Isolationism/Military intervention discussion

[ComradeDaryl]

http://forums.school-survival.net/showth...614&page=2

Continued from here.

Discuss about military intervention and Isolationism here. I personally believe that AmeriKKKa and the UKKK needs to only worry about it's neighbors, and nothing more. It's ridiculous how the U$A has so many bases in so many countries, and I find that crazy, since they could just use them at home instead to solve their own and neighbor's problems. AmeriKKKa and the UKKK already has so much problems at home and with it's neighbors like Mexico and France(respectively), so why the fuck interfere in the middle east when you already got enough problems?


What does everyone think about military intervention/isolationism/etc?

[schoolsux]

According to the Constitution, the USA should stay neutral in major wars in other parts of the world. They had a good point. But we should always defend our allies.

[brainiac3397]

Like Ive said before...problem happens somewhere in the world cant just ignore it. Government intends to outlive the general populace. Hence it must take necessary actions to ensure the stability and security of the nation.

IMO the problem people seem to constantly have is equating government=single entity. The government isnt a living being. It isnt a single mind. Its a giant contraption like the human body with various independent and semi-independent and a few dependent mechanisms supervised by a central hub (aka the president). The government as a whole is interested in two things:protecting the country and following the law(though corrupt governments lack these traits and are thus prone to severe instability).

Every 2 years we vote for Congress, every 4 years for a president. Then youve got the state elections, local elections, county elections. Clearly the government can not be a continous being if we're so frequently infusing it with new or different ideas even if they follow party lines. A candidate cant distinguish himself if he doesnt leave a mark of his own (something thats like a human trait, to mark one's existence).

To answer ones questions, you need to delve deeper than "government" as an identity. Which agency? Whose approval? What budget? What purpose? All of this shit is practically out there for public consumption. I can find how much money the pentagon got in 2014, and pretty much whatever they spent it on in detail. I can find documents on why a certain agenda was adopted. Often, the only documents kept secret are due to diplomatic impact, or the extent of information being sensitive at the present moment. Some stuff may be more strongly gripped due to potential embarrasment (but a FOIA request, and if failed, a court trial, will determine if they should be released and how they should be released).

Im tired of hearing people spout all this nonsense with the idea that the government is some single minded evil hivemind. Thats not how it works, and thats how it will never work through the sheer force of human nature. Even the most brutal dictatorships are, underneath, relatively unstable platforms which relies on appeasing the officials who have the delegated power to conduct government functions (since one man could never run a country).

Unfortunately we live in a society that enjoys emphasizing everything that is wrong but ignoring all that is right. While it makes for a cynical joke, i doubt the various parts of the government just lay idle when they arent fucking up. In fact, they probably get more good done than bad, yet only those with a serious vested interest with the motivation to seek this information really know about. Whenever the government as a whole functions to keep the country running, nobody gives a fuck.

And how does this tie into interacting with the world? Simple. All of the good and beneficial are buried under the more sensational "bad" sides and rhetoric laced diatribes and outright bullshit theories. Despite sounding like a condescending Libertarian, in reality running a country is a bitch. If you can keep the rest of world a bit calmer, it makes EVERYONE feel less pressured (except the source of the problems and their neighbors). Look at Europe. Middle East is t necessarily their neighbor, yet their countries are being flooded by immigrants. If they contain the problem in the Middle East, it will probably stem the tide.

Im not against immigrants, but waves of refugees suddenly pouring in tend to place a large burden on the government and economy of every country experiencing it. Their burdens then ripple outwards and damage the rest of the world. All because the countries with the power to do something about it said "fuck it not our problem". The world is interconnected. Cant just "deal with ourselves and our neighbors" because thats not how global diplomacy and global economics works...

[ComradeDaryl]

(09-06-2015 03:20 PM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Like Ive said before...problem happens somewhere in the world cant just ignore it. Government intends to outlive the general populace. Hence it must take necessary actions to ensure the stability and security of the nation.

IMO the problem people seem to constantly have is equating government=single entity. The government isnt a living being. It isnt a single mind. Its a giant contraption like the human body with various independent and semi-independent and a few dependent mechanisms supervised by a central hub (aka the president). The government as a whole is interested in two things:protecting the country and following the law(though corrupt governments lack these traits and are thus prone to severe instability).

Every 2 years we vote for Congress, every 4 years for a president. Then youve got the state elections, local elections, county elections. Clearly the government can not be a continous being if we're so frequently infusing it with new or different ideas even if they follow party lines. A candidate cant distinguish himself if he doesnt leave a mark of his own (something thats like a human trait, to mark one's existence).

