Would being non-interventionist prevent us from attacks?

[bill1971]

I am very non-interventionist, but something I read in yahoo about Al-queda attacks seemed interesting.

"There have been small-scale violent incidents in Denmark, where bin Laden had repeatedly encouraged followers to attack because of disparaging references to the Muslim prophet Mohammed in Danish media, the officials said. But he did not seem to be involved in planning those specific incidents, the officials said."

I dont view Denmark as being interventionist yet are still a target. What if Ron Paul became president(I wish) pulled us out of everywhere, but an anti-muslim sentiment was prevelant in the media for some reason, we would still be a target wouldn't we? I agree it would decrease our chances greatly but it doesnt seem to take much to set off these terrorist nuts.

[Anti Federalist]

Honest answer, assuming a legitimate government and no false flags or other "dirty tricks".

Probably not completely.

Guess what? Even if so, I don't care.

All things being equal, I'd take my chances with a random suicide bomb nut, over the police state.

[virgil47]

Until we bow to Islam we will always be a target. Sad but true. I know there are those on these forums that are champions of Islam and that they will disagree. I hope they are correct but I am a realest and only time will tell.

[Teaser Rate]

No, but the main idea of non-intervention is to shift our resources from nation-building to national security.

[bill1971]

No, but the main idea of non-intervention is to shift our resources from nation-building to national security.

That is part of it, but it is also to make us safer by not shaking the hornets nest so to speak. Plus it will save the country tons of money by not spending billions all the time, plus the cost of US Troop's lives.

[amy31416]

Defense.

Not the bullshit TSA stuff. Not the bullshit that ICTS is touting. Real, actual defense is a legitimate function of government. Our government hasn't the first clue of what that actually is. In my lifetime, they've never done it, so far as I know.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'm more scared of a cop shooting me over mistaking my cellphone as a pistol than a nutcase blowing himself up to prove a point, and I'm sure the first thing happens quite more often.

[Teaser Rate]

Defense.

Not the bullshit TSA stuff. Not the bullshit that ICTS is touting. Real, actual defense is a legitimate function of government. Our government hasn't the first clue of what that actually is. In my lifetime, they've never done it, so far as I know.

Is would this real, actual defense be different than what we have now?

[eproxy100]

Until we bow to Islam we will always be a target. Sad but true. I know there are those on these forums that are champions of Islam and that they will disagree. I hope they are correct but I am a realest and only time will tell.

...

Not this "they hate us for our freedom" BS again.

[Teaser Rate]

That is part of it, but it is also to make us safer by not shaking the hornets nest so to speak. Plus it will save the country tons of money by not spending billions all the time, plus the cost of US Troop's lives.

I think non-interventionists are better off focusing on national defense instead of trying to rationalize the motives of religious fanatics determined to kill us.

[amy31416]

Is would this real, actual defense be different than what we have now?

Yes.

[Teaser Rate]

Yes.

Sorry, I actually mean to write How would this real, actual defense be different than what we have now?

[Anti Federalist]

...

Not this "they hate us for our freedom" BS again.

Silence, Mundane, and get back in line for your screening:

http://hollyonthehill.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/groping.jpg

[bill1971]

I think non-interventionists are better off focusing on national defense instead of trying to rationalize the motives of religious fanatics determined to kill us.

I agree, if you have a good defense, it doesnt matter.

[RonPaulCult]

Maybe it's true that non-intervention won't completely solve the problem. But how does bombing and occupying muslim countries actually HELP the problem?

[heavenlyboy34]

I am very non-interventionist, but something I read in yahoo about Al-queda attacks seemed interesting.

"There have been small-scale violent incidents in Denmark, where bin Laden had repeatedly encouraged followers to attack because of disparaging references to the Muslim prophet Mohammed in Danish media, the officials said. But he did not seem to be involved in planning those specific incidents, the officials said."

I dont view Denmark as being interventionist yet are still a target. What if Ron Paul became president(I wish) pulled us out of everywhere, but an anti-muslim sentiment was prevelant in the media for some reason, we would still be a target wouldn't we? I agree it would decrease our chances greatly but it doesnt seem to take much to set off these terrorist nuts.
Non-interventionism probably won't stop the problem immediately. It will take some time. The US regime has been meddling in mideast affairs for some 70 years now. Before the meddling over there of the 20th century, attacks from the mideasterners were entirely unheard of except for the barbary wars during Jefferson's administration.

[Vessol]

I dont view Denmark as being interventionist yet are still a target.

They are a part of NATO and have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How is that not interventionist?

[Seraphim]

Nothing can truly prevent an attack.

You can lower the chances, you can prepare for response situations - full prevention is not possible.

With that said, non intervention and non aggression are VERY condusive to long peace and mutual prosperity.

