What is Digg?107 Comments
- rwinograd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22@GMorgan
The "final solution" was decided upon in 1942, well before the war was decided. Not to mention about the fact that before this Jews and other groups had been put into horrible conditions that led to their deaths well before the Nazis started actively slaughtering them. - Kelgann, on 10/11/2007, -10/+30We shouldn't be bothering with other nations like Sudan and Yugoslavia. Let them handle their own problems. It is none of our business what the leader of another country does to his own people, disgusting or not.
Despite what some people think, we didn't go into WWII to "save the Jews from Hitler". Or at least not officially.
(edit: oops, responded a post too high) - redrock34, on 10/11/2007, -10/+29Intervention policy, the policy that America is currently paying for with thousands of soldiers, and American civilians. You can bring up WWI and WW2, but you have to understand that those were world wars, with massive nations attacking each other. That is when our civil liberties were being threatened by Germany currently winning the war in Europe with the defeat of France. Now we are involved with terrorists that are happy we are on their soil so they can kill us easier. Comparing world wars to unnecessary wars is like comparing apples and oranges.
- Alpione, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18GMorgan: Are you seriously blaming the Holocaust on the United States?
- psg188, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20Damn right, because everything that man says is awesome.
Ron Paul 08'! - ragsmaloy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13@redrock34
What about Yugoslavia previously or perhaps the parallel of Darfur now? I'm not comparing these with a full blown war but I would like to know what Ron Paul's view is on peacekeeping missions or whether a strictly non-interventionist approach would prevent participation in such operations? - hifiDesign, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10@antifederalist: The Treaty of Versailles imposed harsh restrictions on the German people, leading to conditions that allowed Nazism to flourish. The blame does not lie squarely on the shoulders of the US for that.
- Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14"1) We have a moral imperative to do what we can to help people who need it, you can't argue that the US should have a non-intervention policy and say charity is how we do good deeds, they are polar opposites."
Non-intervention means "don't go sticking our noses in other people's countries", it does NOT mean "don't lend a helping hand".
I reject your "moral imperative", which smacks of White Man's Burden. If a country asks for help, it is not intervention to provide that help. If a country has made it clear they don't want, or haven't even asked for, our help, it is intervention if we get involved.
"2) If anything if anything blows up in the middle east, Israel and its neighbors will likely be at war, however as this escalates the US will have no position on which to negotiate anything, because we had a hands of policy. Now extrapolate that over a planet"
"Hands off" does not necessarily imply isolationism. You can take the position of "we'd be happy to help you negotiate a cease-fire", and even commit a reasonable number of troops for a reasonable time to help enforce the terms of the agreed-upon cease fire, and be non-interventionist. Forcing whatever terms you want on a group of warring nations, or factions within a nation, or even forcing them to come to an agreement, is intervention, offering your services as a neutral third party to mediate a cease-fire treaty is not intervening. - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11America never entered the war because of the Jews - Heck the Jews, after leaving German prior to the war really heating up, went to France and were denied entrance. They went to Britain, and were denied entrance. They came to Canada - and were denied entrance. They went to America - and were denied entrance...
It was only after the fact that "we" decided to take on the role of the Jewish peoples protectors - the reality is quite different. - catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11You are confusing non-intervention with isolationism.
- Beatmiser, on 10/11/2007, -9/+16You know, it saddens me that people are out to deliberately bury stories about a candidate who is for once actually getting our apathetic 18-35 Internet savvy users excited. If you don't like it, fine, tell us why, debate the topics, but to just bury any story about a candidate you don't like is pedantic.
- ragsmaloy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8That's why i mentioned Yugoslavia which I don't believe contains any oil, but your country did eventually take the lead in helping to end the genocide when our own EU was too pussy. Sudan howver seems to be full of oil though so by you're logic you should be happy to intervine there as not only is there lots of oil around but it is mainly muslims killing christians (as opposed to christians killing muslims in Yugoslavia).
However my main question was about the stance Ron Paul would take to such events. - Dvs.Ctns.Hvrms, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9@kingkilr
Intervention and charity are totally different. Charity is done by civilians, not war machines, and is sent without the loss of life and done so with the consent of the public. Charity is more or less intervention that the people approve of and support because they choose, not because the support was stolen from them in the form of inflation and civil liberties. - diggydougie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I agree. But he's better than all the other sell-outs.
Someone once told me in a conversation about the election (years ago). "Why don't you vote for _____? He has a better chance of getting his proposals through." But I didn't agree with the favorite, and if he won he would do exactly what I didn't want.