To answer ones questions, you need to delve deeper than "government" as an identity. Which agency? Whose approval? What budget? What purpose? All of this shit is practically out there for public consumption. I can find how much money the pentagon got in 2014, and pretty much whatever they spent it on in detail. I can find documents on why a certain agenda was adopted. Often, the only documents kept secret are due to diplomatic impact, or the extent of information being sensitive at the present moment. Some stuff may be more strongly gripped due to potential embarrasment (but a FOIA request, and if failed, a court trial, will determine if they should be released and how they should be released).

Im tired of hearing people spout all this nonsense with the idea that the government is some single minded evil hivemind. Thats not how it works, and thats how it will never work through the sheer force of human nature. Even the most brutal dictatorships are, underneath, relatively unstable platforms which relies on appeasing the officials who have the delegated power to conduct government functions (since one man could never run a country).

Unfortunately we live in a society that enjoys emphasizing everything that is wrong but ignoring all that is right. While it makes for a cynical joke, i doubt the various parts of the government just lay idle when they arent fucking up. In fact, they probably get more good done than bad, yet only those with a serious vested interest with the motivation to seek this information really know about. Whenever the government as a whole functions to keep the country running, nobody gives a fuck.

And how does this tie into interacting with the world? Simple. All of the good and beneficial are buried under the more sensational "bad" sides and rhetoric laced diatribes and outright bullshit theories. Despite sounding like a condescending Libertarian, in reality running a country is a bitch. If you can keep the rest of world a bit calmer, it makes EVERYONE feel less pressured (except the source of the problems and their neighbors). Look at Europe. Middle East is t necessarily their neighbor, yet their countries are being flooded by immigrants. If they contain the problem in the Middle East, it will probably stem the tide.

Im not against immigrants, but waves of refugees suddenly pouring in tend to place a large burden on the government and economy of every country experiencing it. Their burdens then ripple outwards and damage the rest of the world. All because the countries with the power to do something about it said "fuck it not our problem". The world is interconnected. Cant just "deal with ourselves and our neighbors" because thats not how global diplomacy and global economics works...

How come Australia, Canada, and Mexico can ignore those problems just fine while AmeriKKKa and the United KKKingdom does that? Australia, Canada, and Mexico are large countries, either by area and/or population.

You really love to use AmeriKKKan/UKKK apologist rhetoric.

[Ky]

You complain about Brainy spouting rhetoric, yet you're giving two world powers derogatory (and arguably irrelevant) nicknames in a vain attempt to be clever?

I thought you wanted a discussion - come back when you've ditched your soapbox and tinfoil hat.

[ComradeDaryl]

(09-15-2015 06:45 AM)DoA Wrote:  You complain about Brainy spouting rhetoric, yet you're giving two world powers derogatory (and arguably irrelevant) nicknames in a vain attempt to be clever?

I thought you wanted a discussion - come back when you've ditched your soapbox and tinfoil hat.

I'm sorry if I'm being hypocritical, but Australia, Canada, and Mexico aren't world powers compared to the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and Russia. He said that isolationism didn't work for the United States, yet it did for decades, and it did just fine. I do want a discussion, and, by the way, "Conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory term for people who like to think outside the mainstream norms.

Stormcloudsgathering on "Conspiracy theorists" and how that is an ad hominem attack

[brainiac3397]

Because,to be blunt, Mexico can't do jackshit on the global field nor does the global field do jackshit for Mexico. Same for Canada. The Aussies are important to the regional field but being 99% uninhabited desert makes it relatively unimportant. Having a large country doesn't imply you have power in the global political realm.

China had the world's largest popualtion, but they were nothing till only pretty recently.

I can't recall a period in US history where the USA was successfully isolationist "for decades". We've been sticking our noses into the rest of the world since the US Constitution was ratified. Hell, we had politicians of our newly formed country in Europe before we even won the freaking revolution. We invaded Tripoli within only years of independence. We got into another war with the UK. We flirted with Spain, then kicked their ass.

Some say the Monroe Doctrine was "isolationist" but I disagree because we were basically telling Europe to stay the hell out of South America(thus imposing our will over an area of the world we didn't directly control). The US probably hasn't had more than a decade total of not getting involved anywhere, and the longest would probably be the few years of World War 1.

US history is 2 centuries of getting involved in every nook and cranny of the world.

[Ky]

(09-15-2015 07:34 AM)ComradeDaryl Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 06:45 AM)DoA Wrote:  You complain about Brainy spouting rhetoric, yet you're giving two world powers derogatory (and arguably irrelevant) nicknames in a vain attempt to be clever?

I thought you wanted a discussion - come back when you've ditched your soapbox and tinfoil hat.

I'm sorry if I'm being hypocritical, but Australia, Canada, and Mexico aren't world powers compared to the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and Russia. He said that isolationism didn't work for the United States, yet it did for decades, and it did just fine. I do want a discussion, and, by the way, "Conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory term for people who like to think outside the mainstream norms.