Once long term peace is established - long term division of labour is possible. That is VERY condusive to productivity, civil liberty and overall prosperity.


I am very non-interventionist, but something I read in yahoo about Al-queda attacks seemed interesting.

"There have been small-scale violent incidents in Denmark, where bin Laden had repeatedly encouraged followers to attack because of disparaging references to the Muslim prophet Mohammed in Danish media, the officials said. But he did not seem to be involved in planning those specific incidents, the officials said."

I dont view Denmark as being interventionist yet are still a target. What if Ron Paul became president(I wish) pulled us out of everywhere, but an anti-muslim sentiment was prevelant in the media for some reason, we would still be a target wouldn't we? I agree it would decrease our chances greatly but it doesnt seem to take much to set off these terrorist nuts.

[doodle]

Probably 95-97% reduction in terror threats, we would be as much vulnerable as Sweden is.
Just ending military/financial support of Israel would brobably cut down terror threats by 85-89% or so. There were ZERO terror attacks on America before it started supplying bombs to Israel to facilitate its occupation of Palestinians. Inventor of airplane Hijacking as a terror tool in 70s was a group led by Palestinian Christian doctor George Habash. It all started then.

[showpan]

Denmark supported Bush wars and supplied troops...so are they really innocent after all?

[COpatriot]

Until we bow to Islam we will always be a target. Sad but true. I know there are those on these forums that are champions of Islam and that they will disagree. I hope they are correct but I am a realest and only time will tell.

Whatever you say, Hannity.

[ProIndividual]

In the book Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, the author Robert Pape studies every suicide attack from 1980-2004 (nearly, if not all, the attacks known). When he wrote the book, it was considered the most comprehensive study on suicide terrorism at the time.

What did he conclude to be the chief cause of suicide terrorism? An occupation by a Western democratic nation. In wholly 95% of the cases, this was the direct motivation given, and the direct cause. It also is a major recruitment tool.

Nothing makes us completely safe.

"Of evils, liberty is the lesser. Of virtues, liberty is the greater...[i]n all things liberty causes the less coercion." --- Benjamin Tucker


edit: That 95% increases if you generalize the cause of suicide terrorism to be occupation by a foreign force of other religious, or lack thereof, values. The number one leader worldwide of terrorism in that book (as an individual group), and inventor of the suicide vest, was the Tamil Tigers from Sri Lanka...they are atheist Marxists, and the occupier are Hindu Indians.

[bunklocoempire]

In the book Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, the author Robert Pape studies every suicide attack from 1980-2004 (nearly, if not all, the attacks known). When he wrote the book, it was considered the most comprehensive study on suicide terrorism at the time.

What did he conclude to be the chief cause of suicide terrorism? An occupation by a Western democratic nation. In wholly 95% of the cases, this was the direct motivation given, and the direct cause. It also is a major recruitment tool.

Nothing makes us completely safe.

"Of evils, liberty is the lesser. Of virtues, liberty is the greater...[i]n all things liberty causes the less coercion." --- Benjamin Tucker


edit: That 95% increases if you generalize the cause of suicide terrorism to be occupation by a foreign force of other religious, or lack thereof, values. The number one leader worldwide of terrorism in that book (as an individual group), and inventor of the suicide vest, was the Tamil Tigers from Sri Lanka...they are atheist Marxists, and the occupier are Hindu Indians.

WT:collins:!?

THAT certainly doesn't play to my emotions!

Nor have I heard that as a "reason" everyday for the past 10 years.

Another 'blame America' guy.

;)

(great Tucker quote:))

Bunkloco

[sailingaway]

It isn't a magic charm, but meddling in other nations' internal affairs sure isn't working, and we can't afford it, anyhow.

[fisharmor]

Defense.

Not the bullshit TSA stuff. Not the bullshit that ICTS is touting. Real, actual defense is a legitimate function of government. Our government hasn't the first clue of what that actually is. In my lifetime, they've never done it, so far as I know.

No, they haven't.
Remember from history class that one of the three original departments under the executive was the department of war.
It was kind of understood AFAIK that this was its function - waging war.
It was that way up until 1947, when it was changed from the department of defense.
Since then we haven't had a single declared war.
Plenty of "conflicts" and "police actions" though.

I think one large political goal that the liberty movement should be pushing for is to rename DoD back to the department of war.
Make it very clear by its name that this is what it is used for.
Using the word "defense" for the war department doesn't just conceal the true purpose of the war department, though: it also arrogates to itself the job of defense, which, constitutionally, is NOT the job of the military.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

The question is, would guys like Osama Bin Laden be as powerful as he is(was) without the United States Foreign Policy which helped build his coalition and justify his cause?

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

There will always be terrorists and chaos bringers. Be it Islamists, Communists, Anarchists, Christians, depressed teens, you name it.

