Do you feel that the US should adopt a noninterventionist foreign policy?

[blind_fury]

Thats the problem though. You can't have it both ways. Either America is all about promoting democracy, freedom, and fighting dictators (in which case Iraq was perfectly justified, despite politicians underlaying motives) or it is not (in which case not only is Iraq unjustified, but so is intervention in a country like Sudan). It is simple as that, it is hypocritical to try and have your cake and eat it too in these types of situations.

There are many ways to promote freedom and democracy without resorting war. The same cannot be said about stopping genocide. If millions are dying, Americas MUST intervene. It is obviously clear.

Are you saying that if America goes to war to stop genocides then we must go to war to promote freedom and democracy? Because one is an immediate humanitarian crisis and the other isn't.

 

[Matt]

There are many ways to promote freedom and democracy without resorting war. The same cannot be said about stopping genocide. If millions are dying, Americas MUST intervene. It is obviously clear.

Are you saying that if America goes to war to stop genocides then we must go to war to promote freedom and democracy? Because one is an immediate humanitarian crisis and the other isn't.

Name one dictator who hasn't killed by masses in order to keep his country under control. You can't have it both ways. Either America uses military force to promote the preservation of life (is that better)? Or it doesn't.

 

[Caliber]

We should stop genocides.

But no wars for oil and no excessive nation building.

Thats what they should follow but sadly thats not the world we live in. People rather make a buck than stop genocide yet they call themselves christains or morally better.

 

[Memphis Slim]

The US tried not to get involved in both world wars, and had no choice. They now make it a policy to focus on world affairs as a way maintaining our superiority and status. Many parts of the world dont want us involved, yet when disputes arise they look to us to take a stand. Once we do that we end up pissing part of the world off who disagrees with us. That has always been the role of world powers. We now have vested interests all across the globe.

We tried that back in the 30's and it didn't work. To not take action when we know of a threat to us or our allies, is a travesty. This ain't a perfect Polly-Anna world. Can we intervene everywhere?? No. But we can do it in the major spots that will have the greatest consequence, if we don't.

And intervening doesn't always have to be with military force. Economic pressure can be brought to bare.

We have been given great power. To quote Peter Parker, "We have great responsibility" with it. He sat by and let a robber go by and it ended up coming back to hurt him personally.

That is the danger of not getting involved. It will come back to hurt us.

 

[Sun_Down]

We should stop genocides.

But no wars for oil and no excessive nation building.

Exactly. We should also intervene to provide aide. It's amazing to me how many people think that Iraq is the only country with problems. Africa is practically begging us to help with the AIDS epidemic they're dealing with, but no, we're too busy fighting "evil-doers".

We're spending WAY more money in Iraq than we could possibily make back in oil or defense contracts. And that money would be much better spent on food, medicine and other relief items for countries in real need.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Originally Posted by blind_fury
There are many ways to promote freedom and democracy without resorting war. The same cannot be said about stopping genocide. If millions are dying, Americas MUST intervene. It is obviously clear.

Are you saying that if America goes to war to stop genocides then we must go to war to promote freedom and democracy? Because one is an immediate humanitarian crisis and the other isn't.

The whole idea is to set up situations where genocide would be less likely to happen. That means in "Democracies". The dictatorships breed the possibly of genocide.

 

[Spider-Bite]

I believe we should adopt a noninterventionist foreign policy. You know Africa has a lot of the same problems that the middle east has, but for some reason African countries have not waged a religous jihad against us.

You know why?

They aren't loaded with oil for us to shoot people over and make angry.

 

[Sun_Down]

That is the danger of not getting involved. It will come back to hurt us.

The real danger is getting involved in places we don't belong. Trust me, every day we spend in Iraq is only fueling the fire of terrorism. And every time the world catches our leaders licking their chops at Syria and North Korea we make more enemies than we can handle.

And if you really think we need to get involved in important areas, why aren't we doing anything of real consequence about the fact that a continent is dying in front of us?

 

[Memphis Slim]

The real danger is getting involved in places we don't belong. Trust me, every day we spend in Iraq is only fueling the fire of terrorism.

We were hit by Terrorism long before this. That's a weak argument.


And every time the world catches our leaders licking their chops at Syria and North Korea we make more enemies than we can handle.

And because people get mad at us, we're not suppose to stand up to our enemies?

And if you really think we need to get involved in important areas, why aren't we doing anything of real consequence about the fact that a continent is dying in front of us?

Did I say that life is fair? If you're talking about Africa, the mighty U.N. could certainly do more. As I said before we can't intervene everywhere. But we darn sure better intervene in the places that will effect this country directly.

 

[Matt]

We tried that back in the 30's and it didn't work. To not take action when we know of a threat to us or our allies, is a travesty. This ain't a perfect Polly-Anna world. Can we intervene everywhere?? No. But we can do it in the major spots that will have the greatest consequence, if we don't.

And intervening doesn't always have to be with military force. Economic pressure can be brought to bare.

