Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are you an isolationist or a neo-con?

YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:42:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Or are you somewhere in the middle?

Say where you stand, and explain if you like why you stand where you do, to the extent that you feel/think/believe necessary.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:45:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Isolationist. But that doesn't mean I support a myopic self-defense policy that wouldn't neutralize a threat before it gets out of hand.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:53:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Non interventionist, apprehend terrorists when they try to get in, well never kill them all and bombing sovereign nations is only hurting us in the long run, current policy is making enemies faster than it kills them.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Subutai
Posts: 3,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 11:58:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:45:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isolationist. But that doesn't mean I support a myopic self-defense policy that wouldn't neutralize a threat before it gets out of hand.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:07:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:45:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isolationist. But that doesn't mean I support a myopic self-defense policy that wouldn't neutralize a threat before it gets out of hand.

Has that ever worked out for us, pre emptive strikes?

Russia has been the only real threat since WWII, yet no pre emptive strike.
It seems to me we only make pre emptive strikes on countries who are in and of themselves of little consequence.
I believe in the just war theory, initiating violence to subdue a possible future threat of violence is absurd.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 1:33:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:07:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:45:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isolationist. But that doesn't mean I support a myopic self-defense policy that wouldn't neutralize a threat before it gets out of hand.

Has that ever worked out for us, pre emptive strikes?

Russia has been the only real threat since WWII, yet no pre emptive strike.
lol.. False
It seems to me we only make pre emptive strikes on countries who are in and of themselves of little consequence.
I believe in the just war theory, initiating violence to subdue a possible future threat of violence is absurd.
Actually, just war theory permits preventive wars against tyrants before they attack.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 1:36:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think isolationist is the right word. I'm pro globalization, free-trade and internationalism but I don't see much use for standing armies in the modern world.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 1:39:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 1:36:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think isolationist is the right word. I'm pro globalization, free-trade and internationalism but I don't see much use for standing armies in the modern world.
You need to provide a rationale for such opinions.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 1:42:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 1:39:57 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/25/2013 1:36:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think isolationist is the right word. I'm pro globalization, free-trade and internationalism but I don't see much use for standing armies in the modern world.
You need to provide a rationale for such opinions.

Nuclear weapons and MAD, no country can possibly threaten our sovereignty without risking the world as we know it ending.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 1:44:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 1:33:44 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:07:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:45:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Isolationist. But that doesn't mean I support a myopic self-defense policy that wouldn't neutralize a threat before it gets out of hand.

Has that ever worked out for us, pre emptive strikes?

Russia has been the only real threat since WWII, yet no pre emptive strike.
lol.. False
It seems to me we only make pre emptive strikes on countries who are in and of themselves of little consequence.
I believe in the just war theory, initiating violence to subdue a possible future threat of violence is absurd.
Actually, just war theory permits preventive wars against tyrants before they attack.

Alright then just war in the context of modern life, as no tyrannical leaders in the world pose any sort of threat to our sovereignty.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 1:45:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 1:39:57 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/25/2013 1:36:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think isolationist is the right word. I'm pro globalization, free-trade and internationalism but I don't see much use for standing armies in the modern world.
You need to provide a rationale for such opinions.

The existence of standing armies is simply a prisoner's dilemma.

Furthermore, I find mass murder and the destruction of infrastructure to be generally counter-productive.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:06:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:02:24 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
Strong, Strong Neo-Con, without a doubt in my head. I have always felt that The world is a better place when people intervene.

Even when we kill millions of innocent people and displace many others in the process?
Can you really rationalize the war crimes of US intervention in Vietnam and Iraq as something that actually helped people?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:09:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:02:24 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
Strong, Strong Neo-Con, without a doubt in my head. I have always felt that The world is a better place when people intervene.

It should be to the extent that we can rid despots in sordid parts of the globe. Nothing really good has come from doing nothing and letting such tyrants continue in their reign.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:10:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:06:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:02:24 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
Strong, Strong Neo-Con, without a doubt in my head. I have always felt that The world is a better place when people intervene.

Even when we kill millions of innocent people and displace many others in the process?
Can you really rationalize the war crimes of US intervention in Vietnam and Iraq as something that actually helped people?

He meant to say the world is a better place* *for midwestern high school students.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:12:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 1:45:26 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/25/2013 1:39:57 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/25/2013 1:36:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think isolationist is the right word. I'm pro globalization, free-trade and internationalism but I don't see much use for standing armies in the modern world.
You need to provide a rationale for such opinions.

The existence of standing armies is simply a prisoner's dilemma.
No, it's not. M.A.D Game Theory is more applicable.

Furthermore, I find mass murder and the destruction of infrastructure to be generally counter-productive.
The killing of combatants isn't legally considered "mass murder". Generally, when people go to war the opportunity costs are weighed; the death and destruction are considered worth the benefits of victory.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:15:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:09:52 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:02:24 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
Strong, Strong Neo-Con, without a doubt in my head. I have always felt that The world is a better place when people intervene.

It should be to the extent that we can rid despots in sordid parts of the globe. Nothing really good has come from doing nothing and letting such tyrants continue in their reign.

