View Full Version : concerning flopping aces

09-10-2007, 11:43 AM

Ok, looks like non-interventionism has some legitimate opponents with legitimate talking points now. What do you all think?

09-10-2007, 02:00 PM
I don't have time to give this a thorough rebuttal, but here's a few of things that stand out to me:

There have been only five declared wars by Congress. Yet our Presidents since the time of Thomas Jefferson have engaged in at least 12-17+ undeclared wars (depending on how you count them), with some of them having been vitally
important to America's self-interest.

Therefore the criteria for military intervention is simply when its in America's self-interest? Not defense?

His analogy is horribly flawed. With Iraq, the U.S. is not a hostile power. Neither are we a hostile, imperialistic force in ANY country we are in.

Who's living in the quixotic past that never existed again? This reeks of cognitive dissonance.

On the one hand we are justified using military force as long as it suits our self-interest, but on the other hand we are never a hostile, imperial force in any country. Just look at these examples from just one war which happened to be declared (WW2), and how happy Japan and Germany are to have huge American bases on their soil. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq don't count, if they did, war would have been declared right?

Boot goes on to point out (page 345-347 of The Savage Wars of Peace) how pacification campaigns and occupation of many third world countries made life better

See? They may not like it at first, but imperialistic wars are BETTER for the third world countries, nevermind what the native population thinks. They can't be trusted to run their own government, they need to be safe for democracy after all!

Where we have been most successful with lasting impact, are in those places where we kept our forces for a long period of time.

So we don't need LESS foreign wars... we need MORE. Its we invade, bomb and kill people for their own good, so they can have a good democratic government.

In 1939, what if Franklin Roosevelt did not find a way to provide military aid to Britain and France against the rise of Adolf Hitler? Our late intervention in the war....did it make America safer? Is it in America's best interest, not to practice an interventionist policy to help protect our allies? The very fact that we trade and do commerce with foreign nations, entangles us.

Just because it we had to go to war against the Axis powers in WW2 does not mean that all wars are justified. The same as our illegal and aggressive "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq does not mean that every war in America's past was unjustified. Each set of geopolitical circumstances is different, and you should treat them as such. In our current geopolitical climate it is America that is closer to the invaders of Poland, not the Iraqi's or Afghans. Its not the people's fault some Islamic right wing wackos flew planes into American buildings, just like its not our fault that some Christian right wing wackos want to nuke Iran and touch off Armageddon. But it will be our fault if we are apathetic and do not speak out and simply let it happen.

If one were to practice Paulian non-interventionism in one's personal life, you would stand neutral or turn aside, not lifting a finger, while your girlfriend got mugged. After all, you wouldn't want to experience blowback from the mugger's wrath, and have him mug you as well.

This is simply empty straw-man rhetoric. Ron Paul is not a pacifist. Iraq did not attack the U.S. It is however a very Christian viewpoint in that sort of turn the other cheek sort of way. Strange that all the Christians don't seem to remember that quote. If we were to practice Paulian non-interventionism, we would simply not use military force to bend other nations to fit our self-interest.

I get of what Dr. Paul would have the US do if he became president. If the United States withdraws from South Korea and gives China a carte blanche to invade Taiwan, as Dr. Paul has suggested it do, that will cause a serious disruption in the world and decline of US's economic strength.

So much fear that the world will break out into war and chaos if we don't have a base nearby. South Korea can easily handle North Korea. Taiwan has a modern navy and submarines that we've sold them. Good luck with a Chinese marine invasion as Taiwan simply torpedoes their boats. Even if the worst case happened and China assisted N Korea in conquering the South, and then invaded Taiwan, the main economic disaster for the US would be in not being able to produce cheap goods (via pegged currency) in China. Which would be instant inflation for the US, but hey its balanced out by all the manufacturing jobs that hopefully would pop back up in America.

No, the economic disaster in China is moving all of our production there along with the jobs and taxes that go with it, then borrowing money from the Chinese to fund even more consumption and foreign wars.

I don't think China would invade those countries though. I think we're more afraid that China will woo said nations and expand their region of influence peacefully. And we just can't have that.

We live in an age where America can no longer enjoy the protections of two oceans, as it once did. Although the Constitution is our compass and the North Star by which we may steer this nation, we must not be so inflexible as to not adapt to a world that our Founding Fathers could not have foreseen us living in.

Yeah, our Founding Fathers didn't foresee imperialistic powers with their foreign colonies. How could they.

Anyway, I'm out of time for now.

Chester Copperpot
09-10-2007, 02:03 PM

Ok, looks like non-interventionism has some legitimate opponents with legitimate talking points now. What do you all think?

The flopping aces people have long been detractors of Ron Paul and are slightly more credible than ronpaulexposed.com

Regardless, the 'war of the barbary pirate states' wasnt declared and technically it wasnt a war.. Jefferson simply sent ships into international waters with orders to defend themselves if they were attacked.. And of course they were attacked.

And the reason they were not ordered to attack first was because Jefferson felt that to do so without a congressional declaration would have been unconstitutional.