[angelatc]

Until we bow to Islam we will always be a target. Sad but true. I know there are those on these forums that are champions of Islam and that they will disagree. I hope they are correct but I am a realest and only time will tell.

Time has already told. Muslims have lived here since the 1700's. They managed to become productive capitalists without slaughtering the Indians and the Christians. This is the same type of brainwashing that led up to the Jews being marched to the ovens.

[AZKing]

If we were to pull out completely today, I think we would be a little safer. No more infidel killing. However, I'm fairly sure many of the people who already hate us will still hate us, so we would need some really good police work for a while, similar to how we got KSM -- a foreign government captured him.

Long term, we will be safer than we are now.

[virgil47]

It has nothing to do with our freedom. Wake up! They hate us for our religion or our lack of religion. If we all convert to Islam the attacks will stop.

[virgil47]

Sure enough Abdul!

[virgil47]

Perhaps you need to look into the vast majority mosques in the U.S. and really listen to what is being said today not what was 300 years ago.

[CasualApathy]

Being the resident Dane on these forums I have to ponder a bit at OP's assertion that Denmark is non-interventionist... In fact we are far from it. We were there from the start in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we still have troops in Afghanistan today although public demand eventually got us out of Iraq around the time of the Abu Ghraib incident. (6 months to a year after I believe.)

[amy31416]

It has nothing to do with our freedom. Wake up! They hate us for our religion or our lack of religion. If we all convert to Islam the attacks will stop.

Really? So when we all convert, will our government magically stop bombing other Muslim countries then? Allah knows, there's never been one Muslim country that aggresses against another, what a brilliant plan!

[amy31416]

Perhaps you need to look into the vast majority mosques in the U.S. and really listen to what is being said today not what was 300 years ago.

Oh...I didn't know you were attending Islamic services. Get a recording for us next time, sporto.

[Acala]

It has nothing to do with our freedom. Wake up! They hate us for our religion or our lack of religion. If we all convert to Islam the attacks will stop.


It is Public Manipulation 101. Convince the public that they are being attacked and that the survival of their way of life depends on giving their freedom and wealth to the protector. And you have fallen for it.

[Pericles]

Non intervention as a policy certainly couldn't hurt the US, even though some threats will still exist. A successful non intervention policy still requires a determined defense (think Switzerland) and an effective intelligence service (which the CIA is not).

Here is a thought experiment on the effect of the US shifting from a non intervention policy to taking sides in WWI. By the time the US entered WWI, Germany had essentially defeated Russia, and the treaty of Brest-Litovsk is signed before substantial US forces arrive on the front in Europe. The defeat of Russia, freed up German forces to conduct a series of offensives in the western front in the spring of 1918. Without the US Army presence on the front, those attacks probably would have led to a settlement favorable to Germany. Without US intervention, a post WWI Europe looks like a very strong Germany and Austria-Hungary (both monarchies) with very a weak France, a weak Russia, that even if the communists win the civil war, do not have the oil and wheat breadbasket regions of the Russian empire.

Future conflict between a communist Russia and Germany in the 1930s, would result in further German influence and control west of the Ural mountains. Therefore, no Nazi party, no international communist front that is effective, and no WWII in Europe, with no follow on Cold War. Israel would probably not exist.

Events in the east between Japan and China would not have played out much differently. The question would be how much Germany would be intent on keeping the Dutch East Indies oil field away from Japanese expansion, and there is no real reason to think that Pearl Harbor would not have happened, unless there was some deal made with Germany, or the Ottoman Turks for oil (the Turks being rebuffed in Europe, would probably control what is now from Jordan to Iraq), England being weakened in the war, would have to get out of the war of the Turks as Germany's ally.

One possibility in the Pacific war would have been Japan against China, Germany, US, Great Britain, and even the expansionist Japanese would not go there.

A very different world because the US participated in WWI.

[eproxy100]

Non intervention as a policy certainly couldn't hurt the US, even though some threats will still exist. A successful non intervention policy still requires a determined defense (think Switzerland) and an effective intelligence service (which the CIA is not).

Here is a thought experiment on the effect of the US shifting from a non intervention policy to taking sides in WWI. By the time the US entered WWI, Germany had essentially defeated Russia, and the treaty of Brest-Litovsk is signed before substantial US forces arrive on the front in Europe. The defeat of Russia, freed up German forces to conduct a series of offensives in the western front in the spring of 1918. Without the US Army presence on the front, those attacks probably would have led to a settlement favorable to Germany. Without US intervention, a post WWI Europe looks like a very strong Germany and Austria-Hungary (both monarchies) with very a weak France, a weak Russia, that even if the communists win the civil war, do not have the oil and wheat breadbasket regions of the Russian empire.

