130 American Interventions - Page 3

hsmith · 12-08-2006, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Different views on if a war directly facilitates them or not though.

Take WWII, we had no real reason to go into Europe. But try and find anyone that will defend an isolationist argument against that war.

our intervention in WWI led to WWII

lew · 12-08-2006, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Different views on if a war directly facilitates them or not though.

Take WWII, we had no real reason to go into Europe. But try and find anyone that will defend an isolationist argument against that war.

Me.

lew · 12-08-2006, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

our intervention in WWI led to WWII

.

kinggovernor · 12-08-2006, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Me.

what should we have done instead?

avsp · 12-09-2006, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The problem develops when people volunteer or get drafted to defend their country, but the conflict they go fight in has nothing to do with defending this country.

The situation is different for volunteers than for draftees IMO.

Once having voluntarily enlisted the risk of getting involved in an action that is in some way 'questionable' is obvious & surely very well known. Such persons have chosen to enlist anyway. They must be aware that future politicans might be those that they would not have voted for themselves yet they will have no choice but to do their bidding & are content to make such a comitment.

Then they are killed, a parent loses a child, a child loses a parent, and for what? For who? They just died for nothing and were paid the same as the guy putting plywood in home depots warehouse.

Volunteers chose to bear this risk & were aware of the pay levels.

The abuse of our military forces, and the citizens which are apart of it, is completely disgusting.

This may be true, ..., but then again is it not the case that people volunteer to join the armed forces well aware that throughout history armies have, on many many occasions, been inadequately equipped, badly led etc? Surely this is a risk they KNOWINGLY take?

If it really the case that some who voluntarily enlist are so massively ill-informed & quite frankly stuipid?
If so, then they should not be allowed to fight, & certainly not in a campaign with a considerable WHAM component such as Iraq.

Diesel66 · 12-09-2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Me.

Not doubting your beliefs, but I would like to see the debate with a Holocaust survivor.

Diamond Cross · 12-09-2006, 10:04 AM

Our intervention in WWI?

The list is wrong on two accounts though, WW I and WWII.

We did take part in, but I don't think you can call it an intervention in the same manner as we did with Kuwait.

We were drawn into WW I by the sinking of the Lusitani by a
German U-Boat. By that time, Europe had become embroiled in war since the Assasination of Archduke Ferdinand. And then it wasn't until late in the war.

The defeat of Germany in WW I led to a poor German economy which led to racial tensions and other problems and caused Germany to become a boiling point in Europe. When Hitler became Chancellor he strove to change that, and successfully did so, if by breaking the Treaty of Versailles.

We did have troops in China prior to WW II, but I don't believe it was what prompted Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor. It was the bombing of Pear Harbor that brought us into WW II for when Pearl was bombed we declared war on Japan then Germany declared war on America.

So in rethinking the list, and in comparison to modern actions such as Bosnia and Kuwait, there could be some that would not be considered interventions.

lew · 12-11-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Not doubting your beliefs, but I would like to see the debate with a Holocaust survivor.

The Holocaust was a terrible thing but what does that have to do with anything? If you are going to use the Holocaust as a reason for the war, then any gross injustice of humanity is a reason for us to go to war - which would mean we would be at war at all times, with numerous countries.

The Founding Fathers understood that Europe was a breeding ground for war. Europe's countries had been fighting each other for centuries and the Founders knew that they would continue to do so. That is one reason why Washington warned against entangling alliances and why the Founders urged against getting involved in foreign conflicts regarding war.

Another reason I'm against Interventionism is because almost everytime our government intervenes in another country's affairs, we always lose civil liberties. From Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to Bush, the American people always lose precious liberties in these conflicts.

But to get back on subject, we didn't get involved until the enemies attacked us first. Right? Not really. We were already involved in both wars long before we were attacked. But the government knew that the people were not willing to go into a war with Europe and other countries around the globe. Isolationism was still a strong sentiment of the Old Right and in much of America. The leaders in power knew they couldn't get involved in the war unless we were attacked. So, they waited until we were attacked ( and practically caused the attack by already involving themselves).