Vote your mind. Not your party, not your friends opinions, not for one guy because you're afraid that if you don't another may get the job. Your guy might not win, but at least you have a clear conscience that you made your own decision. - fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Are you actually a serious anarchist? You do know that anarchy almost always leads to totalitarianism, right?
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8The Swiss? Good God man, have you no shame? The Swiss stayed neutral against HITLER. Even Ron Paul thinks entering World War II was the right thing to do.
- txpenguin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Ron Paul believes in the Constitution, which is a far thing from being an anarchist. He consistently practices what he preaches, as is readily apparent from his voting record in Congress. Our policy of intervening in the affairs of foreign countries, especially since WWII, has gotten us into the mess we find ourselves in vis a vis Iraq and Afghanistan. In all likelihood, we will be at war with Iran before Bush leaves office. We have not won a single major conflict since WWII, because Congress has ceded its power to make war to the president. President Bush has made a mess out of our foreign policy, and caused our military to be stretched to the breaking point. It is not, however, entirely his fault. Congress, with very few notable exceptions such as Congressman Paul, has gone along for the ride in the hope of political gain. The results of the no-win, undeclared and unconstitutional wars in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq should not surprise anyone. When the going gets tough, too many Congressman get scared and want to bail out. They never bother to think through the downside of their fabulous little wars before they allow the president to start them. This kind of foolishness will continue to happen until we elect leaders who can return to the non interventionist foreign policy of Washington, Jefferson and John Quincy Adams. Some people like to parrot the canard that things are "different" because of 9/11. The truth is quite the opposite. Our Founders were much wiser than the current crop of politicians we are stuck with.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8In case you haven't noticed - you are a superpower in name only and even that name is generally used by Americans them self's. If you are a Superpower - then maybe you might want to tell that to those poverty stricken, desert people with improvised weapons... Because judging by the way they are smacking America around - I don't think they got the memo...
- Ark7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@hifiDesign
The US refused to sign the Treaty of Versaille for exactly that reason. The US had nothing to do with the post-war conditions in Germany that made WWII inevitable. - JamesWilson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Its the Prime Directive!
- JohnyD, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Oh frig off... do you really believe nonintervention policy will lead to another nation destroying America? Can America *not* be great without bullying the rest of the world? Cause you can push and push and push... but eventually people are not going to take it anylonger. It's a damn shame those planes flew into the WTT's... but it certainly wasn't unprevoked.
- Ark7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7You are aware that the Japanese don't have any army, right? Their constitution forbids it. They have a small defense force that would be in no way sufficient to respond to a N. Korean invasion, let alone a nuclear attack.
- polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@bightchee
I am not sure I see the majority of us saying RP is infallible. In fact, there are a couple of his views I don't necessarily agree on, but I agree with more of his than any other candidate. I tend not to trust politicians, as well. He says something and you can go and verify it. All of the other politicians seem to just hand down the current talking point. I tend to have more trust for Paul because he is willing to sacrifice his reputation to tell the truth, especially when it seems people don't want to hear it. I will vote for him, but not because of blind faith. I think you see enthusiasm from his followers because in the sea of *****, someone finally spoke some common sense. We are sick of the rhetoric and the general lack of control we have over the government. - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Marshall plan anyone?
- Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@Jake
I'll have to look up the books again for supporting evidense, however, Germany went after the Jews because when their economy collapsed it was primarily the bankers, whom many were Jewish, were blamed as well as some accusations of hording of supplies, and profiting from the situation - which caused a huge backlash against them and allowed the Government to basically tell them to get the F out of Germany....
Sadly, much like what we see today in terms of Muslims, it doesn't take much before peoples insecurities can cause them to act horribly towards others.. - ronh, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Why is he being dug down? This is true, every despot in the modern age was usually propped and supported by western intelligence agencies.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+16Well if Prescott Bush (W.'s Grandfather / Bush Sr.'s Father) and the Rockefellers hadn't been funding and fueling the Nazi forces, they never would have been able to bomb Britain and non-intervention would've worked. Remember, non-intervention means no help for either side not from your politicians, not from your armies, NOT FROM YOUR RICH BANKING ELITE, not from anyone.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@MAJOR
Come on buddy - be honest with yourself. Let me just dumb this down a bit for you... You killed one "Insurgent" - which produced a family of "freedom fighters". Due to your inability to honour international laws(From starting the damn thing, to how captures are handled, to missions themselfs) you turned one sudo-criminal, into a gang of people that have a rightous cause. Families with rightous causes illecit support, from the world. Then America/Britain repeated that some 10 000+ times. You guys are losing because for every one of them you take out - ten more pop up.
