Syria

Josh_R

Registered User
But...but...I made it pretty clear that I'm against intervening in that war. I don't think Don wants that either. What we are disputing is the notion that what happens in the Middle East is not our business.

That's Ron Paul's big thing: that we have no business defending our interests in the Middle East. That's the problem with him, not the fact that he opposes pointless inteventions. He's not just against bad policies, he's against the most prosperous (by far) country in the world defending its interests, like American property and American trading partners, in any way.

He thinks free trade and capitalism can defeat tyranny on its own. That is nonsense. Government is important. He's right that government can't replace capitalism and free trade, but he's wrong that government isn't needed to DEFEND capitalism and free trade. Freedom CANNOT exist without a strong government there to defend it.
I can't think of a more arrogant position than "we have interests in YOUR country, therefore we are going do decide who runs your country." Imagine if someone like China decided that protectionist Democrats are bad for their interests, so they started funding Republicans with billions of dollars in campaign contributions, OR they started bombing Democratic campaign headquarters and sponsored the assassination of the Democratic candidate.

Our interests are our choice; if the risk is too great, stop investing in those interests and find alternatives. In what other market can you just decide to kill people because they are bad for your investments?
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
I can't think of a more arrogant position than "we have interests in YOUR country, therefore we are going do decide who runs your country."

You just made Norm's point for him. He didn't say this at all. It's only you who think that something is either none of our business, or we think we have the run of the place. There are lightyears of grey area in between those two states. By discounting any claim that things abroad are our business with the claim that we all support blatant intervention whenever we feel like it you are being the classic stereotype of a fantasy land libertarian. This is exactly the reason nobody respects Ron Paul.
 
"Getting involved" doesn't necessarily mean a full on invasion. It could mean selling weapons to someone, or the CIA assassinating someone, etc. Doing nothing isn't an option in this case. The question is, how much is the right amount of intervention?
 
"Getting involved" doesn't necessarily mean a full on invasion. It could mean selling weapons to someone, or the CIA assassinating someone, etc. Doing nothing isn't an option in this case. The question is, how much is the right amount of intervention?
Getting involved in any way is like feeding a lost puppy, you just adopted that motherfucker, and you're responsible for it.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
"Getting involved" doesn't necessarily mean a full on invasion. It could mean selling weapons to someone, or the CIA assassinating someone, etc. Doing nothing isn't an option in this case. The question is, how much is the right amount of intervention?

These people are also acting like Syria is a lessaiz-faire conflict as opposed to a double proxy war - Sunnis vs. Shi'ites and also the Russia/China/Iran/Syria/Hizbulla axis against the West. Russia is selling them Mig-29s and SA-300s and Iran is shipping in weapons by truckloads. Jihadists are flocking to the aid of the rebels prompted by the Gulf States (as a counter move to Iran), not to mention the cross border skirmishes with Turkey. The problem with isolationism is that nobody else is isolationist. If you don't throw your weight around, someone else will, and almost universally to your detriment.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
You just made Norm's point for him. He didn't say this at all. It's only you who think that something is either none of our business, or we think we have the run of the place. There are lightyears of grey area in between those two states. By discounting any claim that things abroad are our business with the claim that we all support blatant intervention whenever we feel like it you are being the classic stereotype of a fantasy land libertarian. This is exactly the reason nobody respects Ron Paul.
No I didn't. I never implied or stated that Norm or anyone else here wants to invade or bomb Syria. There are plenty of war hawks who do, though.
Oh wait...

"Getting involved" doesn't necessarily mean a full on invasion. It could mean selling weapons to someone, or the CIA assassinating someone, etc. Doing nothing isn't an option in this case. The question is, how much is the right amount of intervention?
This response was EXACTLY what I was talking about in my hypothetical:
Imagine if someone like China decided that protectionist Democrats are bad for their interests, so they started funding Republicans with billions of dollars in campaign contributions, OR they started bombing Democratic campaign headquarters and sponsored the assassination of the Democratic candidate.

Our interests are our choice; if the risk is too great, stop investing in those interests and find alternatives. In what other market can you just decide to kill people because they are bad for your investments?
 

Josh_R

Registered User
These people are also acting like Syria is a lessaiz-faire conflict as opposed to a double proxy war - Sunnis vs. Shi'ites and also the Russia/China/Iran/Syria/Hizbulla axis against the West. Russia is selling them Mig-29s and SA-300s and Iran is shipping in weapons by truckloads. Jihadists are flocking to the aid of the rebels prompted by the Gulf States (as a counter move to Iran), not to mention the cross border skirmishes with Turkey. The problem with isolationism is that nobody else is isolationist. If you don't throw your weight around, someone else will, and almost universally to your detriment.
This is EXACTLY WHY we should no get involved. Do we support the allies of Russia/Iran/China, or do we support a wing of Al Qaeda and HOPE they turn out to be swell guys? OR we do nothing and it doesn't make for yet another rallying cry for terrorists who see us as meddlers in their affairs.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
This is EXACTLY WHY we should no get involved. Do we support the allies of Russia/Iran/China, or do we support a wing of Al Qaeda and HOPE they turn out to be swell guys? OR we do nothing and it doesn't make for yet another rallying cry for terrorists who see us as meddlers in their affairs.

