Interventionism versus non-interventionism
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
The merits of interventionism per se is an entirely different question than the merits of that special breed of interventionism that snubs the legitimate interests of the American people and that acts at the behest and for the benefit of transnational corporate interests.
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:30 pm
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
I tend to think of WWII as the demarcation point where we took a hardcore turn into interventionism. There was a strong anti-interventionist movement as a response to foreign adventures in WWI and the Philippines and Americans were growing sick of it. Even FDR campaigned on a promise to keep us out of Europe's wars. And then came Pearl Harbor and I think that's where it all changed. The idea that "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" took hold for good and refuses to let go.moda0306 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:07 amI've gotten to the point where it seems to me the US has always had an interventionist "foreign" policy, but it's always been decently good at value comparison and not biting off more than it can chew. For years I sort of bought the argument that "until Teddy" or "until Wilson" or "Until FDR" or "Until Truman" we were non-interventionist... but think about this for a second...hardlawjockey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:37 pm At one time I would have called myself a Libertarian but today I tend to eschew all forms of ideology and am more of a pragmatist.
Having said that, the U.S.A. has had an interventionist foreign policy since at least the end of WWII. Can someone point out what benefit this has been to the American taxpayer (Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan? - Anybody?). In some of Donald Trump's statements he seemed to agree with me on this which is the main reason I voted for him but like a lot of things about him, I have to adopt a wait and see attitude.
During the 1800's, we were on the doorstep of billions of acres of largely arable "foreign" land that ended up being on top of other valuable natural resources such as gold and oil, mostly "owned" by weakening foreign powers thousands of miles away, or weak competitors to the South, or low-tech easily-conquerable "savages." Do we really get to pat ourselves on the back for slaughtering & annexing our way west and not getting involved in the Revolutions of 1848? What would the upside to any class of politician have been for that? Even a very basic cost/benefit analysis for any half-witted politician would see there was FAR more to gain by focusing our military adventures on the Western half of what is now the U.S. and mostly not shipping legions of folks overseas to play the colonial game elsewhere. The reason France, Britain & Spain look "colonialist" and "interventionist" by-comparison is that they weren't going to be able to conquer each other... Europe was pretty well-locked down. Better to send boats to India & the Americas. I'm sure if you smacked a billion acres of arable and resource-laden land right to the West of Europe, they probably would have avoided India & Africa for a while.
We were plenty interventionist in the 1800's. We just had targets that were simultaneously less conspicuous given how we view U.S. territory today and more profitable from a cost/benefit perspective to U.S. elite interests. Once we achieved manifest destiny, naturally, our colonialist hunger started to stretch to central/south America, and eventually Europe as a good last-minute tie-breaker to protect our trade & banking interests during WWI/II, and then we ended up (naturally) a world-power. We just took the game we've always been playing to the next level.
So short-story-long, I don't see us as ever having had a "limited government" approach. Giving us credit for that is like giving the Mongols credit for not conquering the Americas. Anyone knows you start with the low-hanging fruit... which is exactly what the USA did.
Of course none of this is new information... but it seems like it's rarely carried over to up-ending the narrative that the U.S. was largely anti-interventionist pre-WWII or during the guilded age or what-have-you.
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
The idea that "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" took hold for good and refuses to let go.
Anyone who says the above disparagingly has never actually been in a war zone. Personally, I'm totally cool with erring on the side of caution with this one. Why do you think the generation who fought WW II was so interventionist, just for fun?
I thought the second invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. But a not bad side effect in my view is that it, and Syria, served as a meat grinder for thousands of jihadis.
Moda's comment about reality is dead on.
Anyone who says the above disparagingly has never actually been in a war zone. Personally, I'm totally cool with erring on the side of caution with this one. Why do you think the generation who fought WW II was so interventionist, just for fun?
I thought the second invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. But a not bad side effect in my view is that it, and Syria, served as a meat grinder for thousands of jihadis.
Moda's comment about reality is dead on.
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:30 pm
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
Well, I spent 12 months in a war zone and saw nothing that convinced me of the truth of that statement.
The first time I heard it I was in high school in 1967 when a military recruiter came to school to give a talk about the war in Vietnam. I can hardly imagine that happening today but back then, where I grew up at least, nobody saw anything wrong with it. I believe he made that statement word for word and after his talk he got a standing ovation led by the president of the class. I remember it very well because I was sitting right beside him. I don't remember if I stood up or not but I probably did even though I didn't want to because I was thinking everything the man said was bullshit, althoug that's far too mild a word for it.
As things subsequently turned out, I ended up in Vietnam (Brownwater Navy) and the president of the class did not. I also learned much later that by the time that recruiter gave his speech, the CIA had already published a paper stating that the "Domino Theory" about countries falling like dominoes to the communists if we didn't stand up against them in Vietnam was probably false. The fact that shortly after we left Vietnam, there was a war between Vietnam and China, helped bear this out.
There are a lot of Vietnamese in America today, with "Nguyen" being a more prevalent last name than even my own, but they didn't come here to take over our country. They came here as refugees from the "American War" as they call it in Vietnam today.
So that's the story of my life when it comes to American "Interventionism". Feel free to offer any positive real-life stories you have to share with us.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
- Contact:
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
Should we have let N Korea (China's pit bull) take over S Korea
Also, would like to hear 'Nam stories...
Also, would like to hear 'Nam stories...
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
Really!? Your war zone must have been way nicer than mine.hardlawjockey wrote: ↑Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:34 pmWell, I spent 12 months in a war zone and saw nothing that convinced me of the truth of that statement.
To be clear, I am not debating the good or bad of Vietnam (or my personal wars)...but I am incredulous that you think having any war where you live is preferable to having it somewhere else.
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
The idea that we had to slaughter hundreds of thousands of southeast Asian peasants to prevent them or their ideas from doing us damage here is utterly ridiculous.Kbg wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:24 amReally!? Your war zone must have been way nicer than mine.hardlawjockey wrote: ↑Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:34 pmWell, I spent 12 months in a war zone and saw nothing that convinced me of the truth of that statement.
To be clear, I am not debating the good or bad of Vietnam (or my personal wars)...but I am incredulous that you think having any war where you live is preferable to having it somewhere else.
So the entire premise upon which you're resting your "incredulous" claim is vacuous.
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
You should read everything after “to be clear” more carefully.
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
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."
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4964
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
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.moda0306 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:30 pmYou'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."
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
The arsenal was not intended to work in the way you seem to mean, on those dates.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 2:05 pmThat 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.moda0306 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:30 pmYou'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."
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.
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
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.
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.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
- Contact:
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
> 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?
: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?
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
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.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?
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:30 pm
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
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.
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.
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
Seems to me WW2 and Gulf War I were the only justified wars in the 20th-21st century.
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
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 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.
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:30 pm
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
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.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:07 amThey 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 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.
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.
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Interventionism versus non-interventionism
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?
As a current example, should the US (and Russia?) let ISIS run shit and see how it works out in a few decades?