How much intervention is too much?

[ShaneEnochs]

So I'm a firm believer in the idea that we shouldn't attack countries unless they have threatened / attacked us, but I do think there is room for covert ops missions and intelligence gathering in other countries, and I believe I've heard Ron Paul speak to this. I'm sure other countries do it here. My question is this: how much intervention is too much? I think obviously using CIA agents to stage coups is too far, but what about other things?

[Acala]

If we follow the advice of the founders and engage in friendly relations and open trade with everyone, stay neutral, avoid alliances, and mind our own borders, none of that other crap will be necessary.

[ShaneEnochs]

If we follow the advice of the founders and engage in friendly relations and open trade with everyone, stay neutral, avoid alliances, and mind our own borders, none of that other crap will be necessary.

I wonder, though, if they imagined that we would ever be the most powerful country on the planet. That alone, I think, makes enemies.

[Acala]

I wonder, though, if they imagined that we would ever be the most powerful country on the planet. That alone, I think, makes enemies.

If you are honest, peaceful, and strong, you don't need to worry about enemies.

[VIDEODROME]

I think ShaneEnochs has a very good question here.

I think having a sensible army and navy based on defense makes sense. I think such a modern lean military could be supported by gathering intelligence with different methods like spies, surveillance planes, or satellites. Our navy ships and submarines benefit immensely from satellites for communicating, coordinating attacks, or yes even using drones.

I'm not sure about the covert ops. That can cover a lot of things. I mean suppose a covert op is a rescue mission to save an American hostage. That would seem sensible to me. In cases of aggression it seems like most of the time it should be done against stateless criminals like Al Quaeda or even the Mafia or the Somali Pirates.

[Acala]

I think ShaneEnochs has a very good question here.

I think having a sensible army and navy based on defense makes sense. I think such a modern lean military could be supported by gathering intelligence with different methods like spies, surveillance planes, or satellites. Our navy ships and submarines benefit immensely from satellites for communicating, coordinating attacks, or yes even using drones.

I'm not sure about the covert ops. That can cover a lot of things. I mean suppose a covert op is a rescue mission to save an American hostage. That would seem sensible to me. In cases of aggression it seems like most of the time it should be done against stateless criminals like Al Quaeda or even the Mafia or the Somali Pirates.

If all you are doing is defending your borders from invasion, why do you need to spy on other people?

If Americans are taken hostage during their travels overseas, why is it the US government's job to rescue them? The best thing the US government can do to protect Americans overseas is to STOP screwing around everywhere. And never negotiate for hostages.

[Travlyr]

Spies should be sitting in jail and surveillance planes grounded.

[CaptUSA]

As long as our surveillance is only to observe, I think it's ok. The problem is that once we see something, the urge to act on it is overwhelming to military leaders and especially politicians.

We don't need to meddle, but we don't need to bury our heads either.

[ShaneEnochs]

If all you are doing is defending your borders from invasion, why do you need to spy on other people?

If Americans are taken hostage during their travels overseas, why is it the US government's job to rescue them? The best thing the US government can do to protect Americans overseas is to STOP screwing around everywhere. And never negotiate for hostages.

Spies are great for things such as understanding the military might of another country, which is always important when it comes to defense. It's also good to be able to have a heads-up on an impending attack.

I know the argument of "if you leave everyone alone, they will leave you alone", but honestly that's bullshit. Iran hasn't done jack to anyone and they have the dogs of war breathing on their neck.

[Acala]

Spies are great for things such as understanding the military might of another country, which is always important when it comes to defense. It's also good to be able to have a heads-up on an impending attack.

I know the argument of "if you leave everyone alone, they will leave you alone", but honestly that's bullshit. Iran hasn't done jack to anyone and they have the dogs of war breathing on their neck.

And no amount of spying is going to help them. What will help them is to be as strong as possible - and continue to mind their own business.

IF you are at war then by all means engage in espionage. Otherwise, get strong through economic freedom, and keep the peace by not being a threat to anyone. And if someone makes the mistake of attacking you, make it a learning moment for the rest of the world.