You seem to live in the fantasy world where not doing anything doesn't come to bite us in the ass. And again - where the fuck am I arguing intervention in Syria? Either debate me for my own position or shut the fuck up. I'm not going to argue for a position I don't agree with, and you are once again proving my point about isolationists only hearing what they want to.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
This response was EXACTLY what I was talking about in my hypothetical:

More proof that you are an unrealistic overly simplistic typical isolationist - did he say assassinate Assad? No. That's just what your paranoid mind saw, because you only see the arguments you feel like debating.
 

mascan42

Registered User
True. We have a bad habit of getting into shit half way over the last 50 years. That has to stop.
Let's just take 1980s Afghanistan for example:

Option 1. Stay out entirely. The Russians prevail, their military isn't stressed to the breaking point, and their economy doesn't suffer as a result. The Cold War continues until 1998 or so.
Option 2. Provide support until the Russians leave, then leave once our own interests are satisfied. This worked out wonderfully.
Option 3. Go all in and rebuild the country into a democracy. We've been trying this for the past 11 years. How's it working out so far?

In some situations, there is no good solution.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Let's just take 1980s Afghanistan for example:

Option 1. Stay out entirely. The Russians prevail, their military isn't stressed to the breaking point, and their economy doesn't suffer as a result. The Cold War continues until 1998 or so.
Option 2. Provide support until the Russians leave, then leave once our own interests are satisfied. This worked out wonderfully.
Option 3. Go all in and rebuild the country into a democracy. We've been trying this for the past 11 years. How's it working out so far?

In some situations, there is no good solution.
Don't be silly. Every good Christian knows that doesn't work. For example, either you're religious or atheist; agnosticism is cowardice. It's just like the rules of roulette. You either pick black or you pick red, everything else is a loser bet (and detrimental to society besideswith).
 
In some situations, there is no good solution.

There is always a good solution. We almost never have the balls to do what needs to be done.

World War 2 being the last example. We bombed Germany and Japan into the stone age and rebuilt them. That worked out just fine.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Either you use a hammer, or you use sandpaper. What the fuck am I gonna do with a hammer with sandpaper attachment? Sand a fuckin' nail!? LOL

Buncha nailsanders.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
More proof that you are an unrealistic overly simplistic typical isolationist - did he say assassinate Assad? No. That's just what your paranoid mind saw, because you only see the arguments you feel like debating.
He did say that it may require the CIA to assassinate "someone". I never said it was Assad, either. Having the CIA KILL another human being (whoever they are) is "getting involved".
"Getting involved" doesn't necessarily mean a full on invasion. It could mean selling weapons to someone, or the CIA assassinating someone, etc. Doing nothing isn't an option in this case. The question is, how much is the right amount of intervention?
More proof that you are an unrealistic overly simplistic typical isolationist - did he say assassinate Assad? No. That's just what your paranoid mind saw, because you only see the arguments you feel like debating.
What is your position, then? You said that they crossed the "red line" by using chemical weapons and that we will look like pushovers if we don't do something about it. You said we need to take out the chemical weapons.
I don't know exactly how you propose that we violate a sovereign nation's military system without that being an act of war against the administration and at least giving the appearance that we are aiding the rebels.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
He did say that it may require the CIA to assassinate "someone". I never said it was Assad, either. Having the CIA KILL another human being (whoever they are) is "getting involved".
Yeah, genius. That's what we're saying. If it is in our best interest to get involved, that's what we should do. Not exactly rocket science. You are literally saying "even if it is in our best interest to do something, we shouldn't do it." That's real smart foreign policy.

What is your position, then? You said that they crossed the "red line" by using chemical weapons and that we will look like pushovers if we don't do something about it. You said we need to take out the chemical weapons.
By your definition, Auschwitz was not our problem. Correct or incorrect?

I don't know exactly how you propose that we violate a sovereign nation's military system without that being an act of war against the administration and at least giving the appearance that we are aiding the rebels.

Oh shut the fuck up with this Sovereign Nation garbage. Who the hell decided that sovereignty is some sacred right or carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you want? Why exactly are you selling your soul to something as worthless as the UN? International law is a joke when it is being used as an excuse to sit back as civilians are being gassed to death.