What happens if you take off the gloves? Nothing, just increase the rate you multiple your enemies. Wake up! This isn't, hasn't and never would be a battle you win on a battle field. This isn't a fight where more weapons get you more results. You can have the biggest baddest military on the planet - but against guerrila warfare the only option is genocide - which only gains you the entire planet as the enemy. No country will allow that again, you would lose every friend you guys have and whatever you think your military can do - realize it can't do that without massive Nukes everywhere, which in turn will mean that the US will be one gaint sinkhole.
Besides, America's real battle right now is on the home front and if I may say - all hands are needed on deck if you guys are going to aviod what everyone in the free(and not free) world can see plainly.
Your real enemy isn't in the M.E - they're in D.C - plutorobot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Well I won't go too far into a debate about anarchy, but there is such a thing as Anarcho-Capitolism which was advocated and developed by Murray Rothbard who was a student of Ludwig von Mises, the teacher of Hayek. Rothbard is an important figure in Austrian Economics, the school of economics that Ron Paul subscribes to, and while Ron Paul obviously does not agree with all of Rothbard's conclusions, he does have respect for him as a thinker. Nonetheless, Ludwig von Mises is the economic thinker that Ron Paul respects most, at least as far as I am aware.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Why should the world's only superpower have the same foreign policy of an agrarian former colony? Please do not respond with an Appeal to Authority.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@Terr01
"The "ideological threat of Islam" is a mischaracterization. What we have is the threat of nationalism. Nationalism fueled by interventionist policies. When you consider the non-fringe (i.e. national level, not Al-Queda-proper) threats (those that rise anywhere close to "clash of civilizations" rhetoric), they are nationalist movements where Religion is simply one of the many "Us versus them" tools employed."
You are simply not paying attention. Take note of what is occurring within existing Islamic states. All over the world there are on-going power struggles between secular/moderates and fundamental-militants. The fight is NOT about nationalism, it is about the imposition of Islamic law. They want to impose Islamic law in Houston and Jakarta and Tokyo and Johannesburg and are happy to use violence to make it happen. They are the ultimate interventionists and a non-interventionist philosophy simply offers no protection against their aggression. This is why I said that non-interventionism is functionally identical to pacifism. In both cases, they can only theoretically work if by some miracle, everyone in the world abides by those philosophies. People simply will never do that.
I do understand, it is easy to view religion as little more than an excuse or moral fig leaf. Many times in history it has been just that. But that is NOT what we are dealing with now. You talk about nationalism. This phenomenon has no interest in national boarders. Afghani fighters did not journey to Kosovo in the hopes of conquering it in the name of a country, they went to further the cause of Islam. And when they discovered that the Muslims of Kosovo were moderate and Westernized, they made their disapproval known. The facts simply don't support your assumption. Any given instance of conflict may or may not be a matter of nationalism or tribalism... but the indisputable fact remains that there is a broad and powerful impetus among radical Muslims to impose their laws on all people through any mean. We can't allow that and only intervention offers a way to counter it. - SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5A North Korean invasion would turn into scavengers for food within a day. There's no way they would have the capability to have any significant supply line.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4No one can produce nuclear weapons in short order. Either you have weapons grade plutonium on hand or you do not. If not, it must be refined and that would take time, even for the Japanese.
- SilkSteel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Pray tell.. which presidential candidate WILL end up in that display, if not Ron Paul?
- kingkilr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7@kelgann
True, however look who we attacked first, not Japan who attacked us, but Germany. - zephc, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Because we are not the World Police. We are one nation amongst many, not the boss of other nations. I think a foreign policy like the Swiss seems to be a pretty good one - seems to be working well for them.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3While non interventionists are willing to defend themselves, their philosophy forces them to wait to be attacked. It also hinders them in recognizing and reacting to more subtle attacks. Finally, if a danger is coming from ostensibly independent forces within a country or a region (i.e, terrorists rather than a nation's military), the philosophy of non-intervention prevents one from addressing the problems within the offending region meaning you have to just sit there and keep getting beat on. You are forced to allow your enemies to have free rein to organize and recruit and dispense propaganda within the protection of a country that has not technically given offense.
A non interventionist is like a man with a sword on a modern battlefield. Yeah, if you get in close and allow him to slice you, the sword is dangerous... but why would you do that when you can just pick up a gun and shoot the swordsman? - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3 I don't know if I agree with that or not, as you can feel empathy for others, you can feel compassion for strangers... Clearly, it is possible.
I think what you may mean is that, in our daily lives we have so much coming at you and only so much time in the day to deal with things, so only the most important(Not solely important) gets done. Generally speaking, that is usually Family first, then friends.... by the time you can get someone in another country the day would have to be 50 hours long and a week a month - and even then maybe not enough time...
