Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Isolationism / Intervention Thread (Split from 2012 Presidential Election Thread)

  1. #1
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1

    Isolationism / Intervention Thread (Split from 2012 Presidential Election Thread)

    Yeah, I was kind of irritated that they all fell into the gay marriage/muslim-in-administration traps. Stick to the economy, folks!!!

    Ron Paul was actually not bad in some parts, until he went on his isolationist rant. Go put on your tin-foil hat and buzz off to la-la-libertarian land. Whenever we try isolationism in the real world, we end up getting attacked. (i.e. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc.)

    Santorum wasn't bad, but I don't think a guy that couldn't hold on to his Senate seat in 2006 and is too focused on social issues will be able to beat Obama.

    I almost forgot that Gingrich was there half the time. He knows his stuff though and thinks and speaks intelligently and I still like that about him.

    I like Herman Cain, but I think he'd be better in Congress or something. Great debater, but not quite fit for the presidency. And his digging himself a hole with the muslim thing was not good.

    Michelle Bachmann was surprisingly good. A good introduction to the nation. And like Sarah, I like her as a person and what she stands for, and I like her passion, but her views are a little too right for a center-right nation. She's also not quite ready for the presidency.

    Tim Pawlenty...eh. I didn't know what to make of him. It sounded like he was always on the defense and I just didn't see that presidential confidence.

    Mitt Romney definitely appeared confident and presidential. However, I'd still like to see more from him. He seemed a little guarded, and maybe it's because we're still in the beginning here, but I felt like he had more to say.

    As for the debate itself...awful. Jon King needs to shut up and quit interrupting people. And CNN needs to quit being a bunch of weasels and zoom in on the few people yawning or looking bored in the audience. It would have been a much better conversation and dialogue if the candidates could actually complete their thoughts.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  2. #2
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,392
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Ron Paul was actually not bad in some parts, until he went on his isolationist rant. Go put on your tin-foil hat and buzz off to la-la-libertarian land. Whenever we try isolationism in the real world, we end up getting attacked. (i.e. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc.)
    Going to have to call you out on this one, IP. The events leading to Pearl Harbor involved a US embargo on gasoline to Japan, which was about 80% of their supply. But there was also an embargo from the UK and West Indies, and it was based on the expansionist policy of the Japanese.

    But... Paul has repeatedly stated he wants non-intervention, not isolationism. And really, at this point, I'm not sure we trade enough of anything to cause such a crisis in another country...

    Now 9/11 is exactly the opposite of your assertion. It's our presence overseas, according to them, that drive them to attack us.

    We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine . This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel. -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
    Couldn't be more clear to me. And there are many similar quotes...
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

  3. #3
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by Mastiff View post
    Going to have to call you out on this one, IP. The events leading to Pearl Harbor involved a US embargo on gasoline to Japan, which was about 80% of their supply. But there was also an embargo from the UK and West Indies, and it was based on the expansionist policy of the Japanese.

    But... Paul has repeatedly stated he wants non-intervention, not isolationism. And really, at this point, I'm not sure we trade enough of anything to cause such a crisis in another country...

    Now 9/11 is exactly the opposite of your assertion. It's our presence overseas, according to them, that drive them to attack us.



    Couldn't be more clear to me. And there are many similar quotes...
    Well, I suppose we could have just sat back and let the Japanese continue to massacre the Chinese and invade all of Asia without doing anything about it, and we could have let Germany take over the rest of the world without doing anything about it, and we could have let al-qaida continue to terrorize the Israelis until they are driven out of their country.

    The Ron Paul strategy is all fun and games until the rest of the world is run by dictators and terrorists.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  4. #4
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    10,119
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    The Ron Paul strategy is all fun and games until the rest of the world is run by dictators and terrorists.
    If we didn't trade with certain countries and had enough money to finance our own endeavors, no one would be able to compete with us. You think terrorists can self finance themselves? I don't think so. They get money through our aide to countries trickling down to them.

    I also find it a very far jump to go from today and our current policies to the world being run by dictators if we follow Mr. Paul's train of thought. Huge jump. Impossible jump.

