Welcome to PatsFans.com

100% U.S. Non-Intervention

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Mar 30, 2011.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,173
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +344 / 6 / -8

    Who favors 100% U.S. millitary non-intervention? Please weigh in here. Does anyone here favor the immediate retraction of all U.S. force to within our territory, territorial/perhaps international waters, and territorial/international airspace?

    By the way, I stipulate that "Bush is the same as Obama" on this count. Neither favored 100% non-intervention.

    The question is, do you?

    PFnV
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,025
    Likes Received:
    109
    Ratings:
    +190 / 7 / -23

    As a long time pacifist, I favor closing out most of our 700 overseas bases, particularly the ones that have no strategic value. I favor withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and not getting involved in Libya.

    The reality is at over 2 billion dollars a week for these wars has wrecked out economy.. this along with the tremendous "legacy costs" for our military will cause economic harm on our budget for years to come. No one ever talks about the needs of our veterans systems of care for the future.. this costs will be tremendous.
  3. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,880
    Likes Received:
    85
    Ratings:
    +193 / 3 / -10

    It depends on your definition of "non-intervention". By your definition, would it be acceptable for us to retaliate if we were attacked by a foreign terrorist group?

    I don't believe it has to be "all or nothing" and the fact is, "Yes or No" aren't the only relevant answers to your question.

    I'm all for closing most of our foreign bases, but it doesn't have be all of them. If we have 700 of them, then let's start by cutting that number to 100. If we just walk away from all that we are now involved in, what are the potential negative consequences? I would LOVE to see ALL our troops come home from Iraq & Afghanistan, but is that the best thing for us to do from any perspective (national or international)?
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2011
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,169
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +353 / 1 / -9

    It's the reason the world hates us, we pretend to be worldly do-gooders saving humanity when in all reality we are constantly killing somebody and getting our own troops killed, we should only go to war to defend and protect OUR OWN.

    We should be concentrating on The Invasion Of America by illegal aliens and the Raping Of The American People by The Drunks, The Sex Perverts, The Thieves, The Racists and all of the other rotten PIGS that we elect to run our country.

    The starry eyed ballwashing liberal fools thought they were finally getting their dreamboat president when they voted for this sap Obama all they got was another GW Bush.

    OUR ENEMY WILL BE BACK YOU CAN BET ON IT (I call them our enemy it isn't politically correct to mention them we don't want to offend them)

    Our troops should be grought home from all of Obama's wars, PROTECT OUR OWN BORDERS.

    WHERE DID ALL THE PROFESSIONAL WAR PROTESTERS GO--------:confused:
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2011
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,173
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +344 / 6 / -8

    I can respect both Darryl's and PR's points of view on this. I basically am closer to PR's position. PR, in answer to your question, let's say one can counter-strike if there's a strike on your own soil, as in 9/11. But no grab-and-hold campaign against 2 sovereign nations that didn't do it -- perhaps you work with the nations sheltering the bad guys. Perhaps you pressure them. Perhaps if all else fails you announce a retaliatory policy where you whack them to the tune of an equivalently bloody nose. But you can't very well justify occupation of nation-states in reaction to a criminal gang, in this just-short-of-pacifist policy statement.

    I cannot respect Harry's "position" such as it is, since it seems to arise solely from the part of the brain we share with reptiles (i.e., no cognition seems to have gone into it, just a reflex fear/hate response to whatever he's identified as a an enemy or a food source.)

    Regardless of what your cardboard-cutout prototypical political betes noire "thought", Harry, what do you think? (and by the way, Obama ran right down the center, saying "wrong war," not "no war." You know this, and so do the peaceniks who held their noses and voted for him anyway.)

    But again, Harry, what do you think?

    Should we have a policy of 100% non-intervention?

    PFnV
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2011
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,169
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +353 / 1 / -9

    ......Yes......
  7. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,880
    Likes Received:
    85
    Ratings:
    +193 / 3 / -10

    I agree with your thoughts on attacking/holding foreign nations accountable for terrorists attacks. Terrorists don't represent nations. And working with countries for their help with terrorism is a very good idea. It shows respect rather taking a "bully-approach"...and I believe we need more of that.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2011
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,169
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +353 / 1 / -9

    I'm sorry, I'm not as nice as most people when I see these bastards in their suit and ties sitting behind their desks sending our young people off to war to be killed for some half ass country inhabited by a culture that thrives on killing each other.

