Interventionism versus non-interventionism

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4588
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism

Post by technovelist » Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:21 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 2:05 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:30 pm
Kbg wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:14 pm
You should read everything after “to be clear” more carefully.
You're right I should have...

But the reason folks speak disparagingly about that quote ("Fight there so we don't have to fight them here"), is because it's been used by elites and parroted by chicken-hawks all over our country for every unnecessary foreign intervention we've been in to excuse the mass-slaughter of foreigners and sending our boys to go die for the plutocratic class.

So I suppose if I completely divorce that phrase and the "disparaging" of it from actual historical reality as well as our almost infinite arsenal to defend ourselves from any sort of actual attack, then I can agree with you that "yes, theoretically, all-things-being-equal, having the battlefield be far away is better than having it be here."
That arsenal of ours did not work out too well on December 7, 1941 or September 11, 2001. I'm not sure what the answer is because I'm not privy to all the necessary facts. I doubt there is a one size fits all answer to the topic.
The arsenal was not intended to work in the way you seem to mean, on those dates.

Pearl Harbor was the result of deliberate incitement of the Japanese so that the American public would agree to go to war.
9/11 was a false flag. I don't know who exactly did it, but I do know that the official explanations for the WTC building collapses, especially building 7, cannot possibly be true, and cannot possibly be innocently wrong.

By the way, these are not outliers in any sense. As far as I can tell, every excuse for the US going to war after the War of 1812 has either been deliberately incited or was a false flag.
User avatar
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism

Post by Kbg » Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:26 pm

War and warfare has always been highly complex at many levels and is fundamentally a human endeavor which means it is waged for many reasons, some good, some evil, many somewhere in between.

I spent a couple of years on two different occasions emerged in the topic academically...if one really wants to get a solid foundation on thinking about it Clausewitz’s On War in my view is still the single best source. It’s not an easy book to read, and reading some associated commentaries is mandatory if you have to read it on your own.

I’m going to cease posting on this thread as I think it is getting ready to go silly and cynical which tends to push me into incivility and I don’t want to go there as an individual. Thank you for the views expressed.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am

Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism

Post by boglerdude » Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:24 am

> I do know that the official explanations for the WTC building collapses, especially building 7, cannot possibly be true
:O
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2 ... ion-report


South Korea is thriving compared to North, so intervention worked there? Why the difference compared to Vietnam?
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7985
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism

Post by moda0306 » Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:42 am

boglerdude wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:24 am
> I do know that the official explanations for the WTC building collapses, especially building 7, cannot possibly be true
:O
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2 ... ion-report


South Korea is thriving compared to North, so intervention worked there? Why the difference compared to Vietnam?
We don't know that. A unified Korea could be a balance between the two we have now and we perhaps wouldn't have killed a million Korean peasants for the current outcome.
hardlawjockey
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:30 pm

Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism

Post by hardlawjockey » Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:14 am

When it comes to the idea of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, I'm just thankful that most of the rest of the world doesn't think the way we do - an exception being the 9/11 terrorists of course.

In the Book "Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered from All Sides", there is an interview with a female sniper who apparently was quite skilled and managed to kill a lot of American soldiers. She said it was because they were so big they were easy to hit and also if you hit one, the others would try to help him and you could get more of them.

When asked if she had any regrets for killing so many Americans her answer was that if she had gone to their country and killed them she would have regrets but since they came to her country to kill, she had none.

Made sense to me.
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism

Post by ochotona » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:01 am

Seems to me WW2 and Gulf War I were the only justified wars in the 20th-21st century.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2012
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism

Post by Xan » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:07 am

hardlawjockey wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:14 am
When it comes to the idea of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, I'm just thankful that most of the rest of the world doesn't think the way we do - an exception being the 9/11 terrorists of course.

In the Book "Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered from All Sides", there is an interview with a female sniper who apparently was quite skilled and managed to kill a lot of American soldiers. She said it was because they were so big they were easy to hit and also if you hit one, the others would try to help him and you could get more of them.

When asked if she had any regrets for killing so many Americans her answer was that if she had gone to their country and killed them she would have regrets but since they came to her country to kill, she had none.

Made sense to me.
They had come to her country to help her countrymen fight off the Communists. One side could complain when a foreign power entered a civil war, but really the problem here is that she was (is?) a flippin' Communist.
hardlawjockey
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:30 pm

Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism

Post by hardlawjockey » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:43 am

Xan wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:07 am
hardlawjockey wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:14 am
When it comes to the idea of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, I'm just thankful that most of the rest of the world doesn't think the way we do - an exception being the 9/11 terrorists of course.

In the Book "Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered from All Sides", there is an interview with a female sniper who apparently was quite skilled and managed to kill a lot of American soldiers. She said it was because they were so big they were easy to hit and also if you hit one, the others would try to help him and you could get more of them.

When asked if she had any regrets for killing so many Americans her answer was that if she had gone to their country and killed them she would have regrets but since they came to her country to kill, she had none.

Made sense to me.
They had come to her country to help her countrymen fight off the Communists. One side could complain when a foreign power entered a civil war, but really the problem here is that she was (is?) a flippin' Communist.
When it came time for North and South Vietnam to unite according to the 1954 Geneva Accords, it was determined by the CIA that Ho Chi Minh would have gotten about 80% of the vote. That's why we decided to build up and support our own puppet government which never had majority support in South Vietnam.

I bought a shirt with a label "Made in Vietnam" the other day and couldn't help but wonder what a shame it was that so many years were wasted and so many millions killed to prevent a country from working out their own damn problems. Which they eventually had to do any way.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1163
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:33 am

I think this kinda ties into what moda was saying about Korea. If most of the Vietnamese wanted to be Communists, fuck it... let em. In retrospect, it obviously seems like a good thing that we helped South Korea, even if we didn't really know if they would have worked out a good solution if left to their own devices. Because South Korea seems pretty swell and North Korea is a hellscape.

As a current example, should the US (and Russia?) let ISIS run shit and see how it works out in a few decades?
Post Reply