Non-intervention

Ax · 01-24-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Non-intervention didn't seem to work that well leading up to US involvement in WWII. I suppose you could blame the german attacks on american shipping to our involvement with Britain and the lend-lease program; but you'd be hard pressed on Japan.

You also have to remember that at the time, the U.S. was the world's largest supplier of oil. We cut off our sales from Japan and that's why they attacked Pearl Harbor.

JerryLove · 01-24-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AXguitar

You also have to remember that at the time, the U.S. was the world's largest supplier of oil. We cut off our sales from Japan and that's why they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Because attacking us would make us want to trade with them?

I thouht it was an attempt to intimidate us into stayying out of their attempt to make a greater-pacific empire.

**Chrysostom** · 01-24-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grand_master_d

"...impose their will..." is a strawman.

Of course. The point was to force you to elaborate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grand_master_d

But I do believe that superpowers are obliged to... intervene? Sometimes they get it right (we'll cite WWII), and sometimes they get it... wrong (no citation is necessary).

The US was not a superpower when it entered WWII. It was not the big man coming to help out the little man. Great Britain was the big man. Non-interventionism doesn't mean not-doing-anythingism. It just means being very reluctant to get involved, and in particular it denies the narrative of big-man-condescends-to-help-out-little-man. That's an imperialist hangover from colonialism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grand_master_d

Let's not get worked up over my use of a cliche. That subset of Islam has had stated goals of our (or anyone's) destruction that long preceed this war, 9/11, or anything we may have unknowingly kickstarted in the '80s.

That group is extremely different from Islamofascism, though. Islamofascism is an idea that the group of people you're describing tried to create, using the Western media as an unwitting ally. Setting up a huge narrative of world conflict between the US and the actual group is a bit like setting up a huge narrative of world conflict between the US and an idiosyncratic militia group in Montana. You need Islamofascism to create the narrative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grand_master_d

Probably TalkOrigins.com. I've had them up for too long to remember. If you Google them you'll get dozens of references, I'm sure.

It's a really fascinating signature. I'd love to talk to you about it.

**Chrysostom** · 01-24-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Non-intervention didn't seem to work that well leading up to US involvement in WWII. I suppose you could blame the german attacks on american shipping to our involvement with Britain and the lend-lease program; but you'd be hard pressed on Japan.

I don't exactly understand what you're saying here. Are you arguing against the view that non-interventionism will keep a country from ever getting attacked? Or are you arguing against something beyond that?

JerryLove · 01-25-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I don't exactly understand what you're saying here. Are you arguing against the view that non-interventionism will keep a country from ever getting attacked? Or are you arguing against something beyond that?

I'm opposing the posiion that not intervening will always prevent you from being attacked.

Quote:

Non-interventionism doesn't mean not-doing-anythingism. It just means being very reluctant to get involved,

Oh. Then I'm closer to supporting it... though there are some types of things I like intervening in.

natedawg5280 · 01-25-2008, 08:44 PM

It seems like all of you do support it though, because you haven't listened any negative sides to it.

**Chrysostom** · 01-25-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

It seems like all of you do support it though, because you haven't listened any negative sides to it.

- Not as easy to "sell" to the voters
- Doesn't make your country feel dominant
- Can allow threats to develop further than a pre-emptive strike strategy

**Chrysostom** · 01-25-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm opposing the posiion that not intervening will always prevent you from being attacked.

Oh OK. I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Oh. Then I'm closer to supporting it... though there are some types of things I like intervening in.

I'm probably not the best representative of non-interventionism. My "non-interventionism" is just an extension of just war theory -- only defensive wars are justified, and the definition of 'defensive' is very strict here (no pre-emptive strikes, no foreign Messianism, etc.). This justifies US involvement in WW2 but does not justify it in Vietnam or Bosnia.

JerryLove · 01-26-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I'm probably not the best representative of non-interventionism. My "non-interventionism" is just an extension of just war theory -- only defensive wars are justified, and the definition of 'defensive' is very strict here (no pre-emptive strikes, no foreign Messianism, etc.). This justifies US involvement in WW2 but does not justify it in Vietnam or Bosnia.

It begs the question of alliances. It's likely a different discussion for the worlds only usperpower, seperated from its enemies by vast oceans; but for many countries alliances are and have been what makes a defensive war winnable.

But they work both ways. If we want people to come to our defense, we must come to theirs.

Don't get me wrong: I'm closer to you than I am to current policy.. but I think that it's always ddangerous to work in absolutes here.

**Chrysostom** · 01-26-2008, 09:22 AM

Defense of an ally is, in my mind, a defensive war as well.

Jeffrey · 01-26-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grand_master_d

Let's not get worked up over my use of a cliche. That subset of Islam has had stated goals of our (or anyone's) destruction that long preceed this war, 9/11, or anything we may have unknowingly kickstarted in the '80s.

Look at what came out of WWI and WWII: Europe, and in the latter case America supporting Europe as they carved up the Middle East and further destabilized Africa. There wasn't an Iraq before the 20th century. The West willingly played slice and dice with the Middle East, and so we're reaping the consequences.

There have undoubtedly been periods of expansion in Islam, especially in the first couple centuries after the Prophet of Islam. But what has created modern jihadism has largely been the post World War redestricting of Arabic land, the creation of an artificial Israel state, and further meddling of the West in Islamic land.

I encourage everyone to do research on the Middle East from 1800 to 1960 if you don't have the time to start at Sumeria.

Jihadism only gained force in the 20th century because the average individual of the Middle East realized that the West was forcibly taking power and land. Suddenly their nominal adherence to the idea that Islam was destined to rule the world (though not with an iron fist - many periods have existed where one was better off living under Islam than Christian Europe) had some urgency to it. In the same way, American Christians believe that Christ's mercy should be preached and shown, but we still buy products and live lifestyles that damage the third world because our beliefs have no urgency.

cytorath · 01-27-2008, 03:51 AM

An artificial Israeli State?! Where in the world are you coming up with that. It was Israel for a very long time before it was Palestine. Hadrian changed it to Palestine. If you are going to start using history here, then make sure that you have your facts straight. The land was given to Israel by God. Do a little reading in the bible and you'll be able to see why there is strife in the middle east.

**slap_j** · 01-27-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cytorath

An artificial Israeli State?! Where in the world are you coming up with that.

Think he's referring to UN resolution 181. Partitions the British Mandate of Palestine.

Jeffrey · 02-24-2008, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cytorath

An artificial Israeli State?! Where in the world are you coming up with that. It was Israel for a very long time before it was Palestine. Hadrian changed it to Palestine. If you are going to start using history here, then make sure that you have your facts straight. The land was given to Israel by God. Do a little reading in the bible and you'll be able to see why there is strife in the middle east.

And then taken away because of their evil, if you're somehow going to lump modern Israelis in with the Biblical Israelis. Then, God scattered them further throughout the word if you do a little reading the Bible. These modern Israelis are not the Biblical nation of Israel, as many Palestine-sympathetic Jewish groups will note.

So, yes, my facts are straight. I think I know much more about this than you do, if you've going to accuse me of the same.