    Although we should promote democracy across the world - Mr. Paul is saying that we shouldn't be the enforcer of it. Not isolationism - non-interventionism. Two very different concepts.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  5. #5
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    If we didn't trade with certain countries and had enough money to finance our own endeavors, no one would be able to compete with us. You think terrorists can self finance themselves? I don't think so. They get money through our aide to countries trickling down to them.
    Yes, but we should be able to trade freely with other countries...that's our free choice. Americans should not be blamed because there are truly sick and evil people that use global resources to attack innocent civilians.

    I also find it a very far jump to go from today and our current policies to the world being run by dictators if we follow Mr. Paul's train of thought. Huge jump. Impossible jump.
    It's not an impossible jump. Yes, today, is a different world. But my point is that had we employed Mr. Paul's non-interventionist/isolationist/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it policies in the 1940s, dicators would have continued to take over other countries, and probably much of the world, if it weren't for powerful countries like the USA doing something about it.

    Although we should promote democracy across the world - Mr. Paul is saying that we shouldn't be the enforcer of it. Not isolationism - non-interventionism. Two very different concepts.
    Someone's got to do something about it. And as one of the few countries wealthy and powerful enough to stick up for the little guy, we should, particularly when we have interests in areas that are falling to the bad guys that won't cooperate on the world stage.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  6. #6
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    10,119
    I love back and forths

    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Yes, but we should be able to trade freely with other countries...that's our free choice. Americans should not be blamed because there are truly sick and evil people that use global resources to attack innocent civilians.
    Sure it is our choice. Just like it is their choice to trade with us. Do we get to decide how people view us? We are blamed by many in the world because we are pretty arrogant. Not saying that it is bad thing... but I know how I feel about arrogant people.


    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    It's not an impossible jump. Yes, today, is a different world. But my point is that had we employed Mr. Paul's non-interventionist/isolationist/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it policies in the 1940s, dicators would have continued to take over other countries, and probably much of the world, if it weren't for powerful countries like the USA doing something about it.
    Impossible is a bad word, because obviously anything is possible. I think there were a few more complex issues at hand with WW2 than the war on terror or the "whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it" war.

    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Someone's got to do something about it. And as one of the few countries wealthy and powerful enough to stick up for the little guy, we should, particularly when we have interests in areas that are falling to the bad guys that won't cooperate on the world stage.
    I would say maybe if we weren't in an economic bind. So it is okay to make our citizens "safe" from whatever evil you seem to think will get us if we shrink our military, but you are not okay with providing social programs with "money we don't have".

    If you want to argue that we should cut the size of government - the #1 thing that would shrink the government is the military. If you want to argue that we need to cut instead of tax, the largest (widely unregulated) spending item is the military.

    Pick a concept and stick with it. You can't be picky and choosey with your idea, or it seems disingenuous.

    If it came down to cutting peoples retirements/funding federal programs/welfare/medicaid/etc. or spending another day in Afghanistan - shouldn't be be picking the one that directly helps our citizens? Isn't THAT a better use of our tax dollars?


    ------------

    Mods can we move this conversation to the political discussion thread - we kind of got off topic.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  7. #7
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    Sure it is our choice. Just like it is their choice to trade with us. Do we get to decide how people view us? We are blamed by many in the world because we are pretty arrogant. Not saying that it is bad thing... but I know how I feel about arrogant people.

    Impossible is a bad word, because obviously anything is possible. I think there were a few more complex issues at hand with WW2 than the war on terror or the "whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it" war.

    I would say maybe if we weren't in an economic bind. So it is okay to make our citizens "safe" from whatever evil you seem to think will get us if we shrink our military, but you are not okay with providing social programs with "money we don't have".

    If you want to argue that we should cut the size of government - the #1 thing that would shrink the government is the military. If you want to argue that we need to cut instead of tax, the largest (widely unregulated) spending item is the military.

    Pick a concept and stick with it. You can't be picky and choosey with your idea, or it seems disingenuous.