    PROTECT AMERICA AND IT'S PEOPLE GOD DAMN THE REST OF THE WORLD THEY ALL HATE US ANYWAY, LET CHINA POLICE THE SAVAGES IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

    BRING OUR TROOPS HOME FROM AROUND THE WORLD THEN PUT THEM ON GUARD DUTY ON ALL OF OUR BORDERS, SEA PORTS AND AIRPORTS PROFILE ALL PEOPLE ENTERING THIS COUNTRY, NEVER NEVER ALLOW ANOTHER 9/11 WE LIVE IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT WORLD THAN WE DID 50 YEARS AGO THE OCEANS NO LONGER PROTECT US THE WORLD IS MUCH SMALLER AND YOU CAN REST ASSURED THEY WILL BE BACK TO KILL MORE OF US IF WE KEEP OUR HEADS IN THE SAND AND TRY TO DENY THEY EXIST.

    GOD WILLING DEATH TO AMERICA THE GREAT SATAN (they'll be back"


    :bricks:
  9. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Not only am I against a complete non-interventionist policy, I've been rethinking my stance on Iraq lately. How can anyone be certain that this wave of democracy in the ME wasn't somehow triggered by his Bumbling?
  10. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,169
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +353 / 1 / -9

    Barack Hussein Obama is a poltically correct JOKE, Geraldine Ferarro had the courage to stand up to it and she was sent to the woodshed by the slobbering left wing liberals for doing so, now we all have to pay, we can only pray that the clown doesn't cause WWIII or bring about another 9/11, he's done more harm to this country in two years than GW Bush or even Jimmy Carter could do in a lifetime.


    :bricks:
  11. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +153 / 2 / -1

    Not sure that's much of a basis for policy :)
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,173
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +344 / 6 / -8

    LOL okay Harry I think I have your vote...

    So as I read it, Harry and Darryl are solidly on-board with the 100% non-interventionist approach.

    Looks like PR and I are both in the camp of "very very carefully approach the idea of intervention... but don't go as far as 100% non-intervention."

    SDaniels is saying not only isn't he non-interventionist, he's thinking we got value out of Bush' bumbling (blind-squirrel like, as I read it.)

    Gotta say I disagree with the retroneocon read, SD, but have been waiting for someone to embrace it.

    It is interesting that it's hard to find a common thread along a right-left continuum, but that's true in the broader society right now. Harry makes it very clear that it's important to trumpet a lot of very traditional rightist positions as he embraces non-intervention (which by the way, I don't think is new. Harry's been pretty anti-intervention in the past.) Darryl phrases it as basically pacifism, and often posts on the left of the other issues Harry's on about.

    Still hoping to hear from more...
  13. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,429
    Likes Received:
    253
    Ratings:
    +359 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    I'll go you one better..............I'm even coming around to thinking that bringing back the draft might not be such a bad idea. I LIKE the idea that we're an idealistic nation - America was founded on ideals, why shouldn't we be the ones who help other, less fortunate nations to achieve their own? Why shouldn't we try to help instill our principals in other people? The same people here who rant and rave about Sharia Law and backwards countries and "oh the poor women....why are American women not doing more to help them," are the same ones who are now advocating an isolationistm hands-off position.

    Part of the problem with "going to war," or protecting innocent foreign civilians from rabid dictators is that we are spread so thin. Part of the reason we are spread so thin is because our military is entirely voluntary. Part of the reason military spending is so high is that, in order to attract those volunteers, we have to offer comparable pay rates and benefits to equal that of the private sector. Part of the reason that our unemployment compensation is eating at the federal and state budgets is because a full 20% of 16-24 year olds are currently unemployed.

    Bring back the draft - make it mandatory for all able bodied 18 year olds to serve their country for 2 years. Give them basic training in whatever type of warfare they may be called upon to provide and then give them additional training and set them to work in our schools and rebuilding our infrastructure and put 'em on our borders or wherever else they're needed in peacetime. Give them a salary - but it doesn't have to be the salary that volunteers get now since everyone has to do it and it's only for 2 years unless they decide to stick around and make a career out of it. Make it equal to what a person collecting unemployment gets - it's what at least 20% of them are living on anyhow.

