PDA

View Full Version : non-interventionism - bad idea in this age?




giskard
05-21-2007, 11:14 AM
http://www.northstarwriters.com/pi053.htm

I posted an open letter to the writer here
http://www.northstarwritersforum.com/showthread.php?t=79

If any of you guys reply pls. be polite.

rpliving
05-21-2007, 11:28 AM
"How would Paul, an avowed non-interventionist, have acted in reaction to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941?"

I read to there and realized this guy is an idiot. Ofcourse Ron would have no problem going to war with a country that directly attacked us

mdh
05-21-2007, 11:35 AM
Yeah, that's pretty retarded. Interventionism has nothing to do with responding to military aggression. Non-interventionism doesn't even necessarily mean that we would absolutely wait for an enemy state to attack us first, if we had real, compelling, credible evidence that it was going to happen. There was no compelling, credible evidence that Iraq had any plans to attack the US.

Hawaii Libertarian
05-21-2007, 11:40 AM
Dr. Paul supported military action in Afghanistan after 9/11 in direct response to a state-supported (e.g. Taliban) ist attack on the U.S. A Japanese attack on sovereign U.S. territory would be no different.

Speaking of interventionism, if you read pre-World War II history, the United States' interventionist policy implemented harsh sanctions on the Japanese which nearly crippled their economy (more bad foreign policy which invited an attack), but the mainstream history books that support an interventionist foreign policy never mention that. If we hadn't imposed those sanctions on vital natural resources, Japan would have had no reason whatsoever to attack us.

If you really want to see how disgusting the U.S. government's interventionist foreign policy has been, study the overthrow of the sovereign Hawaiian nation in order to establish a puppet government and a U.S. territory friendlier to corporate interests and military basing. If you go to the U.S. Capitol building, you'll find one of the statues in there is of King Kamehameha, the only "king" honored in such a manner in our nation's capitol buidling.

BTW, during World War II, Hawaii wasn't even a state yet. It would be the same as if someone attacked Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands.

Finally, there have been numerous books written about FDR's and his advisors' foreknowledge of the impending Japanese attack, so there is a precedent for our government being passive in the face of a looming disasterous attack. The common thread is a failed interventionist foreign policy.

NMCB3
05-21-2007, 11:48 AM
Nonintervention is just as wise now as in George Washington`s day.

lbadragan
05-21-2007, 12:02 PM
Wow that "writer" is such a moron. This is so sad I can't even muster up the energy to give him a response. Aren't people in the media supposed to be intelligent and write only afther due research? Apparently not. I see the media in a completely new light since Ron Paul decided to run. It would be incredibly funny if the consequences to the country and the world wouldn't be so lethal.

mdh
05-21-2007, 12:09 PM
This isn't the media, this is the intarwebs.
There're two things that don't exist on intarwebs: girls and competent journalism. It's debatable whether the latter exists off the intarwebs either.

Gee
05-21-2007, 12:24 PM
I cannot believe how unpopular a non-interventionalist policy seems to be in the media. Do they not realize the vast majority of all the peaceful nations on earth are non-interventionalist? Why do they think its so fringe? How can they look at history and even suggest that politians are even capable of identifying threats (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Philippines) when we aren't attacked?

Has America even had a single military intervention which aided the national security of this country? That is, some military operation that was not in response to an obvious threat which actually worked?

Hawaii Libertarian
05-21-2007, 12:34 PM
I cannot believe how unpopular a non-interventionalist policy seems to be in the media. Do they not realize the vast majority of all the peaceful nations on earth are non-interventionalist? Why do they think its so fringe? How can they look at history and even suggest that politians are even capable of identifying threats (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Philippines) when we aren't attacked?

Has America even had a single military intervention which aided the national security of this country? That is, some military operation that was not in response to an obvious threat which actually worked?

If you talk to the neocons, having a forward projected, semi-permanent military presence is a good thing, but that asumes that being globocop is also a good thing.

If you practice mental contortion, you could make a case that protecting maritime trade lanes is in our national interest and if Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea was attacked, the economic damage to our nation would be devastating.

When you look back on recent history, the only countries where we've significantly reduced military presence are Saudi Arabia, the Phillipines, and of course Vietnam. Unfortunately, we've shifted lots of forces to other nations in southwest Asia. We've drawn down somewhat in Europe, Korea, and Japan, but we still have "peacekeepers" stuck in Bosnia, Israel, and other places that aren't widely publicized.

The real answer is getting us out of the United Nations and its related alliances like NATO which have outlived their Cold War usefulness. The NATO mission in Afghanistan is a total joke and most of the NATO member states don't even actively support it.

If the U.S. chooses to have overseas deployed military forces, it should be for legitimate U.S. not U.N. interests, such as bilateral defense treaties ratified by Congress in nations that are truly friendly to the United States.

Jeff556
05-21-2007, 12:42 PM
Ron Paul has no problem attacking a country who attacks us. Paul just wants us staying out of the affairs of other nations to AVOID A DIRECT ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES.

retrorepublican
05-21-2007, 01:23 PM
Dr. Paul supported military action in Afghanistan after 9/11 in direct response to a state-supported (e.g. Taliban) ist attack on the U.S. A Japanese attack on sovereign U.S. territory would be no different.

