 So as you all know, it's currently the case that the U.S. government, Donald Trump's administration, as well as cable news, they're trying to build a case as to why we should intervene in Venezuela. No, they may not necessarily say that we should intervene militarily, overly, but intervene in whatever sense we possibly can, whether it's sanctions, whether it is, you know, doing something that undermines that government and how they try to sell this to us, is they say, look, this is a humanitarian issue. If you care about human rights, then how could you not want us to step in and save the Venezuelan people from oppression? Well, here's why. Let me share a story with you. This is from Jessica Corbett of Common Dreams in an unprecedented revelation that highlights the consequences of the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan. The United Nations announced Wednesday that the U.S.-backed forces killed more Afghan civilians than the Taliban and other armed anti-government groups did in the first three months of the year. A new quarterly report from the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan shows that pro-government forces, including both Afghan and international troops, killed 305 civilians from January to the end of March. That compared with 227 civilians killed by anti-government elements, such as the Taliban and ISIS. There were 49 unattributable deaths, which includes those caught in crossfire. Now, when you look at the bar graph that was referenced in this article, as you can see, U.S.-backed forces killed a majority at 53% of all deaths within the first quarter of 2019. That's 305 people. Anti-government forces killed 39%. And the unattributable deaths currently sit at 8% overall. And that's 49 deaths in total. So this is exactly why you should never believe the U.S. government and cable news pundits when they tell you that we need to intervene for humanitarian reasons. Because when we do that, we just make matters worse. Now, theoretically speaking, I would be in favor of humanitarian intervention. In the event I actually had any trust in the U.S. government, but I don't. Currently, there is a genocide going on in Myanmar against Rohingya Muslims. In an ideal world, I would love the U.S. government to step in and get them to stop that. But do I trust that the government could actually do that? No, they'd only make matters worse. So understand that the reality of the situation is that if somebody tells you we need to intervene for humanitarian reasons, we're just going to make matters worse. Now you can argue along the lines of the Sam Harris defense and say, well, our intentions are pure. We're never trying to kill more people. It doesn't matter. Functionally, if we cause more harm than good by intervening, our stance should by default be don't intervene. Just be non-interventionist. Because even if it makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable to sit by and see things happen in the world that I would like to stop, understand that when you say the U.S. government should intervene, you're a greenlighting more deaths and destruction. Because that's what our military causes. Now understand this. As commander-in-chief, the buck stops with Donald Trump. The buck stops with him. He is in the most powerful position in the world. And he could stop all of this. But he has not. And in fact, his actions have exacerbated the problem. Why? Because he's literally taken action to loosen the rules of engagement when it comes to air wars, drones, for example. So our bombing since he took office has become increasingly indiscriminate and opaque. So this is the result of Donald Trump's policies. He also increased drone strikes by 400%. His very first military raid led to the death of an American girl. So there is absolutely no justification for American wars, including humanitarian wars, because there's no such thing as a humanitarian war if the U.S. is getting involved. That's just the reality. And shout out to Tulsi Gabbard, who actually states this very explicitly. There's no such thing as a humanitarian war. Humanitarian wars is basically used to justify intervention that ends up leading to more devastation and deaths than if we just left it alone. Because remember, what was the argument? You know, in addition to weapons of mass destruction, once they couldn't make that argument when the evidence didn't pan out, they were saying, well, you know, Saddam Hussein is a very bad person. He's oppressing his people. They said the same thing about Gaddafi and Libya. And if you look at those situations, we made matters worse. We catalyzed a civil war in Iraq in Libya. They literally have open slave trades now because of us. Now, that's not to say that Gaddafi was a wonderful person, but did he bring stability? Could he have prevented literally slave trades and slave markets? Yeah. So the point that I want to get across to people is that we need to mind our own business. Mind our own business. Because, again, I'd love to say that I trust that my government could do good. I'd love to say that my government could intervene and stop atrocities from happening. But the fact of the matter is that they can't. And they don't often by choice. They just make matters worse. They exacerbate conflict. And even if they try to do something where they don't get directly involved, they end up arming the wrong people. And it's clear that nobody understands what's happening in these foreign countries. The amount of intelligence that you receive, the amount of experts you get does not give you a crystal ball to be able to anticipate the ramifications of our military action in these countries. So with that being said, we just can't do it. We can't intervene. So I really hope that Americans start learning, and I think most already know this, that humanitarian wars and the plea for humanitarian intervention, it's a red herring. It's a Trojan horse for us to intervene and do more harm than good.