What should we have done instead? I would urge that we should have stayed isolated and let Europe settle itself out. If we were then directly attacked because of their aggression and not because of our already involvement, then attack them away. I'm not a pacifist. I believe in war. When we are actually attacked and threatened. All of that being said, of all the wars this past century, WWII is the only war I can agree with us being involved in.

DosEquis · 12-11-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by lew

The Holocaust was a terrible thing but what does that have to do with anything? If you are going to use the Holocaust as a reason for the war, then any gross injustice of humanity is a reason for us to go to war - which would mean we would be at war at all times, with numerous countries.

The Founding Fathers understood that Europe was a breeding ground for war. Europe's countries had been fighting each other for centuries and the Founders knew that they would continue to do so. That is one reason why Washington warned against entangling alliances and why the Founders urged against getting involved in foreign conflicts regarding war.

Another reason I'm against Interventionism is because almost everytime our government intervenes in another country's affairs, we always lose civil liberties. From Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to Bush, the American people always lose precious liberties in these conflicts.

But to get back on subject, we didn't get involved until the enemies attacked us first. Right? Not really. We were already involved in both wars long before we were attacked. But the government knew that the people were not willing to go into a war with Europe and other countries around the globe. Isolationism was still a strong sentiment of the Old Right and in much of America. The leaders in power knew they couldn't get involved in the war unless we were attacked. So, they waited until we were attacked ( and practically caused the attack by already involving themselves).

What should we have done instead? I would urge that we should have stayed isolated and let Europe settle itself out. If we were then directly attacked because of their aggression and not because of our already involvement, then attack them away. I'm not a pacifist. I believe in war. When we are actually attacked and threatened. All of that being said, of all the wars this past century, WWII is the only war I can agree with us being involved in.

Scrum · 12-11-2006, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by lew

The Holocaust was a terrible thing but what does that have to do with anything? If you are going to use the Holocaust as a reason for the war, then any gross injustice of humanity is a reason for us to go to war - which would mean we would be at war at all times, with numerous countries.

The Founding Fathers understood that Europe was a breeding ground for war. Europe's countries had been fighting each other for centuries and the Founders knew that they would continue to do so. That is one reason why Washington warned against entangling alliances and why the Founders urged against getting involved in foreign conflicts regarding war.

Another reason I'm against Interventionism is because almost everytime our government intervenes in another country's affairs, we always lose civil liberties. From Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to Bush, the American people always lose precious liberties in these conflicts.

But to get back on subject, we didn't get involved until the enemies attacked us first. Right? Not really. We were already involved in both wars long before we were attacked. But the government knew that the people were not willing to go into a war with Europe and other countries around the globe. Isolationism was still a strong sentiment of the Old Right and in much of America. The leaders in power knew they couldn't get involved in the war unless we were attacked. So, they waited until we were attacked ( and practically caused the attack by already involving themselves).

What should we have done instead? I would urge that we should have stayed isolated and let Europe settle itself out. If we were then directly attacked because of their aggression and not because of our already involvement, then attack them away. I'm not a pacifist. I believe in war. When we are actually attacked and threatened. All of that being said, of all the wars this past century, WWII is the only war I can agree with us being involved in.

I tend to disagree with you on many things, but you are spot on here.

The only thing that I have a bit of a conflict with is what to do when an ally is attacked. Can we even offer humanitarian aid without being considered involved by one side of the conflict? I certainly don't have an answer for that.

Diesel66 · 12-11-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by lew

The Holocaust was a terrible thing but what does that have to do with anything? If you are going to use the Holocaust as a reason for the war, then any gross injustice of humanity is a reason for us to go to war - which would mean we would be at war at all times, with numerous countries.

.

Evil has already won when good men stand to the side.

DosEquis · 12-11-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Evil has already won when good men stand to the side.

Are you suggesting we start a new "War on Evil"?

Donkey® · 12-11-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Are you suggesting we start a new "War on Evil"?

Suicide shouldn't really be considered a war.

lew · 12-11-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Evil has already won when good men stand to the side.

I agree.

However, not everyone agrees on what evil means. And not everyone agrees on how to handle with said evil. And our goverment rarely intervenes with other countries' affairs because of evil, despite the rhetoric sprouted off by the administrations.