Intervention vs Non-intervention

[Gipper]

I have moved our discussion from here https://www.houseofpolitics.com/thr...-4-us-officials-dead.15818/page-9#post-197203

I am an advocate for non-intervention. We should bring ALL our troops home and refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of foreign nations. We should resort to war only when attacked or when attack is imminent....approval to go to war can only come after debate by the public and Congress, when possible.

I believe history proves my opinion correct. The many interventions of the past 100 years by the US have been terrible failures with horrific consequences that have centralized power to the state. It has also benefited large multinational corporations, banks, and Wall Street, while diminishing individual liberty, to say nothing of the terrible suffering and death. History shows that giving fallible and egotistical leaders war powers more often leads to dreadful results.

What say you?

 

[BigRob]

I have moved our discussion from here https://www.houseofpolitics.com/thr...-4-us-officials-dead.15818/page-9#post-197203

I am an advocate for non-intervention. We should bring ALL our troops home and refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of foreign nations. We should resort to war only when attacked or when attack is imminent....approval to go to war can only come after debate by the public and Congress, when possible.

I disagree. I believe it is important to maintain the capability to quickly respond anywhere in the world when our interests are threatened -- be it keeping shipping lanes open, etc etc. Further, being a superpower offers far more benefit to us than not being a superpower - and it is something we should protect.

I believe history proves my opinion correct. The many interventions of the past 100 years by the US have been terrible failures with horrific consequences that have centralized power to the state. It has also benefited large multinational corporations, banks, and Wall Street, while diminishing individual liberty, to say nothing of the terrible suffering and death. History shows that giving fallible and egotistical leaders war powers more often leads to dreadful results.

What say you?

I don't agree obviously that all interventions in the last 100 years have been failures. I think we must identify a clear national interest before getting involved -- and sometimes we seem to ignore that -- but in those cases, we have generally been able our goals and it generally expands American power. What problem is there with that?

 

[dogtowner]

yeah that nasty intervention with Nazi Germany was a fiasco.

you have to expand your field by adhering to mutual protection treaties such as NATO if nothing else.

 

[Aus22]

Gipper now you are here , I will comment on Intervention and Non Intervention. The many interventions of the past 100 years by the US have been terrible failures"". I think the USA gained by its late intervention in Ww1 and 2. It became a super power providing goods and services to the allies. It was not bomb or occupied so preserved its economy while Europe was recovering It took over control of the seas . Its economic empire rival Britain.Beside gaining the Philippines and Hawaii directly it exercise economic control over several nations. Of courser if gain more debt and centralized the government. But it would have weaken Germany and got rid of the Nazi evil.

I do not think the USA gain much from interventions in the wars since WW@. However I doubt that given public opinion if could have kept out of Korea and Vietnam. It drew the first and lost the second. It may the USA unpopular in Asia and it cost many lives.

Later interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have also cost much. I suspect they made had doe so good by getting rid of Hussain and Bin Laden. However they will be replaced by other dictators who will be even less friendly to the USA. It did make money for its arms and other war services industries

It is difficult to hypothesis what would happen if we did not intervene. I suspect Korea and much more of Asia would be Communists. The Muslim extremist would be even more powerful. The USA would not be so unpopular but may be consider weak

 

[Centrehalf]

Gipper, some comments on things you said in the previous thread about FDR.

1. FDR allowed himself to be bugged in Tehran. I say that that's not proof of collaboration. That could just as easily have been a means to spread dis-information.

2. The Soviet Army was huge. I say yes it was. But you couldn't consider it a superpower before the war, and the Red Army could never have successfully invaded Europe prior to '43/'44, so blaming someone for creating a superpower in this instance just isn't right, IMHO. And, if had asked Stalin, he would have told you that the Allies did as much as they could to get as many Russian soldiers as possible killed.

 

[Gipper]

I disagree. I believe it is important to maintain the capability to quickly respond anywhere in the world when our interests are threatened -- be it keeping shipping lanes open, etc etc. Further, being a superpower offers far more benefit to us than not being a superpower - and it is something we should protect.