    Give them something to do - and give them something to take pride in. Believe it or not, a uniform instills pride, even one that's put on reluctantly makes the wearer's shoulders straighten and their head hold up higher. Let them become proud to be an American again - because America is strong and they're contributing to it's strength and America is idealistic and it's willing to lend a hand to help others become the same - and they are the front line representatives of those ideals and they are those hands which are there reaching out to help.

    Closing our foreign bases is pretty much cutting off our noses to spite our faces. We need them just as much as they need us. Without those "stopping places" for our planes and our ships and our hospitals and our weapons we're too far away to protect ourselves from distant threats. What are we going to do if the need arises? Fly back to Florida each time we need to refill a fighter jet? Tell our wounded "No, sorry, we can't fly you to the hospital in Germany because we no longer have a hospital in Germany - Can you try not to bleed out before we reach The United States?

    Isolationism is nothing if not impractical....and it's not necessarily cost efficient, either.
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    I don't think absolutes, especially in a hypothetical setting, can be fairly answered. All I can say is that I'd prefer we were as isolationist, and as non-interventionalist as possible. I can point to WWI & WWII as being examples of where it was important for us to get involved. I'd also say that genuine humanitarian issues where mass genocide is being implemented might be a place where I'd be supportive of action. No one wants to see hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children slaughtered (think Rwanda). Still, I'd prefer we were as MYOB as possible. I think we're too involved for our own good right now, and have been so for a long long time. Too long.



    Geopolitical change in the ME. That was the #1 goal of the Iraq operation. Now, there's really no way to certify that what we're seeing today is a result of the war in Iraq. However, ask yourself if you think these uprising would be happening if the Iraq war never had. I personally don't think they do. That being said, who's to say that we'll like the new governments in these revolting nations. Maybe the end result will be a more radical, repressive, unfriendly ME. I hope not, but it's certainly a possibility.
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    There's no need for a draft, and the people would never stand for one. If you feel so idealistic as to recommend people be forced to serve to die for your personal vision of what we should be, then why not sign up yourself. If you can't, ask the Mr, or your kids to for you. Like most things in life, if all the people who believed in a certain something, be it climate change or forcing military service upon us, simply volunteered their own life for said cause, they'd be able to achieve what it is they sought without imposing their will upon the lives of everyon else.

    We have way too many bases, and far too large a foot print across teh globe. First off we're broke, and all those bases cost money. Second, we're broke, and there is no need for us to subsidize the defense costs of the western world. Third, did I mention we're broke? We don't need to be the worlds police. Let other nations put their money, men, and mouth into the fray if need be.
  16. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +374 / 0 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    There's another side to this argument that hasn't been brought up; Bush's non-military initiatives.

    I notice that PFinVa brought up "non-intervention", but I didn't see him single out the military option. Bush's intervention in the ME went beyond the Iraq war or aid to Israel. The previous administration put into place three successive programs that tried to foster democracy in the Middle East; US-Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI), and the Broader Middle East North Africe Initiative (BMENAI). MEPI tried to bring about democracy and liberalization from the top-down, by trying to essentially buy cooperation from leaders in the region. When that didn't work, GMEI was conceived as a way to intervene among the populace and build a liberalization infrastructure, circumventing the entrenched governments. Many nascent democratic movements in the region benefited from this program, but it also evoked very strong criticism from our allies, such as Mubarak, the Hashemites, and the Sauds. If any of Bush's policies helped bring about what we're seeing today, it was probably GMEI.

    BMENAI was a mess, but it was ostensibly a scaled-back version of GMEI (in response to the caterwaul from regional leaders).

    The Iraq war did not help Middle East perceptions as much as people are saying. Polls taken from around the region in 2003-2004 indicate that there was a deep distrust of US intentions toward Iraq and that the US didn't really want to spread democracy. They wanted it badly, but that preceded the Iraq invasion. Egypt, for example, has been wrestling with the issue of democratization and liberalization for nearly forty years. All they needed was a spark; some reason to believe that they could overcome Mubarak's horrific police state. Did Iraq provide it? No. Did GMEI provide it? I would say that it tilled the soil, by helping groups such as Kifaya! lend a mouthpiece to dissidence. It's still intervention though.

