• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Non-Interventionism

TripleAgent

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
31
Location
Alabama, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
R. Shackleferd and I have recently been engaged in an argument on my thread in the welcome forums, so I have decided to move this to a better-suited location. The argument is, as put by 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?
and, my response,

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.
We did discuss some more, and Shackleferd is more than free to put his rebuttal posts into this thread as well.

If you wish, list why you support or oppose American non-interventionism.
 

Jomiarias

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
95
Reaction score
11
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Every democratic state has the right to intervene in some ways in other states in order to help them improve their democracy. The USA is a democratic country, so it has the right to intervene in order to preserve democracy in the world.

If it weren't because of interventionism from the USA, my country (Colombia) today could be a narco-dictatorship. Thanks to Clinton and Bush administrations, safety and democracy have improved a lot here, more than you imagine.

The problem is when the USA interventionism is used for economical benefits to the US, like the Irak war. An unnecesary and bloody war to obtain some oil.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.


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

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

4. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
31
Location
Alabama, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Let me ask you, Shackelferd, what conditions do you feel are necessary to justify interventionism?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Every democratic state has the right to intervene in some ways in other states in order to help them improve their democracy.
Nope.

A sovereign state is under no obligation to accept interference from outside forces, and no nation has a "right" to interefere in the internal actions of lawfully constituted democratically elected government. Naturally no government established by gun point, like the former Saddam Hussein, has any reason to suppose that the throne the stole by gunpoint can't be taken from them the same way.

But that's only if some other country cares enough to be bothered with them.

The USA is a democratic country, so it has the right to intervene in order to preserve democracy in the world.
Nope.

We can claim the moral high ground when we depose a dictator, and when we're foolish enough to interfere in some anarchic region, such as Somalia, but we've no "right" to do so. We certainly have no right to intervene in the lawful actions of any other democratic nation, just as those nations can piss off if they want to interfere in our internal affairs.

That being said, I certainly hope the British are now fully satisfied with their pick Obama for US president, now that their pick has turned around and picked the pockets of the British pensioner to the tune of one dollar out of six.

If it weren't because of interventionism from the USA, my country (Colombia) today could be a narco-dictatorship. Thanks to Clinton and Bush administrations, safety and democracy have improved a lot here, more than you imagine.
That it worked well for you is nice. But that does not mean the US has the right to interfere. But correct me if I'm wrong, but Columbia requested American assistance, yes?

Naturally, of course, Columbia would not have a narco-terrorist problem if the US did not have a ban on cocaine. You might wish to ponder the ramifications of how the internal policies of one nation can have significant negative impact on others.

The problem is when the USA interventionism is used for economical benefits to the US, like the Irak war. An unnecesary and bloody war to obtain some oil.
Yawn.

Obviously if the United States wanted to obtain oil, the place to go is ... the United States. Oil wasn't the reason for the invasion of Iraq. I'll note that the United States isn't exactly swimming in Iraqi oil today.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Let me ask you, Shackelferd, what conditions do you feel are necessary to justify interventionism?
These conditions:

when acts of aggression are done to Americans in a foreign nation.
and
when acts of aggression are being done to our nation by foreigners.

The level of intervention is determined by the level of aggression.

That is my principled stance on intervention.
 

TripleAgent

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
31
Location
Alabama, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
These conditions:

when acts of aggression are done to Americans in a foreign nation.
and
when acts of aggression are being done to our nation by foreigners.

The level of intervention is determined by the level of aggression.

That is my principled stance on intervention.
Okay then, does that mean that you do not support the Korean War, since no aggression was directed at America from North Korea?

And does it mean that you don't support the Vietnam War, since we were never attacked, and in fact lied to by Johnson about the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident?"

And furthermore, we went into Iraq on false pretenses, chasing after "weapons of mass destruction" that were never found. We didn't know the facts before we went in. Are you saying that you support a "leap before you look" policy?

And how do you define such threats? Was Hitler justified in the "defense of Germany" when he annexed Czechoslovakia and invaded France and the Netherlands? To what end does a pre-emptive strike become aggression?

Is it our responsibility that we manipulate every other government in the world so that only pro-American ideals are taught and propagated? Whatever happened to freedom of beliefs, freedom of choice?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Okay then, does that mean that you do not support the Korean War, since no aggression was directed at America from North Korea?

And does it mean that you don't support the Vietnam War, since we were never attacked, and in fact lied to by Johnson about the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident?"

And furthermore, we went into Iraq on false pretenses, chasing after "weapons of mass destruction" that were never found. We didn't know the facts before we went in. Are you saying that you support a "leap before you look" policy?

And how do you define such threats? Was Hitler justified in the "defense of Germany" when he annexed Czechoslovakia and invaded France and the Netherlands? To what end does a pre-emptive strike become aggression?

Is it our responsibility that we manipulate every other government in the world so that only pro-American ideals are taught and propagated? Whatever happened to freedom of beliefs, freedom of choice?
What makes you think I support Vietnam, Korea and Iraq?

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.
 

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nope.

A sovereign state is under no obligation to accept interference from outside forces, and no nation has a "right" to interefere in the internal actions of lawfully constituted democratically elected government. Naturally no government established by gun point, like the former Saddam Hussein, has any reason to suppose that the throne the stole by gunpoint can't be taken from them the same way.

But that's only if some other country cares enough to be bothered with them.



Nope.

We can claim the moral high ground when we depose a dictator, and when we're foolish enough to interfere in some anarchic region, such as Somalia, but we've no "right" to do so. We certainly have no right to intervene in the lawful actions of any other democratic nation, just as those nations can piss off if they want to interfere in our internal affairs.

That being said, I certainly hope the British are now fully satisfied with their pick Obama for US president, now that their pick has turned around and picked the pockets of the British pensioner to the tune of one dollar out of six.



That it worked well for you is nice. But that does not mean the US has the right to interfere. But correct me if I'm wrong, but Columbia requested American assistance, yes?

Naturally, of course, Columbia would not have a narco-terrorist problem if the US did not have a ban on cocaine. You might wish to ponder the ramifications of how the internal policies of one nation can have significant negative impact on others.



Yawn.

Obviously if the United States wanted to obtain oil, the place to go is ... the United States. Oil wasn't the reason for the invasion of Iraq. I'll note that the United States isn't exactly swimming in Iraqi oil today.
Good points, but I disagree on the last one. If we want to obtain a non-renewable, strategic resource, it would seem that the obvious place to go is anywhere but the United States. It makes much more sense to use up everyone else's oil first and save ours for later. And in the big picture, Iraqi oil production isn't that bad. It's about where it was before the war, and we're ostensibly in a better position to profit from it.
 

TripleAgent

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
31
Location
Alabama, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, if you don't support Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq, then for the most part you too are a non-interventionist, calling for military action only when Americans come under attack.
 
Top Bottom