Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

A great speech for interventionism

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 2:28:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am tied between hegemony/interventionism and isolationism. It is hard to be interventionist and justify a lot of the endeavors the US has went on, but it's also hard to justify NOT intervening in cases like North Korea, Syria, Iran, Rwanda, etc.

This speech by Ronald Reagan might have turned me though.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 2:32:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have always been a proponent of interventionism in the Cold War, I am even for the Vietnam War. Some wars like the one in Iraq, the propping up of Guatemalan rebels, Afghan rebels, etc. were not justified, but as the world's most powerful nation we should lead by example, if we don't step up to the plate no one will. Even France has more balls than us when they say they will follow us in combat and assist us if we do missile strikes on Syria. I am really tiring of the apologist camp when it comes to foreign policy and american exceptional ism, we are in a lot of ways an exceptional nation. We should let the apologists move to Europe where they can live in the socialist craphole that they have been duped in to believing is a utopia.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 2:41:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 2:32:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have always been a proponent of interventionism in the Cold War, I am even for the Vietnam War. Some wars like the one in Iraq, the propping up of Guatemalan rebels, Afghan rebels, etc. were not justified, but as the world's most powerful nation we should lead by example, if we don't step up to the plate no one will. Even France has more balls than us when they say they will follow us in combat and assist us if we do missile strikes on Syria. I am really tiring of the apologist camp when it comes to foreign policy and american exceptional ism, we are in a lot of ways an exceptional nation. We should let the apologists move to Europe where they can live in the socialist craphole that they have been duped in to believing is a utopia.

Oh piss off, mate. You assume "apologism," as you call it (which isn't even the right word) is tantamount to socialism.

It isn't.

Also, I'm pretty sure "leading by example," does NOT mean "let's go halfway around the world and kill a whole bunch of people because we aren't politically alike."
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 3:05:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 2:41:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/30/2013 2:32:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have always been a proponent of interventionism in the Cold War, I am even for the Vietnam War. Some wars like the one in Iraq, the propping up of Guatemalan rebels, Afghan rebels, etc. were not justified, but as the world's most powerful nation we should lead by example, if we don't step up to the plate no one will. Even France has more balls than us when they say they will follow us in combat and assist us if we do missile strikes on Syria. I am really tiring of the apologist camp when it comes to foreign policy and american exceptional ism, we are in a lot of ways an exceptional nation. We should let the apologists move to Europe where they can live in the socialist craphole that they have been duped in to believing is a utopia.

Oh piss off, mate. You assume "apologism," as you call it (which isn't even the right word) is tantamount to socialism.

I don't, I just think that a lot of socialist states in Europe try to shame the US in to being apologetic (it's especially sad when they had empires themselves).

It isn't.

They usually go hand in hand.

Also, I'm pretty sure "leading by example," does NOT mean "let's go halfway around the world and kill a whole bunch of people because we aren't politically alike."

The USA has shamed itself in to believing that tolerance is equivalent to putting up with pre-enlightenment despots who oppress, exploit, and lie to their people. We should not tolerant intolerance, we should spread the enlightenment ideas we were founded on.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 3:11:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Feel free to rack up your justifications and necessity of war. But never insist that it is within the realm of ethics. It is not. War assumes we have already failed as human beings.

No one wins war; no one wins hell.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 3:16:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:11:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Feel free to rack up your justifications and necessity of war. But never insist that it is within the realm of ethics. It is not. War assumes we have already failed as human beings.

No one wins war; no one wins hell.

I am sorry, but some things are worth dying for, as is mentioned in the speech. I think spreading enlightened ideas that have and will (or should) continue to change the way the world thinks is a good cause. I think that tolerating intolerance is not true tolerance. Nations that don't at least meet enlightenment (maybe Montesquieu) standards should be forced to have regime change. Why is the USA not justified in it's actions, but people love the UN? The USA is the UN, but more effective and less corrupt.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 3:45:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, if you're for remaining a hegemon, you shouldn't be so quick to "intervene" in states like Iran and North Korea.

It's one thing to "intervene" when a bunch of people start killing each other and the government does nothing. It's quite another to "intervene" against a government with an army.

We have a nasty habit of confusing the two.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 3:47:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:16:07 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/30/2013 3:11:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Feel free to rack up your justifications and necessity of war. But never insist that it is within the realm of ethics. It is not. War assumes we have already failed as human beings.

No one wins war; no one wins hell.

