the number of nuclear warheads built by both sides, with MAD being ethos of the decades-long direct military standoff. After the Cuban Missile crisis, the USSR had been embarrassed by the US Naval embargo of Cuba and decided to try to challenge the United States Navy at sea with a massive and expensive naval buildup of their own. However, the US found a way to confront the USSR through its communist proxy in North Vietnam in the southeast Asia conflict. The US was still reserving its 'Sunday punch' for any conflict with the USSR in Europe, seeing the conflict in South Vietnam as a sideshow, just a way of slowing or stopping the spread of communist dictatorships just as the US and Allies had in South Korea. The cold war confrontation from the late 1940s to the early 1990s against the Soviet Union cost the United States over 115,000 lives and 13 trillion dollars, with a somewhat substantial portion of those lives and treasure being spent in Vietnam. It was a way for the United States to apply its economic power against that of the USSR, as North Vietnam did not have the resources to compete with United States. Unlike their capital intensive naval buildup, large portions of the GDP of the USSR went to subside the North Vietnamese, and were destroyed in that conflict. Trucks, tanks, APCs, artillery, SAMs, aircraft, engines, parts, rifles, ammunition, POL, economic credits, food, etc were all provided primarily by the USSR to North Vietnam. Much of it was destroyed before the North Vietnamese army victory over the South Vietnamese in 1975; good news for the communists of the North, but at a very great economic cost to the USSR, which they could ill afford. The strategic import of the conflict in Vietnam to the United States was to continue the cold war conflict with the USSR, resist and make costly any territorial encroachment, make hollow the economy of the USSR by forcing them to spend their limited hard currency in support of their attempted worldwide Marxist empire with nonrecoverable or sustaining expenditures. South Vietnam did fall, at great economic cost to the Soviet Union.
Bosnia and Somalia. Well Somalia was an emergency food delivery mission gone bad. Not intended to be much different from what the US has done in Haiti a few times. The Clinton Administration let mission creep overtake the effort, and when US casualties resulted pulled back from the 'multinational' effort as fast as they could do so. There was no strategic interest in Somalia at the time, today it might have some attention due to the 'War on Terror'. Bosnia was important only as far as it allowed NATO to have relevance in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet empire. This concern about NATO was due to the fact that the European powers could not seem to successfully confront a mini-rerun of the 1940s fascism which had killed so many millions when it went unopposed in 1940s Europe. Outside of the military and political structure of NATO, the sadly laughable incompetence of the major European powers was on display for all to see and forced the United States to step into the situation since the only strategic import to the United States was to demonstrate the viability of NATO and its continued US leadership to the post-Soviet world. It became strategically important to the United States for the European nations to succeed under the umbrella of the US led NATO to ensure the appearance of the viability of their military and political contribution to European continental security. Once this 'competence' was demonstrated, the rationale for reducing the US military footprint in Europe would be strengthened.
"I do disagree with your statements of "stupid" and "no sympathy". Those are cruel, hard statements to make. Have you ever had to leave your country, culture, family and life behind? I guarantee you it is not easy, and requires resourcefulness, opportunity, courage and faith, and all the help you can get, and not all those people have it at their disposal."
The statements are not cruel, they are truthful. Unforeseen problems which overtake individuals engender sympathy. A hurricane or tornado hits destroys a populated area, generates sympathy and assistance for example. A major storm which wrecks houses built right on an Atlantic beach-front, or when new houses are built on land directly underneath a long-existing airport flight path do not generate that same sympathetic response. Some things in life are foreseeable.
While I myself have not had to uproot from my home, my ancestors who arrived in the 1600 and 1700s did have to leave all behind to come here to what is now the United States. It is the story of America, and we welcome others to give it a try. Look where it got us...
However, God does have a sense of irony. Given all the economic and social problems African nations currently have, where affliction and hardship go, He also sends strength. A case in point is the gradual destruction of my denomination the Episcopal Church in the aforesaid materially well-off United States. The division over the ordination to the priesthood of women and gays has led to the much publicized split between the large liberal and smaller more traditional wings of the Anglican Church. The traditionalists have been fortunate enough to have the support of the Anglican Bishops of our African brethren from Uganda and other African nations. This is important as the Anglican Church recognizes the authority of its Bishops in the creation of new congregations and the ordination of new priests. Without this vital support the traditional Episcopalians would either default back to the Roman Catholic church, or wither away completely. Given the prevalence of animists and Muslims on the African continent, it takes great strength of character to become and stay an adherent of one of the lesser branches of the Christian faith. The successful advent of democratic capitalism on a continent as rich as Africa combined with a resolute faith and self-disipline would led to great advances and wealth in the future. Let the twin fevers of Marxism and tribal dictatorship burn themselves out and there is a bright future ahead. Until that time the whites of Africa should expect to relocate as envy is a human fault not restricted just to the current situation in Africa.
Best of luck.
dvwjr
We should all pray that christianity grows even faster than it is already and overtakes tribalism and more importantly islam.