And once again - what you are arguing for is to NEVER DO ANYTHING NO MATTER WHAT. That's your argument. My argument is that saying you will never do something is fucking retard politics. If Israel hadn't intervened in Syria a few years ago we wouldn't be discussing chemical weapons falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda, we'd be discussing nukes or otherwise radioactive material. NOT DOING ANYTHING EVER EVENTUALLY BITES YOU IN THE ASS.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Yeah, genius. That's what we're saying. If it is in our best interest to get involved, that's what we should do. Not exactly rocket science. You are literally saying "even if it is in our best interest to do something, we shouldn't do it." That's real smart foreign policy.
It depends on how far we stretch the definition of "best interest". We have gotten so wrapped up in world politics that almost anything could be considered counter to our best interests. Someone needs do define how the fighting is LIKELY to affect our best interests, AND how our involvement (or restraint) is likely to affect our interests, as a result. If protecting some bullshit interest means getting involved in a war and creating more enemies that want to kill us, maybe it is in our best interest to eat the loss and avoid a huge blowback situation.

By your definition, Auschwitz was not our problem. Correct or incorrect?
Don't know, honestly. From a straight philosophical standpoint, we have no obligation to protect anyone but ourselves. But, of course, any human would probably concede that we cannot abide genocide of innocent people. It's a very difficult question. Your question also assumes that if the United States doesn't take care of it, no one will.


Oh shut the fuck up with this Sovereign Nation garbage. Who the hell decided that sovereignty is some sacred right or carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you want? Why exactly are you selling your soul to something as worthless as the UN? International law is a joke when it is being used as an excuse to sit back as civilians are being gassed to death.
I hate the UN and generally don't care for international law. So you're cool with the government of any nation entering the United States and "correcting" any situations that it feels are counter to its best interests? Sovereign nations don't mean anything, right? Pakistan could certainly argue that us dropping drone strikes on their children is counter to their best interests; who are we to stop them from defending their interests?

And once again - what you are arguing for is to NEVER DO ANYTHING NO MATTER WHAT. That's your argument. My argument is that saying you will never do something is fucking retard politics. If Israel hadn't intervened in Syria a few years ago we wouldn't be discussing chemical weapons falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda, we'd be discussing nukes or otherwise radioactive material. NOT DOING ANYTHING EVER EVENTUALLY BITES YOU IN THE ASS.
I never said never do anything. I said we need a serious evaluation of what is LIKELY to happen if we do nothing, and what is LIKELY to happen if we intercede. The problem is with who is analyzing what is LIKELY to happen. Some people claim we'll be facing nuclear war every fucking time something happens in the Middle East. You can only cry "nukes" so many times before people stop taking you seriously.
Again, since you mentioned Israel, why don't they take some of our money that we give them and do something about it? Somehow everything that happens is more our problem than the nations that are right next to them.
 
Your question also assumes that if the United States doesn't take care of it, no one will.

The list of nations that will take care of this sort of thing is increasingly short, and the United States is the only one that actually can. Great Britain and Israel can generally be counted on, but they can't do it on their own.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
The list of nations that will take care of this sort of thing is increasingly short, and the United States is the only one that actually can. Great Britain and Israel can generally be counted on, but they can't do it on their own.
Then maybe they should stop spending all their fucking money on social programs and bullshit and invest in a military that can protect their interests. I'm tired of being the default because everyone else knows we'll handle their problems for them.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
I don't know exactly how you propose that we violate a sovereign nation's military system without that being an act of war against the administration and at least giving the appearance that we are aiding the rebels.
How is the question.

I don't know how, but we're good at it. However we won the cold war, we apply those advantages to this one.

Is that a sanitized enough way to put it?
 

Josh_R

Registered User
How is the question.

I don't know how, but we're good at it. However we won the cold war, we apply those advantages to this one.

Is that a sanitized enough way to put it?
We "won" the Cold War because we spent more money than then Russians, and their economy collapsed before ours.
My point is that if ANY other country sent agents/arms/funding/troops into OUR country because they didn't like something we did, we would consider it an act of war. I don't see how we can do the same and not assume that the Syrians and their allies will feel any differently.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
I don't see how we can do the same and not assume that the Syrians and their allies will feel any differently.
I can. Easily. They're a middle eastern country and all middle eastern countries are different from us, on account of their hatred for the "knife in their heart" aka israel.

There's NO comparing countries on that level. None at all.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Disclaimer: in no way was that sarcastic.

One of the problems of the internet is you can't easily post quick truths without the quickness being written off as facetiousness.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
I can. Easily. They're a middle eastern country and all middle eastern countries are different from us, on account of their hatred for the "knife in their heart" aka israel.

There's NO comparing countries on that level. None at all.
There is something to be said for your point. However, I find it difficult to accept that America gets to be the self-appointed arbiter of what country is legitimate and deserves to be treated as sovereign and which we can violate with impunity.

EDIT: I didn't take your post as sarcasm.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
I find it difficult to accept that America gets to be the self-appointed arbiter of what country is legitimate and deserves to be treated as sovereign and which we can violate with impunity.
Do you have any idea how many different organizational bodies recognize infinite combinations of others?

Pick one fuckin system out of 200, and oh, what, it's the one America likes and suddenly that one out of 200 is the "arbiter"? I'm sure that has nothing to do with anti-american bullshit and guilt.
 
Top