I am sorry, but some things are worth dying for, as is mentioned in the speech. I think spreading enlightened ideas that have and will (or should) continue to change the way the world thinks is a good cause. I think that tolerating intolerance is not true tolerance. Nations that don't at least meet enlightenment (maybe Montesquieu) standards should be forced to have regime change. Why is the USA not justified in it's actions, but people love the UN? The USA is the UN, but more effective and less corrupt.

I REALLY hate to be "that guy" in the room, but when people say things like this I have to ask:

Precisely WHO is worth dying for these events? Unless you are in the military (in which I sincerely apologize), your values are getting quite a safe gamble.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 10:24:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:05:32 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/30/2013 2:41:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/30/2013 2:32:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have always been a proponent of interventionism in the Cold War, I am even for the Vietnam War. Some wars like the one in Iraq, the propping up of Guatemalan rebels, Afghan rebels, etc. were not justified, but as the world's most powerful nation we should lead by example, if we don't step up to the plate no one will. Even France has more balls than us when they say they will follow us in combat and assist us if we do missile strikes on Syria. I am really tiring of the apologist camp when it comes to foreign policy and american exceptional ism, we are in a lot of ways an exceptional nation. We should let the apologists move to Europe where they can live in the socialist craphole that they have been duped in to believing is a utopia.

Oh piss off, mate. You assume "apologism," as you call it (which isn't even the right word) is tantamount to socialism.

I don't, I just think that a lot of socialist states in Europe try to shame the US in to being apologetic (it's especially sad when they had empires themselves).

Here's the thing: I'm an internationalist. I think that there are many a thing that the US SHOULD be apologetic for. By nature, there are many a thing that European countries should be apologetic for. There are pros and cons to every country. Yes, there are some literally exceptional qualities about the US (ie, economic and military superpower, pervasiveness of American pop culture around the world, etc.), I think that your line of thinking is nationalistic, which I think is an extremely dangerous way of thinking. Yes, I am proud of my country, and I hope to one day be a civil servant or take on a leadership role within the government. At the same time, we cannot say that the US is an inherently better nation than another nation. Nationalism is at the end of the day just another kind of chauvinism or racism.

It isn't.

They usually go hand in hand.

Not really.

Also, I'm pretty sure "leading by example," does NOT mean "let's go halfway around the world and kill a whole bunch of people because we aren't politically alike."

The USA has shamed itself in to believing that tolerance is equivalent to putting up with pre-enlightenment despots who oppress, exploit, and lie to their people. We should not tolerant intolerance, we should spread the enlightenment ideas we were founded on.

By murdering people?

Here's the thing: Enlightenment ideals were all well and good for us, and I'd say were/are well and good for much of the Western world, but many many African, Asian, Mideastern, Latin American, and Eastern Europeans cultures as well as some Western cultures do not have the same ideals, predispositions, and values that we do.

What you ultimately are advocating is for the US to tell the rest of the world "Fvck your cultures and long long histories, we know the RIGHT way. Listen to us or we'll bomb the sh1t out of you." The fact of the matter is, some cultures and groups of people CAN'T have a functioning democracy. Some groups of people actually prefer to live under an absolute monarchy (ie, United Arab Emirates and Swaziland), some prefer to live in a theocracy. I think the attitude you ultimately convey is one of intolerance of anything different than us.

There are indeed limits - very BASIC human rights - but the thing is, just saying not Enlightenment=evil is a VERY poor argument, especially for when that argument advocates sending our own people to kill other people and die for a vague concept that we've decided needs to be forced on everyone else because WE like it and WE can bully people into doing what we want.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 10:40:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:16:07 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/30/2013 3:11:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Feel free to rack up your justifications and necessity of war. But never insist that it is within the realm of ethics. It is not. War assumes we have already failed as human beings.

No one wins war; no one wins hell.

I am sorry, but some things are worth dying for, as is mentioned in the speech. I think spreading enlightened ideas that have and will (or should) continue to change the way the world thinks is a good cause. I think that tolerating intolerance is not true tolerance. Nations that don't at least meet enlightenment (maybe Montesquieu) standards should be forced to have regime change. Why is the USA not justified in it's actions, but people love the UN? The USA is the UN, but more effective and less corrupt.

I think there are things worth fighting for, but there are no things worth dying for. You're going to end your existence, for purposes that would cease to bear meaning to you, in your absence. It's silly
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 10:48:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 10:24:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/30/2013 3:05:32 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/30/2013 2:41:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/30/2013 2:32:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I have always been a proponent of interventionism in the Cold War, I am even for the Vietnam War. Some wars like the one in Iraq, the propping up of Guatemalan rebels, Afghan rebels, etc. were not justified, but as the world's most powerful nation we should lead by example, if we don't step up to the plate no one will. Even France has more balls than us when they say they will follow us in combat and assist us if we do missile strikes on Syria. I am really tiring of the apologist camp when it comes to foreign policy and american exceptional ism, we are in a lot of ways an exceptional nation. We should let the apologists move to Europe where they can live in the socialist craphole that they have been duped in to believing is a utopia.