Speaking of interventionism, if you read pre-World War II history, the United States' interventionist policy implemented harsh sanctions on the Japanese which nearly crippled their economy (more bad foreign policy which invited an attack), but the mainstream history books that support an interventionist foreign policy never mention that. If we hadn't imposed those sanctions on vital natural resources, Japan would have had no reason whatsoever to attack us.

If you really want to see how disgusting the U.S. government's interventionist foreign policy has been, study the overthrow of the sovereign Hawaiian nation in order to establish a puppet government and a U.S. territory friendlier to corporate interests and military basing. If you go to the U.S. Capitol building, you'll find one of the statues in there is of King Kamehameha, the only "king" honored in such a manner in our nation's capitol buidling.

BTW, during World War II, Hawaii wasn't even a state yet. It would be the same as if someone attacked Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands.

Finally, there have been numerous books written about FDR's and his advisors' foreknowledge of the impending Japanese attack, so there is a precedent for our government being passive in the face of a looming disasterous attack. The common thread is a failed interventionist foreign policy.

Hey Hawaiian,

Your response was awesome lol.

I quoted you on my blog if that's okay. If not just let me know, and I'll take it off.

http://retro-republican.blogspot.com/

Bryan
05-21-2007, 03:54 PM
Here is what I posted:

Paul,

I appreciated your piece being critical of Dr. Paul. I do have some disagreements and questions for you however, obviously this is a complicated subject that can't be resolved in a few paragraphs so diving in deeper seems appropriate.



On the spectrum of foreign policy perspectives in America, non-interventionism today is somewhat on the fringe.
On what basis do you make this claim? Further, even if something is fringe, does that make it inherently a faulty position?


How would Paul, an avowed non-interventionist, have acted in reaction to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941?
Presumably Dr. Paul wouldn't have provoked the Japanese as President Hoover said had been done the day after Pearl Harbor "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."


Would Paul have blamed those attacks on our annoyance of the Japanese in the same way that he blamed the 9/11 attacks on the foreign policy of recent U.S. administrations?
I suggest considering to what degree these "pins in rattlesnakes" were documented with the McCollum Memo (written October 1940), declassified in 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo

What is your analysis of this memo? Did they put "pins in rattlesnakes"? Is this not non-interventionism?



After implying that we invited the attacks on our civilians,
What leads you to this conclusion since he never said "invited"? Please explain the how this is implied.


That’s the thing about non-interventionists and pacifists – they too often cling to the belief that everyone else would stick to these non-interventionist views if they themselves stick to them long enough.
It would seem statistically that some others would stick to their own non-intervention while others wouldn't. The question is, what to do about it? Do we always go on the offensive? I would suggest to consider some words of Dwight Eisenhower, you may recall that Dr. Paul pointed out that Eisenhower was elected to get us our of the Korean war, below is part of a speech he made just prior to the general election on the topic:

The biggest fact about the Korean war is this: It was never inevitable, it was never inescapable, no fantastic fiat of history decreed that little South Korea-in the summer of 1950-would fatally tempt Communist aggressors as their easiest victim. No demonic destiny decreed that America had to be bled this way in order to keep South Korea free and to keep freedom itself-self-respecting.
We are not mute prisoners of history. That is a doctrine for totalitarians, it is no creed for free men.


Dwight D. Eisenhower
October 25, 1952
"I Shall Go to Korea" speech
http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/Ike_Korea_52.html

So in effect, a free man can choose if he wants to intervene or not, it is totalitarians to conclude there is no option or just be forced to follow the government mandate- would you disagree with this?



That’s the thing about non-interventionists and pacifists – they too often cling to the belief that everyone else would stick to these non-interventionist views if they themselves stick to them long enough. But that is not how it works. That is never how the world has worked. And it is certainly not how the ideology of extremist Muslims works.
Can you provide a proof of this "ideology" or is this a hypothesis based on a handful of data points? I understand there are data points, I'm just saying that after a decent study on the matter I have yet to see the hardcore proof that this claimed threat is worth addressing in the manner it is. I'm interested if you can provide one.


The fact of the matter is that the radical Muslims running Al Qaeda and like terrorist organizations have as a goal the conversion of the entire world populace to their way of life.
I would like to see a proof of this as well. Assuming this is true, if using a completely pacifists foreign policy of doing nothing and only dealing with the issue at our borders or on American soil, how long do you think it will take for them to be successful to the point that our way of life is in jeopardy?


Letting terrorists quietly establish bases in the Middle East so they can use them to convert the world would indeed represent the end of history as we know it.
Of course everything changes the world as we know it, the question is to what degree, how does it effect me and what should, if anything, be done about it? Your argument here is to take action, for me, taking action means getting involved. Do you suggest that I put my life on hold and travel to the Middle East to deal with this threat? If it's not worth me going there why would I want to support someone else going there? What sacrifices are worth making to you?

Thanks for clarifying you position.

billv
05-21-2007, 03:56 PM
Dr. Paul was more hawkish on Afghanistan than the Bush administration in that he said we didn't send near enough troops in to secure the country and keep the factions from warring with each other.

Hawaii Libertarian
05-21-2007, 04:09 PM
Hey Hawaiian,

Your response was awesome lol.

I quoted you on my blog if that's okay. If not just let me know, and I'll take it off.

http://retro-republican.blogspot.com/

I'm flattered--feel free to reproduce my comments and use as you like.