    If it came down to cutting peoples retirements/funding federal programs/welfare/medicaid/etc. or spending another day in Afghanistan - shouldn't be be picking the one that directly helps our citizens? Isn't THAT a better use of our tax dollars?
    Whoa, whoa, whoa...way to go making assumptions about me and what I believe and veer this thread waayyyy off topic. These issues are too complex for me to subscribe to a black-and-white ideological terms of thinking. Which is why I don't think we should completely withdraw our forces from the world like Ron Paul would have us do. Should we make cuts to the defense budget?...absolutely! Should we make cuts to social programs?...it depends. Regardless, in any situation when cuts are made and budgets are evaluated, we need to seriously evaluate the success of programs, the cost-effectiveness of programs, the replication of programs, and so forth. If we are spending too much in a certain area, see if there's a much cheaper way of doing it. If we are spending billions of dollars on equipment we're not even using...maybe time to re-evaluate capital expenditures. If services are being needlessly replicated by multiple departments, consolidate the program into one department. Getting this thread back on topic, I think Mitt Romney's the kind of guy that will look things over and make a fair analysis and then take action, after considering all things, regardelss of ideology.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  8. #8
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Off-topic:
    Military spending is currently around 5% of GDP, which is smaller, as a percentage of our GDP, than it was during most of the Cold War, especially during the Vietnam War (when it flirted with 10% of GDP). Defense spending takes about 50% share of the discretionary spending in the federal budget, and discretionary spending is about 40% of federal spending. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid constitute 43% of federal spending, and the rest is made up of mandatory expenses and interest payments.

    My point is... statistics about defense spending are often misleading and depending on how you interpret them can be used to support very different outcomes/goals. Hink's right in directing the conversation from a numbers game to a moral/philosophical one, since that's what it is at heart, anyways. Number-crunching without an overlying mission statement/goal only leads people in circles.

  9. #9
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,392
    Off-topic:
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Well, I suppose we could have just sat back and let the Japanese continue to massacre the Chinese and invade all of Asia without doing anything about it, and we could have let Germany take over the rest of the world without doing anything about it, and we could have let al-qaida continue to terrorize the Israelis until they are driven out of their country.
    I said none of those things. And, we were non-interventionist in WWII until Pearl Harbor, and the country was fine with it. And if you haven't figured out that Israeli relations are all about getting elected, you should look into it.

    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    The Ron Paul strategy is all fun and games until the rest of the world is run by dictators and terrorists.
    The U.S. government doesn't care that the rest of the world is run by dictators and terrorists, as long as they're friendly to us. Want examples? Here's a quick run-down from Third World Traveler:

    Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria
    Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda
    Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia
    Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba
    Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal ----------------------------Brunei
    Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa
    Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil
    Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti
    Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala
    Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan
    Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras
    Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador
    Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam
    Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia
    Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti
    Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti
    Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia
    Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain
    Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany
    Hassan II-------------------------------------------Morocco
    Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines
    Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador
    Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire
    Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama
    Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey
    Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran
    Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece
    Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea
    Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile
    Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia
    Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji
    Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala
    Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia
    Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal
    Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua
    Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua
    Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia
    Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay
    Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia
    Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic
    Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina
    Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan

    Oh, and terrorists? Who do you think armed and trained bin Laden? And if you do a quick search on US trained terrorists (including Palestinians who attack Israel) you'll find lots of information.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

  10. #10
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1
    Off-topic:
    Quote Originally posted by Mastiff View post
    I said none of those things. And, we were non-interventionist in WWII until Pearl Harbor, and the country was fine with it. And if you haven't figured out that Israeli relations are all about getting elected, you should look into it.
    The country was not fine with getting attacked at Pearl Harbor though. Are you really willing to be non-interventionist if it means that attacks killing thousands of people on our soil could still occur? Do you really think that countries are just going to leave us alone, so long as we withdraw from the world militarily? It's naive. We're a big target because we're the becaon for freedom and free enterprise and have the world's largest economy. People are envious of that and jealousy leads to hate. Everyone always wants to see if they can take down the giant.