Oh piss off, mate. You assume "apologism," as you call it (which isn't even the right word) is tantamount to socialism.

I don't, I just think that a lot of socialist states in Europe try to shame the US in to being apologetic (it's especially sad when they had empires themselves).

Here's the thing: I'm an internationalist.

There lies the problem, conflict creates innovation, no conflict, no competition, no innovation. If there is no war and no capitalism, the world will stagnate fast. Seeing as how I've never met a laissez-faire internationalist, I don't think you are one yourself. Want to know what created most modern technology? The competition between european empires for survival, that's why Europe became superior to africa, that's why European nations could keep an empire that had 10x more people than the pop,. of their armies. Most major inventions were made for monetary purposes, or for regime survival, or superiority. So you're telling me Africa would have been better off without railroads, the cure to malaria, and industrialization? I call BS.

I think that there are many a thing that the US SHOULD be apologetic for. By nature, there are many a thing that European countries should be apologetic for.

And what should the US be apologetic for, can you name a nation that has done anything better with their power? At least in some cases we did use our power to fight for democratic values, it's better than drying up a nation for it's resources, then leaving it to deteriorate.

There are pros and cons to every country. Yes, there are some literally exceptional qualities about the US (ie, economic and military superpower, pervasiveness of American pop culture around the world, etc.), I think that your line of thinking is nationalistic, which I think is an extremely dangerous way of thinking.

How the left use nationalism is not at all the technical definition. Nationalism basically says that we should do patriotic acts for the people in our nation, not for the ruler. Nationalism broke up empires in it's true form, only when it was used deceptively did it create empires. Nationalism gave Greece it's sovereignty from the Ottomans, and is ultimately what forced a lot of the revolutions that occurred during the enlightenment. Just say it, you think patriotism is bad, saying nationalism is bad would be contradictory, as you are probably one yourself, in fact I know you are, as you want to be a civil servant.

Yes, I am proud of my country, and I hope to one day be a civil servant or take on a leadership role within the government. At the same time, we cannot say that the US is an inherently better nation than another nation. Nationalism is at the end of the day just another kind of chauvinism or racism.

No it's not, it's the right for a group of people to have self-government, or their own nation. Once again, nationalism is not a white thing, a black thing or an asian thing, nationalism gave India it's sovereignty, Greece, Kosovo, etc. Nationalism does not have to be based on a race, so it's not racist, it's based on a nationality, hence the name nationalist. In fact America was created on the premise that the American people were entitled to their own nation, and to have self determination and self government, does that make our founding fathers vehement nationalists? Very much so.

It isn't.

They usually go hand in hand.

Not really.

Also, I'm pretty sure "leading by example," does NOT mean "let's go halfway around the world and kill a whole bunch of people because we aren't politically alike."

The USA has shamed itself in to believing that tolerance is equivalent to putting up with pre-enlightenment despots who oppress, exploit, and lie to their people. We should not tolerant intolerance, we should spread the enlightenment ideas we were founded on.

By murdering people?

Here's the thing: Enlightenment ideals were all well and good for us, and I'd say were/are well and good for much of the Western world, but many many African, Asian, Mideastern, Latin American, and Eastern Europeans cultures as well as some Western cultures do not have the same ideals, predispositions, and values that we do.

No, that's what the governments of those nations want, the people don't even know what the enlightenment is because their governments don't give them freedom of the press or freedom of information. The high up monarchs, oligarchs, despots, and priests denounce the enlightenment, the people don't. Have you ever noticed how most of the time democratic revolutions occur as soon as people in that nation are allowed to know the honest truth about the world around them? Do you really think anyone wants to be oppressed? Do you really think that after someone who lives in a craphole like Iran gets a peek at what Europe and America look like, they would still want to live in Iran? I think if you said yes you would be lying to everyone here and yourself. I'll tell you what, if all the governments give people the right to freely travel and see world history and the current world for themselves, and not through their despots narrow view, and they still want to live in their country, that's fine, but I highly doubt it.

What you ultimately are advocating is for the US to tell the rest of the world "Fvck your cultures and long long histories, we know the RIGHT way. Listen to us or we'll bomb the sh1t out of you." The fact of the matter is, some cultures and groups of people CAN'T have a functioning democracy. Some groups of people actually prefer to live under an absolute monarchy (ie, United Arab Emirates and Swaziland), some prefer to live in a theocracy. I think the attitude you ultimately convey is one of intolerance of anything different than us.