We have been given great power. To quote Peter Parker, "We have great responsibility" with it. He sat by and let a robber go by and it ended up coming back to hurt him personally.

That is the danger of not getting involved. It will come back to hurt us.

Did you just use Spider-Man comics as a guideline for international politics? Could you be any more of a tool.

 

[Matt]

Did I say that life is fair? If you're talking about Africa, the mighty U.N. could certainly do more. As I said before we can't intervene everywhere. But we darn sure better intervene in the places that will effect this country directly.

Like Iraq who was no threat to us and had little to no Al-Queda presence prior to the war?

 

[Spider-Bite]

Did I say that life is fair? If you're talking about Africa, the mighty U.N. could certainly do more. As I said before we can't intervene everywhere. But we darn sure better intervene in the places that will effect this country directly.

we were not hit by terrorism prior to interveining in places we do not belong. The 9/11 attacks were retalliation because of our interveining. In fact prior to it we were warned to stop meddling in middle eastern affairs or we would be attacked.

I'm not saying Osama Bin Laden is a good guy, because the only reason he wants us to stop interveining is so Israel can be destroyed, but the fact still remains that your belief that we were attacked first is simply not true.

 

[Spiderine]

We tried that back in the 30's and it didn't work. To not take action when we know of a threat to us or our allies, is a travesty. This ain't a perfect Polly-Anna world. Can we intervene everywhere?? No. But we can do it in the major spots that will have the greatest consequence, if we don't.

And intervening doesn't always have to be with military force. Economic pressure can be brought to bare.

We have been given great power. To quote Peter Parker, "We have great responsibility" with it. He sat by and let a robber go by and it ended up coming back to hurt him personally.

That is the danger of not getting involved. It will come back to hurt us.

Yes thats true, but getting involved can be double edged sword. It has been stated by al queda when we intervened in the first gulf war, that we had no right to be in those lands and that the Arabs themselves should have dealt with Saddam and his invading forces. They believed that muslim and arab forces could have defended themselves. Then we continued our presence by placing permanent bases in the region in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,Bahrain, and Qatar. This begin deep rooted hatred for the US which has contributed to attacks.This hatred continues to grow throughout the muslim world. And now the US has even bigger presence in these lands. It is sewing more resentment. As I have said many times before the US will always have a presence in the middle east and the Arabs know this. There will be bases in Afganistan and Iraq much like South Korea. There can always be consequences for not getting involved and getting involved.

 

[Sun_Down]

Did I say that life is fair? If you're talking about Africa, the mighty U.N. could certainly do more. As I said before we can't intervene everywhere. But we darn sure better intervene in the places that will effect this country directly.

You're right, we can't intervene. And that's exactly why it's irresponsible and dangerous to intervene in places like Iraq, which was (and I'm quoting a top Bush advisor here) "a diminishing threat" (that advisor was fired immediately after that, by the way).

I find it ironic that you bring up the U.N. So we need the U.N. for humanitarian efforts, but we go over its head to start this ridiculous war based on false pretenses? The U.N. was trying to make progress in Iraq before we charged in there all shoot-first-ask-questions-later style. Bush is the one who basically told the U.N. that we were above them and weren't gonna wait around for their "diplomacy" non-sense.

Like Iraq who was no threat to us and had little to no Al-Queda presence prior to the war?

Thank you, Matt. Iraq is now a major Al-Queda breeding ground and that is a direct result of our occupation.

We are breeding terrorists by going around and imposing our will on sovreign nations. These people hate Western idealogy and we're cramming it down their throats, what the hell did you think would happen?

 

[blind_fury]

Name one dictator who hasn't killed by masses in order to keep his country under control. You can't have it both ways. Either America uses military force to promote the preservation of life (is that better)? Or it doesn't.

Are you suggesting if America uses our military to save millions we must invade countries to save twenty people as well?

 

[blind_fury]

The whole idea is to set up situations where genocide would be less likely to happen. That means in "Democracies". The dictatorships breed the possibly of genocide.

You can't invade countries and force them to be democratic because of speculation or a personal theory. You can invade based on the actions of a foriegn government such as genocide.

 

[ScottyBBadd]

And intervening doesn't always have to be with military force. Economic pressure can be brought to bare.

I wish economic pressure would work, but not always. You can negotiate with someone until you are blue in the face, but if they don't want to talk, it is not happening.

 

[Memphis Slim]

I wish economic pressure would work, but not always. You can negotiate with someone until you are blue in the face, but if they don't want to talk, it is not happening.

Sadly, That's when force is needed.

 

[Memphis Slim]

You can't invade countries and force them to be democratic because of speculation or a personal theory. You can invade based on the actions of a foriegn government such as genocide.

Nobody's "forcing" anybody into a democracy. Did you see that voter turn out in Iraq??? Their turn-out was higher than ours and they were being threatened!

 

[Ahura Mazda]

Monroe was the first President to be interventionalist

I apologise that was me writing too fast because I should have said presidents until Monroe.

Thank you for correcting me.