I don't agree obviously that all interventions in the last 100 years have been failures. I think we must identify a clear national interest before getting involved -- and sometimes we seem to ignore that -- but in those cases, we have generally been able our goals and it generally expands American power. What problem is there with that?

We need to be clear...we are NOT debating 'keeping shipping lanes open.' We are debating interventions that lead to all out war as occurred in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq... We know from history that the presidents in all those wars, sought war not peace (with the exception of Korea). Many historians have made very valid arguments that America could have avoided those wars, had the POTUS at the time really sought to avoid war.

I think claiming these wars made the USA a superpower are fallacious. We would have been a superpower no matter what due to our economic power and had we not incurred the huge sums to fund those wars, in human lives and material, we likely would have been even stronger.

Do not misunderstand my position. I do not propose America become isolationist and ignore world events. I do believe we need a strong military to protect our homeland and control aggressors. I am saying we must not go to war causing the deaths and suffering of thousands unless it is absolutely necessary. The wars mentioned were not necessary. Secondly, we know Wilson, FDR, and LBJ were egotistical power hunger idiots who sought war. They committed covert and overt actions that lead to war, while lying to the American people about pursuing peace.

We must limit the power of the POTUS to take us to war. History shows war is a tool of the statist and often is prosecuted for the benefit of government, industry, and bankers, while limiting individual liberty. And the consequences of war are often most detrimental, as proven by the results of WWI and WWII.

Big Rob, please provide a few examples of 'interests' that young Americans must die for.

 

[Gipper]

Gipper, some comments on things you said in the previous thread about FDR.

1. FDR allowed himself to be bugged in Tehran. I say that that's not proof of collaboration. That could just as easily have been a means to spread dis-information.

2. The Soviet Army was huge. I say yes it was. But you couldn't consider it a superpower before the war, and the Red Army could never have successfully invaded Europe prior to '43/'44, so blaming someone for creating a superpower in this instance just isn't right, IMHO. And, if had asked Stalin, he would have told you that the Allies did as much as they could to get as many Russian soldiers as possible killed.

1. I did not claim FDR collaborated with Stalin (but, in effect he did). At Tehran, FDR stated to his staff that he did not care if Stalin heard him. He considered Stalin a friend. How dumb must one be to consider Stalin a friend? FDR was a feeble minded fool and his actions caused the death and suffering of millions. How does one ridiculously flawed man obtain so much power?

2. My point is the Soviet Union WAS a superpower at the end of WWII. This is a terrible consequence of war prosecuted by fools. The allies completely destroyed Germany. Killing untold thousands of innocent German civilians only to gave half of Europe to the most heinous ideology in all of history. We helped make the USSR a superpower.

 

[Centrehalf]

1. I did not claim FDR collaborated with Stalin (but, in effect he did). At Tehran, FDR stated to his staff that he did not care if Stalin heard him. He considered Stalin a friend. How dumb must one be to consider Stalin a friend? FDR was a feeble minded fool and his actions caused the death and suffering of millions. How does one ridiculously flawed man obtain so much power?

I still say that this is a good thing to do if you want to spread disinformation.

2. My point is the Soviet Union WAS a superpower at the end of WWII. This is a terrible consequence of war prosecuted by fools. The allies completely destroyed Germany. Killing untold thousands of innocent German civilians only to gave half of Europe to the most heinous ideology in all of history. We helped make the USSR a superpower.

OK, I see what you're saying. What do you think should have happened? Go to war with the USSR over Poland? Negotiate with Stalin to convince him to give up his buffer zone? Something else? I'm not sure what other outcome you think could have happened.

 

[Gipper]

I still say that this is a good thing to do if you want to spread disinformation.



OK, I see what you're saying. What do you think should have happened? Go to war with the USSR over Poland? Negotiate with Stalin to convince him to give up his buffer zone? Something else? I'm not sure what other outcome you think could have happened.

