Hello Everyone

[TripleAgent]

Hello everyone, just signed up. Thought I would share a bit about myself:

I am a Goldwater Republican, being situated on the Right in financial issues, and on the left in social and international issues. I am non-interventionist constitutionalist, opposing every conflict that America has entered since World War II, as each conflict since then has been fought without a formal declaration of war, as specified in the Constitution.

I oppose the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, and pretty much any government-funded nanny-state program. I oppose Obama, I oppose Bush, and I oppose many, MANY other things.

Still, look out for me arguing for different sides at the same time, I love to perpetuate conflicts and debates. (Must be the Machiavelli in me )

Well, thanks for taking the time to read, hope to hear more issues from you all. Hope this little rant hasn't been too much of a bore, I can't really help myself.

Ciao for now.

 

[bhkad]

Welcome to DP!

 

[Simba]

Hi. Welcome. I get banned often. So welcome while I can say hi. Watch your step.

 

[Apocalypse]

Welcome aboard.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

Why do many non-interventionists oppose war and only give the absence of formal declaration as reasoning?
Would you support any of the wars after World War II if they did have a formal declaration?

 

[TripleAgent]

Why do many non-interventionists oppose war and only give the absence of formal declaration as reasoning?
Would you support any of the wars after World War II if they did have a formal declaration?

Well, firstly, I give that as reasoning because in Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, it states that it is the responsibility of the Congress to declare war. This is a failsafe so that the President, as Commander of the Armed Forces, cannot send the armies willy-nilly to rule the world. Without a formal declaration clause from Congress, we would undergo "military excursions" all the time.

Secondly, I would not support many of the wars after WW2 even if they had been declared.

The Korean War was the the result of our division of Korea after World War II, without the permission of the Koreans themselves. ( Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) Even if there had been a civil war, the people of a country would be able to accept or reject their government if they liked or disliked it. Revolution is the foundation of many a state.

In the Vietnam War, we supported an autocratic, possibly genocidal dictator, Ngô Đình Diệm, a man who controlled his people with secret police and violence, while suppressing and discrimination against the Buddhists of South Vietnam. How can you say that an alliance with a man such as that would be a good idea? It sacrificed every American ideal for the notion that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." Furthermore, we entered the war under false pretenses, a la the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident," in which the government lied to the people of America about an attack by the North Vietnamese navy in order to gain popular support for a military excursion.

In Iraq, we attacked Saddam Hussein, another autocratic dictator that we had actually assisted in the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s. Now then, I hate Saddam Hussein for what he has done to the Kurdish people of his country. But it is the responsibility of the people of Iraq, not America. The people of Iraq should rise up themselves for freedom, not wait for others to do it for them. They should have attacked Saddam's government, attacked Saddam himself, and create a new government. Look at the occupation today: the people of Iraq were not ready for freedom; they are a disorganized, decentralized mess. The burden of a revolution is what best unites a people to form a free government.

And we come to Afghanistan. There, we fight the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. A little known fact, we supported bin Laden and the Mujahideen, or "freedom fighters," during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We assisted in the training of many of the current Al-Qaeda members. If we had not interfered in world affairs as much as we had after World War II (the above-mentioned events, Operation Ajax, numerous excursions in Central America, etc.), the Muslims of the Middle-East would have no reason to view us as a threat, and therefore no reason to hate us.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

I would not support many of the wars after WW2 even if they had been declared.

So then the constitutionality is trivia supporting non-interventionism in general, gotcha.

suppressing and discrimination against the Buddhists of South Vietnam.

Despite the Vice President, Foreign Minister, 8 members of his cabinet, 38 province chiefs and leading generals being Buddhist.

How can you say that an alliance with a man such as that would be a good idea?

Would you support intervention if Diem was the moral equivalent of George Washington?

the government lied to the people of America about an attack by the North Vietnamese navy in order to gain popular support for a military excursion.

Would you support intervention if the naval attack were true?

In Iraq, we attacked Saddam Hussein, another autocratic dictator that we had actually assisted in the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s.

we supported bin Laden and the Mujahideen, or "freedom fighters," during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We assisted in the training of many of the current Al-Qaeda members.

Assisting a nation or group of people disqualifies us from ever going to war with it?

If we had not interfered in world affairs as much as we had after World War II -- the Muslims of the Middle-East would have no reason to view us as a threat, and therefore no reason to hate us.

I don't believe Osama Bin Laden mentioned Vietnam, Korea or South America in his fatwas. He does mention our presence in Saudi Arabia, a presence that Saudi Arabia agreed to and permitted even before World War II.

Militant Islam has had a tendency to excuse acts of aggression against us and fellow Muslims when we make voluntary business transactions with the particular Muslim state. If aggression is not to be tolerated in our own Country, aggression should also not be tolerated abroad, especially when we have rightful ownership of property brought to us by the agreements we've made with the Muslim nations we're making voluntary transactions with.