    The U.S. government doesn't care that the rest of the world is run by dictators and terrorists, as long as they're friendly to us. Want examples? Here's a quick run-down from Third World Traveler:
    I don't see the dictators you mentioned as acting aggressive towards other nations, making large efforts to annex every other country, kill their people, and take over the whole world. Because of that, they don't serve as a threat to us. It's when they threaten us, that we should be concerned.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  11. #11
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    10,119
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Off-topic:


    The country was not fine with getting attacked at Pearl Harbor though. Are you really willing to be non-interventionist if it means that attacks killing thousands of people on our soil could still occur? Do you really think that countries are just going to leave us alone, so long as we withdraw from the world militarily? It's naive. We're a big target because we're the becaon for freedom and free enterprise and have the world's largest economy. People are envious of that and jealousy leads to hate. Everyone always wants to see if they can take down the giant.



    I don't see the dictators you mentioned as acting aggressive towards other nations, making large efforts to annex every other country, kill their people, and take over the whole world. Because of that, they don't serve as a threat to us. It's when they threaten us, that we should be concerned.
    A horrible event could happen at any time. People don't hate us because of our economy. They hate us because we are easy to hate. We give freedom of choice - which many countries don't like. We are arrogant. We are loud.

    No one said anything about no responding if attacked. But honestly, is our military going to stop a terrorist from doing anything within our borders? Can they stop a suicide bomber? Can they stop a plane we didn't know was going to hit us?

    We can carry a big stick, and when prodded, use it - but that is different from Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. Our "War on Terror" isn't attacking any country that attacked us. We are going after militant faction Terror Groups.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  12. #12
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,895
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    A horrible event could happen at any time. People don't hate us because of our economy. They hate us because we are easy to hate. We give freedom of choice - which many countries don't like. We are arrogant. We are loud.
    I tend to suspect that if we didn't put embargoes on Japan, they wouldn't have bombed us at Pearl Harbor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_...ripartite_Pact

    The embargo was probably the right thing to do, it just had an unfortunate (for the US) consequence.

    I think that our enemies rarely hate us because of our freedoms, rather they hate us because of our foreign policies and international actions.
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  13. #13
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Off-topic:
    Quote Originally posted by boiker View post
    I think that our enemies rarely hate us because of our freedoms, rather they hate us because of our foreign policies and international actions.
    I'm sure that plays a part. However, if you define "enemies" as hostile foreign governments or organizations, many of them do view our way of life and the freedoms we offer, and the fact that we tout such freedoms as natural rights due all people, as threats to their power.

    Then there's the group who's wildly jealous of our successes (and our not being quiet about them).

    It all adds up, usually, for certain groups, nations, states, or organizations.
    Last edited by TexanOkie; 15 Jun 2011 at 7:13 PM.

  14. #14
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    I'm sure that plays a part. However, if you define "enemies" as hostile foreign governments or organizations, many of them do view our way of life and the freedoms we offer, and the fact that we tout such freedoms as natural rights due all people, as threats to their power.

    .
    Like who? I always wondered about that talking point. Who sees our "freedoms" as threats to their power? Maybe China? Other than China- I don't see anyone who legitimately has any power that they would feel is threatened by our "freedoms". They might be threatened by other things we do.

    North Korea might feel threatened- but only because they are paranoid and delusional. Iran feels threatened, but that is probably because we have been threatening them with military action. Threatening people with military action does tend to make people feel threatened.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  15. #15
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Off-topic:
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    Like who? I always wondered about that talking point. Who sees our "freedoms" as threats to their power? Maybe China? Other than China- I don't see anyone who legitimately has any power that they would feel is threatened by our "freedoms". They might be threatened by other things we do.

    North Korea might feel threatened- but only because they are paranoid and delusional. Iran feels threatened, but that is probably because we have been threatening them with military action. Threatening people with military action does tend to make people feel threatened.
    China, yes, and other communist or pseudo-communist countries. Many Middle Eastern states run as theocracies such as Iran (and no, it's not all about our support of Israel, the Iraq/Afghan campaigns, or some perceived threat of military action). Countries with oppressive dictatorships (even if they do manage to stay on the US's "good side", diplomatically). Political or religious groups who propagate ideas or actions that run counter to them.

    Do all of these groups or countries have any power? Aside from China and Al Qaeda (the latter of which has significantly reduced power/effectiveness than they have had in recent memory), perhaps not relatively, no. But that doesn't mean they don't see the freedoms we advocate as threats to their power or goals.