Did you see the article on "Monkey sphere"? Goes along with what you are saying... - fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Question: does said nonintervention apply to a situation, where, say, North Korea attacked Japan?
- polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Blowback, that's why.
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"Nonintervention is functionally identical to pacifism and is invalid for exactly the same reason. "
I think your argument is based on some false premises. - lifeasariver, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@Terr01
"9/11 was something of a fluke with mixed results for Al Queda, but that's another thread right there"
True, in a sense, but my opinion is that 9/11 was a fatal blow for Al Qaeda itself. Al Qaeda was already a dying movement after they started killing civilians in Alger. After 9/11 the radical islamists realized fully well that they poked the bear with a stick and after US rolled over Afghanistan Al Qaeda was extinct only to be resurrected by US going into Iraq.
Personally, I don't think that the neocons have any interest whatsoever in capturing Bin Laden and stopping Al Qaeda. That would mean no reason for sustaining the war. And can anyone really believe that the mightiest military machine in the history of the world that costs in excess of $700bn/year cannot capture a handful of savages? - hifiDesign, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8@ragsmaloy: Hmmm... that comment hold more water if our country were currently involved in engagements to end genocide in those countries. But we're not doing jack about Darfur are we? No, we're up to our eyeballs in debt to the Chinese financing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over revenge and oil, respectively. So while I can sympathize with your humanitarian idealism, you've got to realize that the only foreign policies that really matter are those that involve more money for the top 1% of this country. And I don't see that changing.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Nonintervention is functionally identical to pacifism and is invalid for exactly the same reason. If any of the world chooses to be "interventionist", they have free reign to interfere wherever they like without fear of reprisal.
The only way to be non-interventionist while maintaining sovereignty is to be a client state protected under the umbrella of an interventionist power... which of course calls into question whether you are in fact sovereign.
Without the protection of a power that is willing to go forth and head off looming threats, a isolationist state has no leverage to use against trading partners, trading adversaries and aggressive, ideological foes. Ultimately, a state can not prosper without both having a "stick" and being willing to use it beyond their borders.
The conflicts in the middle east are the result of both economics ("oil") and ideological aggression. And of course, the two feed off each other. However, most pacifists and "non-interventionists" operate under the assumption that the stated expansionist goals of militant Islamics are either simply hot air or are entirely motivated by the perceived interference of the West in the politics and faith of Muslims. However, the facts say otherwise. How many simmering Islamic rebellions or, alternatively, domineering Islamic regimes are there across Southeast Asia? And while he root cause of so much of the violence in sub-Saharan Africa may be "tribal" but it is fed and nurtured by radical Islamic ideology.
When the ideological threat of Islam couples with the economic reality of oil, intervention becomes imperative. When Bin Laden cites the pretense of western troops on holy soil, that is a handy rallying point, NOT the fundamental motivation. Sure, as long as Western powers have a presence in traditional Muslim lands, that presence will be made a target and a motivational point. Were those troops and corporations not there, the rallying point would probably be the corrupting influence of global media (see Iran's most recent crackdown on pornography). The point is, the fundamental motivation is to force the world to bow to the rule of fundamental Islam.
By intervening in the region, we seek to sap the strength of the movement at it's core. We intervene because it is an efficient, effective use of resources. Waiting for Islamic armies to grow and nuclear arms to be produced is just stupid... and that is what the non-interventionists would have us do. WE CAN NOT APPEASE RADICAL IDEOLOGIES. Not without loosing everything we hold valuable. They do not intend to respect our liberty, our life or our sovereignty. Intervention is what is needed to protect our lives, our freedom and our identity. - WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@terr01
"Islamic law is just part of their nationalistic structure, the same way that Communism was for North Vietnam. It is the symptom of the domestic power struggle, not the cause."
Militant Islam is a philosophy of life. It is a meme. It can be transfered to new people in new regions. How many examples are there of people born into non-Islamic countries and some non-Muslim faith who have chosen to convert and engage is militant, often violent behavior? Perhaps you are using the term "nationalism" in an extremely abstract sense. Do you simply mean identifying with and feeling a sense of belonging with a group? If so then yes, that is a significant part of militant Isam... as it is a part with many, many philosophies and sub-cultures. But calling that "nationalism" both implies associations that don't exist and makes it sound less threatening. To me, nationalism requires a grounding in historic precedence and regional identity. Militant Islam is far more dangerous. It has no center and no limitation and has a core philosophy that encourages violence and doesn't recognize the concept of innocents. By contrast, communism recognizes central authority and, while it does tend to treat human life as cheap, it does not welcome death or sacrifice with the kind of eagerness Islam does.