Stormcloudsgathering on "Conspiracy theorists" and how that is an ad hominem attack

I have nothing against conspiracy theory; it's conspiracy assertions I can't stand. Suggesting that a/the government owes its inefficiency to being a bureaucracy-choked morass of superfluous moving parts, as I do, falls in the former category, whereas implying it's a homogeneous mass that only intervenes in the lives of people to ruin them, as you have, bears more similarities with the latter.

I'm not saying there isn't a reason to think outside the box; I'm just saying that any conspiracies are, at this point, purely hypothetical. The "United Dollar Sign of Ameriklania", as you might call it, is involved in international politics for a plethora of reasons - granted, these reasons for foreign entanglements are not all good reasons (some may even be morally objectionable)... nor is there any obligation for them to be.

If anything, at least judge them by their results. (The effect of government is probably the only part about it that makes sense anyway.)

[ComradeDaryl]

(09-15-2015 09:20 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Because,to be blunt, Mexico can't do jackshit on the global field nor does the global field do jackshit for Mexico. Same for Canada. The Aussies are important to the regional field but being 99% uninhabited desert makes it relatively unimportant. Having a large country doesn't imply you have power in the global political realm.

China had the world's largest popualtion, but they were nothing till only pretty recently.

I can't recall a period in US history where the USA was successfully isolationist "for decades". We've been sticking our noses into the rest of the world since the US Constitution was ratified. Hell, we had politicians of our newly formed country in Europe before we even won the freaking revolution. We invaded Tripoli within only years of independence. We got into another war with the UK. We flirted with Spain, then kicked their ass.

Some say the Monroe Doctrine was "isolationist" but I disagree because we were basically telling Europe to stay the hell out of South America(thus imposing our will over an area of the world we didn't directly control). The US probably hasn't had more than a decade total of not getting involved anywhere, and the longest would probably be the few years of World War 1.

US history is 2 centuries of getting involved in every nook and cranny of the world.

Yes, but they barely interfered with other countries that were not in the same continent before WW1. Americans have the cartels right next to them that are worse than ISIS, but Americans and the British are too fucking obsessed with fundamentalist muslims in the Middle East instead of fighting the cartels that are right next to the United States.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/20...hobia.html

[Ky]

A valid concern. It's unthinkable that a government so obsessed with a "War on Drugs" is so unconcerned about the source.

[brainiac3397]

Who or how doesn't relate to should. I'm not saying US foreign policy is that great(realistically its very lopsided and horrifically lacking). However that doesn't justify totally giving up. It just means we're electing fools.

I wouldn't call cartels worse though. They're motivated by money and can be persuaded. ISIS on other hand believes in a divine authority that only they interpret and are thus not as likely to think twice because unlike money, their faith is infinite win or lose.

[ComradeDaryl]

(09-16-2015 04:21 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Who or how doesn't relate to should. I'm not saying US foreign policy is that great(realistically its very lopsided and horrifically lacking). However that doesn't justify totally giving up. It just means we're electing fools.

I wouldn't call cartels worse though. They're motivated by money and can be persuaded. ISIS on other hand believes in a divine authority that only they interpret and are thus not as likely to think twice because unlike money, their faith is infinite win or lose.

Still, the cartels have a large network outside of their host countries.

[brainiac3397]

But cartels are far easier to track, penetrate, and defeat. Hence they arent as big a threat because their loyalty to money makes them vulnerable.

[ComradeDaryl]

Even Brazil only worries about their own problems, and that of the neighbors(rarely), and yet they have conscription! Mexico has conscription too, and never goes militarily aboard as well!

[brainiac3397]

Brazil has like 3000 troops as UN peacekeepers.

Doesn't sound much like staying out. In fact many of the developing countries of the world are the largest contributors to the UN peacekeeping forces. As in they provide the most manpower to an international agency that makes everyone's problems their problems.

Sending troops abroad is not the only sign of getting involved in other countries. The only difference is that the US, with it's huge interests throughout the globe due to either diplomacy or trade, is generally put in a position where bashing heasd will provide better return and stronger relationships. Unfortunately the foreign policy has been bungled up countless times and we get into more bad events than good ones(like how we should have realistically gotten involved in Syria because now the Russians are there and are capitalizing on it to lessen the impact of their conquest of Crimea and funding of pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine).

When the leadership can't make an objective and practical decision, the entire structure suffers a drop in quality.

[ComradeDaryl]

Cutting down the U.S's military would save the taxpayers a lot of money, and as much as Bashar Al-Assad is not really great, he's far better than the Free Syrian Army and ISIL.

[brainiac3397]

He's so great, he's the cause of the initial break down and start of the civil war which gave ISIL the opportunity to expand into his country.