I agree with the disinformation part. The problem is the dumbass FDR did not use disinformation. He trusted Stalin completely.

I say we never should have been involved in WWII. However, if we could not avoid war with Japan, then we should have ONLY warred with Japan and not Germany too (I know Germany declared war on us...but this fails to recognize the many belligerent acts FDR practiced against the Germans leading up to their declaration of war). And then not demanded unconditional surrender, which likely would have ended the war with Japan in 1943 saving countless lives and treasure (Japan put out surrender feelers in '43, which FDR ignored). Had we not also fought Germany and supplied Stalin and the Brits with military aid, the Germans may have been able to stop the stinking commies from overrunning E. Europe and enslaving millions to the commie ideology for 50 years.

At the very least, we should not have HELPED the USSR become a superpower.

 

[BigRob]

We need to be clear...we are NOT debating 'keeping shipping lanes open.' We are debating interventions that lead to all out war as occurred in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq... We know from history that the presidents in all those wars, sought war not peace (with the exception of Korea). Many historians have made very valid arguments that America could have avoided those wars, had the POTUS at the time really sought to avoid war.

Just to be clear, you are only talking about large wars, and not things like action in Libya or Bosnia etc?

I think claiming these wars made the USA a superpower are fallacious. We would have been a superpower no matter what due to our economic power and had we not incurred the huge sums to fund those wars, in human lives and material, we likely would have been even stronger.

I don't think war alone made us a superpower, but it did not hurt. The fact that after WWII we were really the only one left standing was a huge boom for us.

Do not misunderstand my position. I do not propose America become isolationist and ignore world events. I do believe we need a strong military to protect our homeland and control aggressors. I am saying we must not go to war causing the deaths and suffering of thousands unless it is absolutely necessary. The wars mentioned were not necessary. Secondly, we know Wilson, FDR, and LBJ were egotistical power hunger idiots who sought war. They committed covert and overt actions that lead to war, while lying to the American people about pursuing peace.

At what point do you define a war as "absolutely necessary"?

We must limit the power of the POTUS to take us to war. History shows war is a tool of the statist and often is prosecuted for the benefit of government, industry, and bankers, while limiting individual liberty. And the consequences of war are often most detrimental, as proven by the results of WWI and WWII.

We already have a limit on such power -- Congress. The fact that they don't act on it doesn't mean the power does not exist.

Big Rob, please provide a few examples of 'interests' that young Americans must die for.

This of course again depends on the situation, but for the sake of argument:

Imagine that Iran deploys an anti-ship missile capability along the straight of Hormuz and demands $15 billion a year in aid to allow safe passage of cargo ships. Ignoring the threat, two Liberian flagged oil tankers are sunk. In response the United States Navy begins to escort convoys through the Persian Gulf. A few months later, another cargo ship is sunk.

I would fully support taking action against Iran and destroying missile sites and doing whatever is required to keep the Straight of Hormuz open, safe, and keep commerce flowing.

It is fully in our interest to do such a thing.

 

[Centrehalf]

OK Gip, I see your point on negotiated surrender. I don't agree with it in principle but I can see how some people might have thought that was an alright thing to do.

I still disagree on the USSR. If they had not been strong enough to repel the Germans and tie up a significant part of the German military on the Eastern Front then Fortress Europa would have been a reality and we would have been dealing with Nazis instead of Stalinists. Perfect example of how sometimes you have choices, none of them good.

 

[Gipper]

Just to be clear, you are only talking about large wars, and not things like action in Libya or Bosnia etc?



I don't think war alone made us a superpower, but it did not hurt. The fact that after WWII we were really the only one left standing was a huge boom for us.



At what point do you define a war as "absolutely necessary"?



We already have a limit on such power -- Congress. The fact that they don't act on it doesn't mean the power does not exist.