No, they just either can't afford internet or the schools teach revisionist history and the government doesn't allow the people to get the freedom to see how the world outside of their nation actually is.

There are indeed limits - very BASIC human rights -

This is why I said the ideals of someone like Monesquieu would make more sense, I didn't say John Locke or anything, (god forbid people had freedom of speech and the press, that's just radical, crazy talk isn't it? -Sips tea and watches a peasant beg for their life-)

but the thing is, just saying not Enlightenment=evil is a VERY poor argument, especially for when that argument advocates sending our own people to kill other people and die for a vague concept that we've decided needs to be forced on everyone else because WE like it and WE can bully people into doing what we want.

No, I just think that if these authoritarian nations allowed people to see the world outside of their despots narrow world view, the very vast majority of the time they would either leave or start a revolution.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 10:53:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 10:40:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2013 3:16:07 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/30/2013 3:11:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Feel free to rack up your justifications and necessity of war. But never insist that it is within the realm of ethics. It is not. War assumes we have already failed as human beings.

No one wins war; no one wins hell.

I am sorry, but some things are worth dying for, as is mentioned in the speech. I think spreading enlightened ideas that have and will (or should) continue to change the way the world thinks is a good cause. I think that tolerating intolerance is not true tolerance. Nations that don't at least meet enlightenment (maybe Montesquieu) standards should be forced to have regime change. Why is the USA not justified in it's actions, but people love the UN? The USA is the UN, but more effective and less corrupt.

I think there are things worth fighting for, but there are no things worth dying for. You're going to end your existence, for purposes that would cease to bear meaning to you, in your absence. It's silly

Are you kidding? Some people will practically fall on a sword for martyrdom.

Some people measure their lives by the impact they made on the world during the short time they were on this Earth. I am not a full Randian in the sense that I look up to altruists and think that while it's unhealthy to be a full blown altruist, we can take things away from them. But an altruist at heart would easily die if they believed it would positively impact enough people. As I said, Jesus being an ideal example, whether he was really God's soon (if you believe in any god) or just a nutcase, either way. Also, as it is said in the speech, although vastly outgunned and outnumbered, should the soldiers at Concord bridge have thrown down their weapons and refused to fire the shot heard round the world?

True altruists would die for a cause they believed would benefit a huge group of people, if they were willing to do put their money where their mouth was and do more than visit animal shelters on weekends, that is.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 11:02:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Reagan's speech came close to bringing a tear to my eye. It was beautiful. I must say, I agree. We should take down the people who violate the rights of others. I disagree on one front though, how we do it. I believe in the power of bombs, explosives, and a lot of bullets. Don't do any of this decade-long-war crap. Go in, six months later, get out. Use what we have all at once, overthrow the government, give power to the people, and hand the rest of the crap over to the UN.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 11:07:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 11:02:34 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Reagan's speech came close to bringing a tear to my eye. It was beautiful. I must say, I agree. We should take down the people who violate the rights of others. I disagree on one front though, how we do it. I believe in the power of bombs, explosives, and a lot of bullets. Don't do any of this decade-long-war crap. Go in, six months later, get out. Use what we have all at once, overthrow the government, give power to the people, and hand the rest of the crap over to the UN.

Agreed, the baby boomers that supposedly did great things for this generation have fvcked us at the end of the day. If you take the parts about the cold war and apply them to modern times, it fits almost perfectly in to our current situation regarding the apologist camp. Appeasement is all good, and it can be used, but there should always be that red line where the enemy may not cross.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 11:09:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I honestly like the Israel, South Korea, Taiwan method. Just to have a small standing army (maybe 900,000), but then have a large reserve force of a couple million that can be ready at a few days notice for war. Keeps a lot less soldiers off the active duty payroll.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 11:11:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 10:48:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/30/2013 10:24:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

There lies the problem, conflict creates innovation, no conflict, no competition, no innovation. If there is no war and no capitalism, the world will stagnate fast.

I'm going to stop you right here.

I understand this line of thinking because I've thought about it before...however, depending upon how you approach it, it can be fatally flawed.

The key is to ask what is the PURPOSE for the conflict. Conflict for the sake of conflict is destruction by definition. However, businesses (i.e. competition) tend to practice a type of creative destruction, whether it be getting someone or something from point A to B ten times faster than "normal" or what not. The conflict created by this process leads to a higher purpose.

So when it comes to interventionalism, the question always has to be "why intervene?" And, if the answer is not good enough, then conflict should not be considered.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?