[ComradeDaryl]

(11-19-2015 04:44 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  He's so great, he's the cause of the initial break down and start of the civil war which gave ISIL the opportunity to expand into his country.

It's sort of his fault, but it's also the fault of AmeriKKKa and the United KKKingdom for covertly funding and aiding the terror groups when he was stable. Those 2 countries need to start minding their own fucking business and need to fuck off the affairs of countries that are far from them.

[brainiac3397]

UK and US were not funding terrorist organizations. And it wasn't terror groups that destablized Syira, it was the whole Arab Spring movement. Unless you'd like to support the idea that Middle Easterners are incapable of mustering up their own democratic movement without Western influence.

And like I've said, geopolitics is a natural fact. The Brits were involved with the Middle East back when it took weeks to get a message from England to the Middle East(assuming the courier even safely made it). As long as there is economic impact, there is going to be political interest. If the price gouging by Arab merchants put a dent in the pockets of the Brits who could afford it, I'm sure it would motivate the political masses(at that time being the aristocrats and nobles) to urge their government to get involved for a)controlling the absurdly inflated costs and b)giving them the opportunity to do business there thus benefitting the government as well(because a business run by a citizen of said country making a profit is beneficial to the state the citizen is of)

As long as humans exist, travel, and trade there will always be an interest in a "higher authority" to get involved in cases of dispute and disagreement. Be it gods, guns, or governments, one of em will form the basis of the "legal" authority to assist the invested parties with their dispute. It's simplistic to just say "we should stay out of it" because if an American citizen is involved, the government will have to get involved.

So your way of thinking would only work by establishment of a totalitarian regime that limits the travel and trade of it's citizens. Ever wonder why North Korea doesn't get too involved with the rest of world either economically or diplomatically? probably because their totalitarian regime prevent its citizens from doing anything to involve them in the rest of the world.

In the 21st century, the era of globalization, you're recommendation of isolationism might as well be anti-liberal because only totalitarianism could enforce it. Are you ready to give up your liberties so your government stays out of other countries? Because realistically that's the only way it's going to happen.

[ComradeDaryl]

Brainiac, I'm not a fan of Isolationism either, but I ardently dislike military intervention, since it wastes a lot of taxpayer money, especially in the United States and United Kingdom.

[thewake]

Obviously none of you realize how fragile the US economy is we need this stimulus to keep it going

[Alistoriv]

Spoiler (Click to View)

this is why

[brainiac3397]

(11-21-2015 11:17 AM)thewake Wrote:  Obviously none of you realize how fragile the US economy is we need this stimulus to keep it going

Without Lockheed's technology and Raytheon's missiles, how else can we stimulate our economy?!

[ComradeDaryl]

(11-21-2015 11:17 AM)thewake Wrote:  Obviously none of you realize how fragile the US economy is we need this stimulus to keep it going

They could always legalize all drugs, plus, a large military puts a drain on a country's economy, and leads to statist violations!

(11-21-2015 11:59 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  

(11-21-2015 11:17 AM)thewake Wrote:  Obviously none of you realize how fragile the US economy is we need this stimulus to keep it going

Without Lockheed's technology and Raytheon's missiles, how else can we stimulate our economy?!

They could always legalize drugs, like I said earlier, and that would also help stimulate the economies of the U.S. and the U.K.

[brainiac3397]

Stoned employees make bad employees.

[ComradeDaryl]

(11-22-2015 01:03 PM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Stoned employees make bad employees.

The same thing can be said about drunk alcohol employees and employees that smoke tobacco.

So ironic, that you call yourself the "defender of freedom and rights", while you're just a statist apologist.

[brainiac3397]

Is it statism to defend the rights if a business to choose their employees, including making restrictions on not allowing their employees to be intoxicated (drunk or stoned employees dont last long). While 29 states dont allow employers to refuse smokers, the employer can tack on a higher insurance premium for the smokers that work for them.

Dou you believe it to be freedom to allow businesses to make their own choice in employment or would you rather have government force businesses to not punish drunks and potheads in the workplace?

If you're going to keep throwing the "ebul statist" grenade at me, might want to make sure you arent in range of getting a faceful of shrapnel.

[ComradeDaryl]

I'm not against businesses choosing non-smoking/non-drinking/whatever non-drug users over drug users, but at the same time, I'm against laws that force businesses not to hire smokers/drinkers/weed smokers/etc.

[brainiac3397]

What's to stop the drinkers, smokers, and potheads from getting the government that just legalized their activities to also force businesses to not discriminate against them for a legalized activity? Thus forcing them to hire them and not infringe on their "liberties"?

[ComradeDaryl]

Back on to military intervention.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/12/7_absurd...r_dollars/

7 absurd ways the U.S. military wastes taxpayer money

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most.../?view=all

The War on Terror: 10 reasons why Military Intervention Makes Us Less Safe