[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
…
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t understand your distinction between isolationism and non-intervention.
Either we are actively involved in the world or we are not.
The distinction lies in the question of whether to use or abstain from using force. It’s no different abroad than it is at home. Libertarians and Constitutionalists don’t condone the use of coercion in human interactions, and they recognize government as the primary agency of coercion in society.
“Peace and honest trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” There is no need to become militarily involved with nations that haven’t threatened us or haven’t the means of carrying out an attack on American soil.
Zap Branigan wrote:
He attacked us because the US is preventing him from imposing his tyrannical brand of Islamic rule in Saudi Arabia and around the world.
Now that we know why he did it should we let him have his way or should we oppose him?
“Non-intervention” says we should let him have his way.
Actually, “non-interventionism” says we shouldn’t have funded and equipped him in the first place. That’s the part neocons always, always, always leave out.
Non-interventionism further goes on to say that, now that we’ve dug our way into into a sandtrap, let’s get out the best way we can. There are several proposed methods of dealing with existing terrorist threats from within a non-interventionist framework.
First of all, you stop feeding the flames. You pull the hell out of the occupied countries and leave them without a reason to bitch at you. This is common sense. When your boat springs a leak, what do you do first – attempt to patch the hole or grab a bucket and madly start tossing the rushing water overboard?
Simply withdrawing from the occupied territories would go a long way towards addressing the terrorist threat. At that point, you would take stock of the situation and consider whether anything further could or should be done to pursue known terrorist groups.
If they were deeply hidden and there was very little chance of finding them, you’d bite the bullet and accept the loss (let’s not pretend that the U.S. is capable of solving any international dispute and tracking down whomever it wants, because it isn’t, as clearly demonstrated in the case of OBL).
If there is a reasonable chance of capturing known terrorists, you put out a large bounty and let the magic of capitalism do it’s work. Governments of dirt-poor, third-world nations are very susceptible to bribes.
There is no reason why they wouldn’t hand over a marginal criminal group to the United States in return for a large bounty, provided they weren’t putting their popularity in jeopardy by doing so.
In neither case would you react to the criminal act of terrorism by launching a war and invading an entire nation. That be the equivalent of trying to plug-up your leaking boat by shooting bullets square into the hole.
Zap Branigan wrote:
“Non-intervention” would have sat out WWII by not giving Japan reason to attack us.
I am sure THAT would have made the world a better place.
If “non-intervention” had been practiced during WWI, there likely wouldn’t have been a WW2! Gee, maybe something could be learned from this. Why is it that neocons always completely ignore WWI when bringing up historical examples to justify intervention? Answer: Because history began in 1938, according to the neocons.
Zap Branigan wrote:
I have to say I am seriously disappointed with this guy.
He comes across as a radio host that only criticizes and does not offer any realistic solutions.
And you come across as a guy who is looking to fix a broken system from within the system. Everything else is “unrealistic”…[/quote]
Would you have peace and free trade with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
Would you trade with them while they are at war with Britain, Poland etc?
Do you propose revolution? It seems improvement must come from within the system or we must destroy the system.
I think things are a little too good to destroy the system and rebuild, hoping it will come out better next time.
I suspect if there is a revolution things will be far worse in the long and short term.
And you are also repeating the often told lie. We never funded or supported OBL and the Taliban came into existence after we stopped working with Afghanistan.
Our major failing in that area was to stop supporting our interests.