Future conflict between a communist Russia and Germany in the 1930s, would result in further German influence and control west of the Ural mountains. Therefore, no Nazi party, no international communist front that is effective, and no WWII in Europe, with no follow on Cold War. Israel would probably not exist.

Events in the east between Japan and China would not have played out much differently. The question would be how much Germany would be intent on keeping the Dutch East Indies oil field away from Japanese expansion, and there is no real reason to think that Pearl Harbor would not have happened, unless there was some deal made with Germany, or the Ottoman Turks for oil (the Turks being rebuffed in Europe, would probably control what is now from Jordan to Iraq), England being weakened in the war, would have to get out of the war of the Turks as Germany's ally.

One possibility in the Pacific war would have been Japan against China, Germany, US, Great Britain, and even the expansionist Japanese would not go there.

A very different world because the US participated in WWI.

About Pearl Harbor... here's a quote from wikipedia



The book is also interesting historically as Butler points out in 1935 that the US is engaging in military war games in the Pacific that are bound to provoke the Japanese.

"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_is_a_racket

I don't know if that was the cause of Pearl Harbor but it's interesting. I don't think we can conclude either way with regards to the Japanese attack.

[oyarde]

As Pericles mentioned , the CIA would need disbanded and replaced with an organization that has more accountability . Would it prevent attacks completely ? Maybe not , WE SHOULD DO IT AND SEE.

[Acala]

The nutshell case against the US finding peace through intervention:

1. It hasn't worked. 50 years of meddling in the Middle East has not made it friendly, stable, peaceful, or free. It is foolish to think another 50 years will achieve a different result.

2. We can't afford it. We are broke ten times over. Borrowing the money needed to pay for global intervention makes us weaker by the day.

3. It isn't Constitutional. The Federal government has no explicit authority to engage in aggressive, offensive military adventures around the world, nor does it have the authority to establish peacetime military bases in other countries.

4. We have proven that we cannot do the job without overwhelming corruption. The influence of the banks, military contractors, oil companies, etc. have perverted our foreign policy such that it is now primarily concerned with transfering wealth from the American people into the hands of special interests.

5. It is contrary to the express advice of the Founders who counseled friendly relations with all and entangling alliances with none.

6. It inevitably results in moral depravity and destruction. War inevitably erodes the humanity of those who pursue it. The end result is always torture, rape, murder, theft, deceit, manipulation, and the slaughter of innocents as well as vast damage to the minds and bodies of our own soldiers. The evil that inevitably comes with war must only be unleashed when it is absolutely essential for the immediate survival of the country.

[Acala]

About Pearl Harbor... here's a quote from wikipedia



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_is_a_racket

I don't know if that was the cause of Pearl Harbor but it's interesting. I don't think we can conclude either way with regards to the Japanese attack.

I read that internal Japanese documents from the time indicated that the Japanese felt that their ambitions in the South Pacific would inevitably conflict with the US occupation of the Philippines and they thought that a strong pre-emptive strike against the US would cause us to withdraw from the region. Or maybe they just hated us for our freedom.

[ValidusCustodiae]

It has nothing to do with our freedom. Wake up! They hate us for our religion or our lack of religion. If we all convert to Islam the attacks will stop.

That's the dumbest crap I ever heard. Explain Mohammed Atta's coke & stripper binge prior to 9/11. Is that what Islamic fundies see as a holy pre-suicide bombing ritual? I highly doubt it. This has nothing to do with religion, and I personally believe Al Qaeda is phony, or the actual danger it poses is inflated or exaggerated.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-05-26/news/27065477_1_cia-official-teen-boy-saddam-hussein

There's a link to an article where the CIA is admitting that it fakes videos to get the public to support these wars.

[musicmax]

There will always be a certain number of fanatics who will always find a "reason" or justification for whatever they do or think. This is true of individuals and groups other than Al-Qaeda.

However, the ability of these individuals and groups to recruit more stable and sane people to increase their numbers and thus their ability to actually inflict damage is helped when the ringleaders can point to specific actions of the perceived "enemy". To wit, Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwah referred to three specific policies of the United States:

1. Economic embargo of Iraq.
2. Siding with Israel in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
3. Deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia, specifically in areas considered holy to Islam.

Now ask yourself, which of these policies is interventionist? Answer: ALL. Which violates the Jeffersonian definition of ideal foreign policy ("free trade, honest friendship and neutrality with all nations; entangling alliances with none")? Answer: ALL.

So had the US been abiding by a policy of non-intervention, bin Laden would have not had three tangible US policies to point to to convince his recruits that the US was the "great satan".

The most telling word in Jefferson's quote is "entangling" - witness former US support of bin Laden against the Soviets, or its support of Saddam Hussein against Iran, or its support of dictators and criminals like Mubarek and Karzai.