  16. #16
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,895
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Off-topic:


    China, yes, and other communist or pseudo-communist countries. Many Middle Eastern states run as theocracies such as Iran (and no, it's not all about our support of Israel, the Iraq/Afghan campaigns, or some perceived threat of military action). Countries with oppressive dictatorships (even if they do manage to stay on the US's "good side", diplomatically). Political or religious groups who propagate ideas or actions that run counter to them.

    Do all of these groups or countries have any power? Aside from China and Al Qaeda (the latter of which has significantly reduced power/effectiveness than they have had in recent memory), perhaps not relatively, no. But that doesn't mean they don't see the freedoms we advocate as threats to their power or goals.
    I see your point. Hating us for our freedom seems so abstract, though. Even your points suggest that something we do or believe directly affects them and their people. I consider than an international action or policy impact, whether intentional or not. Simplifying it to they hate us for our freedom misses the mark. The world, social interactions and government interaction is much more complicated than to wage war over ideals. (as I type this I thought of a handful of examples where wars over beliefs have taken place. )
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  17. #17
    Cyburbian The One's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where Valley Fever Lives
    Posts
    7,324

    Well

    Bush Jr. showed that we have the "freedom" to attack a Country (Iraq), as long as our story is carefully crafted.
    Skilled Adoxographer

  18. #18
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,392
    Would some lazy mod split this of into it's own thr... erm.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

  19. #19
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,392
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    I don't see the dictators you mentioned as acting aggressive towards other nations, making large efforts to annex every other country, kill their people, and take over the whole world. Because of that, they don't serve as a threat to us. It's when they threaten us, that we should be concerned.
    So... you don't know anything about them, then. Not to put you down, but that list has ADOLPH HITLER on it!

    But him aside, let's have an example or two, shall we?

    Idi Amin - Killed around 500,000 people he didn't like, nationalized (stole) 85 British businesses, planned a war with Israel, and then there's the whole raid on Entebbe incident.

    Pol Pot - Leader of the Khmer Rouge, fought a war with Vietnam, killed around 100,000 people... most of them his own.

    Francisco Franco - Assisted Hitler in WWII, executed 50,000 people during the Spanish Civil War and as many as that after it ended. Allowed France a base of operation during the Algerian War.

    Want me to go on?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

  20. #20
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by Mastiff View post
    So... you don't know anything about them, then. Not to put you down, but that list has ADOLPH HITLER on it!

    But him aside, let's have an example or two, shall we?

    Idi Amin - Killed around 500,000 people he didn't like, nationalized (stole) 85 British businesses, planned a war with Israel, and then there's the whole raid on Entebbe incident.

    Pol Pot - Leader of the Khmer Rouge, fought a war with Vietnam, killed around 100,000 people... most of them his own.

    Francisco Franco - Assisted Hitler in WWII, executed 50,000 people during the Spanish Civil War and as many as that after it ended. Allowed France a base of operation during the Algerian War.
    No, I didn't bother to go through your list, as I thought it was excessive. I thought you said you were listing present-day third-world dictators. I misread, I apologize.

    In any regard, like I said, no, the U.S. generally is not going to go after dictators until we perceive them as being a threat to us or our interests. There comes a point when you see empires like Germany and Japan expanding when you have to say, oh crap, our friends are dropping like flies and we may be next if we don't act now (i.e. "intervene"). If the U.S. puruses non-interventionism as a permanent foreign policy, we may find ourselves in a situation where it may be too late to successfully fight back because we did not intervene.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  21. #21
    Cyburbian HomerJ's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I'm gettin' there
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    There comes a point when you see empires like Germany and Japan expanding when you have to say, oh crap, our friends are dropping like flies and we may be next if we don't act now (i.e. "intervene"). If the U.S. puruses non-interventionism as a permanent foreign policy, we may find ourselves in a situation where it may be too late to successfully fight back because we did not intervene.
    I think the time for mega-Imperial wars like WWII is probably over when a healthy number of world powers are capable of ending the world a hundred times over. I will indulge this possibility, however, and say that I still approve at least in concept with the notion of non-intervention as well. I would have to assume that if another situation like WWII occurred and we were currently amidst a non-interventionist mindset, the president would recognize the imminent threat and take action.