"And if they didn't disapprove, would you have argued that "it shows how much they believe in Islam that they didn't care the Kosovars were westernized"?"
Huh? If they didn't disapprove then they simply wouldn't be a threat to anyone. It is the adamant, violence-inspiring disapproval of lifestyles that do not meet their standards that makes them dangerous. It is why there is so much violence *among* Muslims.
"Like I said about "Al Queda Proper" (to distinguish against the name-branding of "Al Queda in Iraq"), I'm not referring to the mujahideen etc, the "fighting edge" of the movements, but their popular core which they require for any serious threats to the US. (9/11 was something of a fluke with mixed results for Al Queda, but that's another thread right there."
That "fighting edge" is killing tens of thousands of people every year. You want to ignore it? You think the false security of isolationism is worth that price? That's just not rational. You are wrong, a "popular core" is not necessary for this to be a threat to the world. The facts are rubbing themselves in your face. The events across the world taking place right this second PROVE THE REALITY OF THE THREAT. Your heartless, short-sighted disregard for the ongoing chaos and violence and fear and your unbelievably naive belief that isolationism (which after all is not the same as actual isolation which is simply not achievable in the modern world) provides any protection from it simply isn't rational. All the evidence is there for us, playing itself out daily. There are people who want to destroy us and the nature of the modern world gives them ample tools with which to do it. We can't let them operate unfettered.
"The core of the movement is (at least as spun to the populace) defense, righting perceived wrongs, driving away "the other", regardless of the economic and personal costs, and that's something that can be seen in any state."
No, you are factually incorrect. The theme is not "driving out" nor is it retaliation. It is punishment against those that defy *God*. Sure, perceived wrongs are also cited but they have little real bearing on the core motivation of the most dangerous and active threats. Your problem is that you simply refuse to recognize that this is all a matter of religious faith. By insisting on viewing it as a form of nationalism, you gloss over the true nature of the problem.
"What we need to do is work in ways that support their domestic opposition,"
It is absolutely bizarre that you believe that the people involved see support of domestic opposition as being functionally any different from military strikes. You do realize that a major motivating factor is the influence on Islamic *culture* that the mere existence of the West is having, don't you? Military strikes *kill the bad guys*. Your style of diplomatic/societal intervention is actually more offensive and galvanizing while having no actual beneficial impact. Your way motivates stoning in the streets and death sentences against authors along with the suicide bombings and general mayhem. And your way gains us nothing in return. - PatriotOne, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Ron Paul advocates leading by example just as our founding fathers advocated. By being a true free and democratic government and being successful at it is what makes other's want to emulate you. You can not do it by being bullies and going over and killing their people. It just causes the very people you are trying to convert to hate the so-called free country.
Do you really think we are garnering the favor and respect of the Iraqi people by killing their children, mother's and fathers? No you fools...we are creating more people who hate us because we killed their mother, father, child, brother, sister and friends. For every person we kill, we probably create 10 more people who hate us (they would now be defined as terrorists).
Do you really think we are being looked at as liberator's now? They want us out of their country! They kow we are securing their oil. They know we are building an embassy larger than the Vatican so we can permantly occupy them and look after the U.S. interests. We are killing their loved ones. We are now killing the very people that are now terrorists because we killed their family and friends.
The reason Iraqi's are not motivated to fight for their own country is because it's the U.S. they want out of Iraq, not other Iraqi's.
WE ARE THE TERRORISTS YOU FOOLS! - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@kingkilr
When is the goodwill of the rest of the world going to show up and fix America?
If you think I'm being facetious, I'm not.
If you think what I'm saying is ridiculous, then how do you think other countries feel when America comes to "fix" their problems. I don't think there's an American alive who wants another nation meddling in their affairs. - Liam76, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8@ waiting2awake
But that doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't allow things like that to go on.
A non-interventionist policy would say it is completely ok to allow people to be slaughtered in another country. And although not every conflict will end up a WW, stuff like that left un-checked eventually will. - txpenguin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The Japanese maintain a small, but first class military in the guise of a self defense force. They also have the technology to manufacture nuclear weapons on very short notice (if they do not have them already). Their martial tradition is still very strong. Kim Jong Il knows this, and he would be met by a buzzsaw if he were foolish enough to try to invade Japan. The Japanese might take some significant losses at first, but soon or later they would send lil Kim back from whence he came.
- Liam76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Nonintervention made sense when we were on across the ocean from the countries we would be interfering with. Times have changed. Things that go on on the opposite side fo the world can and do have an immediate effect in our day to day lives. To not exert our influence, or at least not to look out ofr interest and stop those who are working against them will bite us in the ass.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is