The security relationship in Saudi Arabia has everything to do with protecting American property, which is justified. Saudi Arabia has since then taken over control of the oil industry in it's nation and as a result, we withdrew from Saudi Arabia in 2003.

The root reason why militant Islam has it in for us is because their radical irrational post-nationalist politicized "religion" disapproves of our trade relationship with Israel and the voluntary transactions we've made with Muslim nations that voluntarily permits our presence.

 

[TripleAgent]

I think that this discussion might be better suited to another section of the forum. Regardless, I would like to make these final points.

1. Last time I checked, the United States entered World War II on December 8, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor. We have not been attacked by any sovereign nation since World War II.

2. May I see where you obtained that list? Also, Buddhist Uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. No, I wouldn't suppotr it if he was the moral equivalent of George Washington. That is what makes this so much worse. We support one form of evil in order to fight another.

4. Why should our ships be just off of the coast of North Vietnam? It seems to me that this was done purposefully in order to manipulate Americans to want to go to war in Vietnam. Ever hear of the Reichstag Fire?

5. Assisting a nation or group of people with principals that we are against is reprehensible. You support the breeding of our future enemies for the short-term support againt a current enemy?

6. He doesn't mention those, but it does go to show what we have done to ourselves in the world's view. As to your point about militant Islam and their disapproval of our relationship with Israel, I ask, why do we support Israel? If you support the Israelis being given back their land, do you support Americans giving all of their sovereignty and property to Native Americans? Seems to me like a bit of hypocrisy on the part of Americans.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

2. May I see where you obtained that list?

Triumph Forsaken.
Triumph forsaken: the Vietnam war ... - Google Books
footnotes with sources included

3. No, I wouldn't suppotr it if he was the moral equivalent of George Washington. That is what makes this so much worse. We support one form of evil in order to fight another.

So then the character of the nation or group of people we support is also trivial like the constitutionality.

4. Why should our ships be just off of the coast of North Vietnam? It seems to me that this was done purposefully in order to manipulate Americans to want to go to war in Vietnam. Ever hear of the Reichstag Fire?

I'm just trying to figure out why many noninterventionists bring up things like constitutionality, the character of our allies, the legitimacy of intel, when all of it is trivial and you'd be noninterventionist regardless since you're noninterventionists by principle since some of our military interventions were premptive at best in terms of national defense. I get it. I understand noninterventionism and I tend to be sympathetic towards it. I just don't understand the rolodex of reasons many noninterventionists bring with them when they argue on behalf of noninterventionism, especially when the reasons are evidently trivial.

It would be like if was arguing on behalf of the free market and I said the free market is good because communism is aggressive and it requires for the individual to have others live for him and for him to live for others. Does it mean I'd like communism if it weren't aggressive and collectivist and all that? No. So why would I say it?

5. Assisting a nation or group of people with principals that we are against is reprehensible. You support the breeding of our future enemies for the short-term support againt a current enemy?

Absolutely not because I believe military presence in a foreign nation is only justified to protect our private foreign property that we obtained through voluntary transaction or to defend our nation from acts of foreign aggression like Pearl Harbor and yes, 9-11.

6. He doesn't mention those, but it does go to show what we have done to ourselves in the world's view.

If we should be a noninterventionist nation, why should we care how the world sees us? If the world disapproves of us so much, they should stop trade and get out of our markets.

As to your point about militant Islam and their disapproval of our relationship with Israel, I ask, why do we support Israel?

I said trade with Israel, not support. It should be obvious now more than ever how much we do not support Israel as a people and as a nation. It just so happens that a good portion of our trade is military and communications technology.

If you support the Israelis being given back their land, do you support Americans giving all of their sovereignty and property to Native Americans? Seems to me like a bit of hypocrisy on the part of Americans.

That really depends on all of the things that happened before we give up all of our sovereignty to the Native Americans. We'll use Milwaukee Wisconsin as an example.

Were parts of Milwaukee resettled by Native Americans who freely immigrated back into Milwaukee? Did the United States allow the settlement? Was the settlement arranged voluntarily like Degania Alef in Tel Aviv through voluntary trasnaction? Kibbutz Degania Aleph - History Did the United states freely allow for other settlements in Wisconsin? Did the United States charter these settlements like we would charter a town or a city? Did the United States dissolve after a World War? Did the winners of the War decide to draft a declaration similar to the Balfour Declaration in 1917? Did a bunch of Americans react violently understanding what the fate of Milwaukee will become because of all of the things that transpired even during the United State's occupation of Milwaukee? Did the Americans and Indians go to war and did the Indians win? Did hundreds of thousands of Americans flee and therefor forfeit? If yes, then I would support the Indians and there would be absolutely no hypocrisy.

 

[TripleAgent]

I posted a new thread in Politics and Platforms so that we can continue there.