This of course again depends on the situation, but for the sake of argument:

Imagine that Iran deploys an anti-ship missile capability along the straight of Hormuz and demands $15 billion a year in aid to allow safe passage of cargo ships. Ignoring the threat, two Liberian flagged oil tankers are sunk. In response the United States Navy begins to escort convoys through the Persian Gulf. A few months later, another cargo ship is sunk.

I would fully support taking action against Iran and destroying missile sites and doing whatever is required to keep the Straight of Hormuz open, safe, and keep commerce flowing.

It is fully in our interest to do such a thing.

Yes...large wars that kill lots of Americans and others.

I don't agree that we were the only one left standing. I believe the USSR had the largest army in the world and had conquered half of Europe with our help. Then, thanks to leftist Americans, obtained the a-bomb through one of the most outrageous acts of espionage that few Americans today are even aware of. FDR and Truman refused to believe their administrations were completely infiltrated by Soviet spies. Thus through willful ignorance these two fools allowed our enemies access to our most sensitive information.

I defined absolutely necessary...when attacked or when attack is imminent.

Regarding congress, why did they not prevent Wilson, FDR, and LBJ from overtly and covertly involving us in foreign wars? These three presidents were taking belligerent actions that were unknown to Congress and the American people. So, you can spout the separation of powers all you want, but in reality the POTUS can act unilaterally and these three fools did just that. This should never be allowed.

 

[BigRob]

Regarding congress, why did they not prevent Wilson, FDR, and LBJ from overtly and covertly involving us in foreign wars? These three presidents were taking belligerent actions that were unknown to Congress and the American people. So, you can spout the separation of powers all you want, but in reality the POTUS can act unilaterally and these three fools did just that. This should never be allowed.

Putting aside for a moment your other arguments, I want to zero in on this idea. What do you propose in lieu of seperation of powers? I don't think you can blame seperation of powers for Congress failing to do its job.

POTUS can only act unilaterally (for the most part) when Congress allows it, and if they do nothing, then are implicity allowing it.

 

[Gipper]

OK Gip, I see your point on negotiated surrender. I don't agree with it in principle but I can see how some people might have thought that was an alright thing to do.

I still disagree on the USSR. If they had not been strong enough to repel the Germans and tie up a significant part of the German military on the Eastern Front then Fortress Europa would have been a reality and we would have been dealing with Nazis instead of Stalinists. Perfect example of how sometimes you have choices, none of them good.

How could FDR and Truman fail to recognize the abhorrent and murderous nature of Stalin? How did they fail to see the millions murdered and enslaved in the USSR? How did they manage to ignore the fact that Stalin aligned with Hitler in '39 and then conquered half of Poland, the Baltic States, and invaded Finland all before we entered the war? FDR even buried intel reports regarding the Soviets assassination of the Polish officers at Katyn because he did not want to offend Uncle Joe. We must realize that FDR was a radical leftist who liked Stalin, but hated Hitler. The hypocrisy of his beliefs are amazing, but typical of leftists then and today.

Again, we should not have aligned with the Brits and the Soviets. We should have stayed neutral. The result of our neutrality could have resulted in a stalemate in the east and ultimately an end to the war. Thus leaving Stalin and Hitler contained. And lots of 18 year old American boys alive.

 

[Gipper]

Putting aside for a moment your other arguments, I want to zero in on this idea. What do you propose in lieu of seperation of powers? I don't think you can blame seperation of powers for Congress failing to do its job.

POTUS can only act unilaterally (for the most part) when Congress allows it, and if they do nothing, then are implicity allowing it.

Are you trying to tell me Congress knew everything FDR, Wilson, and LBJ were doing? If so, you are mistaken. All three were involved in activities to incite military action without the knowledge of Congress or the American people. They were interventionists!

Citing the Constitution is fine. The problem is most presidents, since at least Wilson, do not think they are constrained by it. Do you think for a minute that BO feels the constitution constrains his power? He could get us in a war tomorrow if he felt so compelled. Do you think Wilson and FDR felt constrained by the Constitution?