    To the the OP; I favor a balanced and smart approach to US foreign policy. I think PR summarized my views on military intervention pretty closely.

    Non-military intervention can prove useful, but we need to do some soul searching and ask ourselves if we're going to take the Jeffersonian approach of spreading democracy to humanity any way we can or if we'll take the Washingtonian approach and worry about perfecting our own democracy. It's the question before every revolutionary government, and one that, because of the Red Scare, has been revived over 200 years later.
  17. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,880
    Likes Received:
    85
    Ratings:
    +193 / 3 / -10

    As you know, life in the good 'ol USA isn't so easy for most of us (middle class). I barely have time to engage in hobbies and regular exercise and I'm a single person.

    I can not imagine a man or woman who has children finding the time to even think about women or men in other nations, let alone actually do something to help them. And if someone does/can find the time to help people in other nations, God bless them!

    I could never criticize anyone for NOT doing something to help others outside the small world that each of us touches. If we could/would just be willing to help those that fate/God puts in our lives, it would be a very good start.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2011
  18. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,173
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +344 / 6 / -8

    Nik, interesting perspectives - can you quantify the range of activities among the Bush-era "non-military interventions"?

    I'm a tad skeptical but not entirely. I think the "spark" for the current state of affairs, though through a roundabout rout, was Hamas defeating the PA in Gaza. Whatever people read and hear, those interviewed at the time didn't talk about Jihad or Israel... they talked about Fatah corruption. The current wave of revolts seems generational in character thus far much more than ideological (but of course, the ideology may just not be identified.)

    The reason I'm a tad skeptical about the programs you listed is that we were simultaneously cozying up with the region's Mubarrak's (we'd always cozied up to him,) and Qaddafi (a new wrinkle,) in support of their support for our Iraq war & our pursuit of terror suspects. So it's counterintuitive to think they wouldn't notice and oppose us subtly propagandizing the citizenry... but again, share what you have. It'll be interesting to look at.

    RW, the Mrs. is all alone in the PFnV house urging the return of the draft, though I find some of the reasoning compelling.

    But like you, I don't like compulsory service.

    I do like the notion that you make service voluntary and not that highly paid, sort of like low-grade military service. But make it possible to do your leadership training within the voluntary civilian corps, with regular opportunity to move over to the actual military, again, voluntarily, & get higher pay and benefits. Give them counters toward a little better hitch, & you might get the equivalent of a stop-loss program out of it to boot. My main thing is, get these damn kids off their couches & get 'em fixing bridges consarnit. It ain't healthy to be young and idle, and that's what you get with a recession this deep. Plus, as a nation, we got sh1t to do. Let's see, we got sh1t to do, we got younguns sittin' 'round not doin' sh1t, get 'em to do the sh1t we got to do. Even better... offer ALWAYS open, ALWAYS staffed, FREE OF CHARGE English language and American citizenship classes. And if you're in the program X years and you pass the exam... TA DAAAAAA! Perfect for the kid that ends up here through the sins of the father, right?

    Heh, I just threw that one in to make PR and RW throw up. But it seems reasonable to me, actually -- open the program as a path to citizenship for those born abroad, and a job when you start out without one to kids born here. I dunno, fix some bridges, build some turbines, clean up some parks.

    Make it voluntary and I'm for it.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2011
  19. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,244
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +21 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    I don't think you can have a One Size Fits All blanket policy. In the case of Lybia Gaddafi is a mad man that would kill tens of thousands of civilians. And We and others can/could do something about it. We can destroy or degrade his military assets, averting a mass slaughter of civilians and leveling the playing field.
    In Darfour this wasn't possible, there wasn't much to go after, its mainly different tribes using small arms.

    I think we have a moral imperative to intervene if we can in situations such as Lybia.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2011
  20. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Christopher Hitchens talks about this in a recent article:

    If Saddam Hussein were still in power, the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya could never have happened. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

    "The Iraq Effect"
    "If Saddam Hussein were still in power, this year's Arab uprisings could never have happened."

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>