    I think even Ron Paul would have to say that there are still times when war is a necessary course of action. It is unfair to analyze someone's strategy during a period of normalcy and show how it wouldn't work in an extreme period.
    Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.

  22. #22
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by HomerJ9139 View post
    I think the time for mega-Imperial wars like WWII is probably over when a healthy number of world powers are capable of ending the world a hundred times over. I will indulge this possibility, however, and say that I still approve at least in concept with the notion of non-intervention as well. I would have to assume that if another situation like WWII occurred and we were currently amidst a non-interventionist mindset, the president would recognize the imminent threat and take action.

    I think even Ron Paul would have to say that there are still times when war is a necessary course of action. It is unfair to analyze someone's strategy during a period of normalcy and show how it wouldn't work in an extreme period.
    Fair enough. I know we're not in the age of competing empires anymore, but that's not to say it couldn't happen again. History does repeat itself. Nevertheless, I also hope that Ron Paul and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist mindset would be flexible in their viewpoint if the need arose to break from that viewpoint for the sake of the country and that they would have the foresight of knowing when it is appropriate to intervene to protect our own country and our interests. I agree we shouldn't go around policing the world, but if our own interests are in serious jeopardy, sometimes it is important to intervene. But it's difficult to determine when to act and how to act. Because our economy is so global and our people so mobile, it has made things increasingly difficult.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  23. #23
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,392
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Fair enough. I know we're not in the age of competing empires anymore, but that's not to say it couldn't happen again. History does repeat itself. Nevertheless, I also hope that Ron Paul and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist mindset would be flexible in their viewpoint if the need arose to break from that viewpoint for the sake of the country and that they would have the foresight of knowing when it is appropriate to intervene to protect our own country and our interests. I agree we shouldn't go around policing the world, but if our own interests are in serious jeopardy, sometimes it is important to intervene. But it's difficult to determine when to act and how to act. Because our economy is so global and our people so mobile, it has made things increasingly difficult.
    Well, here is my issue. As it has been stated before, one the U.S. has a presence somewhere, they never leave. We kicked Germany and Japan's asses in the 1940's and still have troops there! But at least they were wars fought for the right reasons. Iraq? Cut me a break. Everyone knows it was a war to make money... and people did. Especially rich corporations. Afghanistan? Really? We showed that to take down a target we need good intel, tight lips, and badass soldiers. We don't need an occupation.

    If we're in Iraq for oil, then it's oil to sell us at a profit, not cheap oil. Strategically we're there so China can't get their hands on it. Afghanistan has a giant wealth of minerals, but it'll never be stable enough for US businesses to exploit it. Hell, you can't even bomb that place back to the stone age because they're already there.

    But here's the rub. Even if corporate America gets all those resources, they'll ship them to countries where they can produce goods cheaper than in the U.S. We need a major shift in the taxation of corporations producing overseas, and tariffs for good coming into the country by foreign manufacturers.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

  24. #24
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    6,079
    Until Mastiff bet me to it, I was going to post that a good percentage of our wars have had a strong economic componet to them. Even WW 2, which was the last really righteous war, go our ecnomy kicked started. Because of that ,we will never really be able to pursue an isolationism foreign policy.
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  25. #25
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,172
    Also, prior to WWII, the USA had a highly isolationist and 'protectionist' official policy throughout the 1930s, which IMHO, was one of the most major driving forces for deepening and prolonging the Great Depression. Granted that FDR was doing a lot of foreign aid stuff under the table by the late 1930s to help out allies who were in deep foreign affairs trouble, but until the Pearl Harbor attack, we as a nation were 'officially' seemingly trying to withdraw from the world.

    Mike

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 75
    Last post: 19 Mar 2014, 10:50 AM
  2. Replies: 1724
    Last post: 12 Dec 2012, 10:27 AM
  3. Replies: 1638
    Last post: 17 Nov 2008, 1:33 PM
  4. Replies: 62
    Last post: 05 Mar 2008, 3:44 PM