Psh nothing good? We pay less than 4 dollars a gallon for oil while supporting the dictatorial Saudi Royal family and in keeping the Saudi Arabian population down.
For 30 years good came from propping up the dictator Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.
Good came from training the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 80's
Good came from install Saddam Hussein as dictator of Iraq.
Good came from overthrowing the Democratically elected government of Iran in favor of the Shah.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:17:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:12:16 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The killing of combatants isn't legally considered "mass murder". Generally, when people go to war the opportunity costs are weighed; the death and destruction are considered worth the benefits of victory.

500,000 Iraqi children died as result of sanctions and bombings in Iraq throughout the 90's.
But you're right, we specifically stated that that cost was worth it to us. Then we wonder why people in the middle east might not like us.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:31:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:17:54 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:12:16 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The killing of combatants isn't legally considered "mass murder". Generally, when people go to war the opportunity costs are weighed; the death and destruction are considered worth the benefits of victory.

500,000 Iraqi children died as result of sanctions and bombings in Iraq throughout the 90's.
But you're right, we specifically stated that that cost was worth it to us. Then we wonder why people in the middle east might not like us.
id I say all wars were just? You want to abolish all standing armies because a foreign policy caused death? Makes sense doesn't it.

Because in 1939 if Poland had no army the Nazi Germany would have said: it's cool Poland, we'll come to a diplomatic understand over East Prussia. If you think the abolition of armies is a deterrent to war, I have nothing to say.

The Case for War:
Is the product of war superior to the product of inaction?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:51:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:31:43 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Because in 1939 if Poland had no army the Nazi Germany would have said: it's cool Poland, we'll come to a diplomatic understand over East Prussia. If you think the abolition of armies is a deterrent to war, I have nothing to say.

Is this really a defense of maintaining a standing army in the 21st century?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 3:04:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Assume I had major power of decision making in America (I have to put it in a context like that; my answer would change if I considered from the perspective of a "global citizen" or a japanese politican).

If we're going to use large categories, I follow a more neoliberal trend when looking at isolationist or neocon policy.

In order to maximize American interests, our aim shouldn't be to transform other societies in a one-size-fits all schema like "everyone should be democracy." Sometimes our involvement with a nation should be no more tangible than goodwill gestures. At other times, preferably with international backing, we should militarily engage nations.

Maintaining US national security interests does not necessitate destroying and rebuilding sovereign institutions under the delusion that all societies should be fitted with the same political infrastructure.

However, it does necessitate active involvement in trying to create incentives and disincentives to shape behavior of sovereign institutions and non-state actors.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 3:07:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm also against the idea of foreign policy for the sake of American supremacy/hegemony.

Ultimately, a state will self-destruct if it loads its investments into militarily keeping dominating with nations whose economies and populations are growing much faster. Arguably, this over-investment to maitain supremacy plays a part in the fall of the Soviet Union as well as Roman Empire.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 3:08:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:51:55 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:31:43 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Because in 1939 if Poland had no army the Nazi Germany would have said: it's cool Poland, we'll come to a diplomatic understand over East Prussia. If you think the abolition of armies is a deterrent to war, I have nothing to say.

Is this really a defense of maintaining a standing army in the 21st century?

Well, one issue with abolishing a standing army these days is that technology is so advanced, in the time it would take to "organize" an army in response to a nation's attacks, we'd be ground to dust.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 3:09:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm actually both. I believe in American supremacy and dominance through the forceful, coercive use of isolation. My foreign policy ideology is on the intellectual forefront in a new wave of thinkers on the subject.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 3:11:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:51:55 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:31:43 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Because in 1939 if Poland had no army the Nazi Germany would have said: it's cool Poland, we'll come to a diplomatic understand over East Prussia. If you think the abolition of armies is a deterrent to war, I have nothing to say.

Is this really a defense of maintaining a standing army in the 21st century?
Depends,
Luxembourg and the Vatican has honorific guard. As for land locked European countries, most have very small self-defense forces which are more like a militia-police.

For the UK and USA, most definitely. There's always a risk military dispute. It's a insurance and primary deterrent to state bullying - see Russia vs Georgia. If the UK had no standing navy Argentina would have simply annexed the self declared British Falkland Islands.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 3:17:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:51:55 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Is this really a defense of maintaining a standing army in the 21st century?
The UN is not reliable in terms of national security. How should under-presented people defend themselves without a standing army? Take my country as an example -- several years of war, genocide happening near UN camp, arms embargo, to name a few. If the country had an army, there would be far fewer casualties, a better political scenario today, and better preventative measures against war.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 3:21:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 3:17:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:51:55 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Is this really a defense of maintaining a standing army in the 21st century?
The UN is not reliable in terms of national security. How should under-presented people defend themselves without a standing army? Take my country as an example -- several years of war, genocide happening near UN camp, arms embargo, to name a few. If the country had an army, there would be far fewer casualties, a better political scenario today, and better preventative measures against war.

I'm referring to the US standing army as it stands today.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 3:34:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
lewis20,
Consider the alternative, the free Republic subject to any invasion and despotism whiling to impose its tyranny? No trained soldiers, no heavy arms industry (for it has no demand in peacetime), no navy to defend commercial transports or blockade.

What power protects your freedom?

I haven't checked your profile yet but if you're an anarchist. Damn.
'sup DDO -- july 2013