Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 12 2019 03:23 xDaunt wrote: Rather than tell BSword what you think he means by "isolationism," why not ask him for policy specifics? Let's take the Western Pacific theater as an example, where we have multiple defense agreements with nations over there. Let's say China attacks Japan. Is it in America's interest to come to Japan's defense? How about South Korea? How about Taiwan? The Philippines? When you factor in the ease with which China would roll over some of those countries, it really begs the question of why it is in the interest of the US taxpayer to fund and guarantee the defense of some of those countries. It's one thing to make those types of defense agreements in a unipolar or even bipolar world. We're long past that that now.
It’s in America’s interests to not have Japan and China engage in an arms race, certainly. Japan could easily nuclearize and create a sufficient defence capability to defend its interests but following WW2 we all decided we felt more comfortable if Japan chilled the fuck out. The United States has received huge economic dividends from stability in the Far East.
Japan is easy enough to justify. How about Taiwan or the Philippines?
Taiwan is an American proxy off the coast of China. It is to China what Cuba was to America during the Cold War. Think of it like an aircraft carrier that can’t be sunk.
Philippines had strategic importance for control over trade in the area. That’s why America was able to strangle Japan in the run up to Pearl Harbor.
Philippines has some strategic importance given its proximity to major shipping lanes. It is also defensible.
On March 12 2019 05:18 Doodsmack wrote: Anyone willing to tell a lie this inane is willing to lie about anything. In fact they lie to such an extent that it is a mental illness. Pathological liars cannot be trusted on even mundane matters, and everything they say should be considered presumptively false.
Didn't he literally hours ago claim that he actually said "Cook", just that no one heard it? He can't even keep his own lies straight.
On March 12 2019 05:18 Doodsmack wrote: Anyone willing to tell a lie this inane is willing to lie about anything. In fact they lie to such an extent that it is a mental illness. Pathological liars cannot be trusted on even mundane matters, and everything they say should be considered presumptively false.
On March 12 2019 03:23 xDaunt wrote: Rather than tell BSword what you think he means by "isolationism," why not ask him for policy specifics? Let's take the Western Pacific theater as an example, where we have multiple defense agreements with nations over there. Let's say China attacks Japan. Is it in America's interest to come to Japan's defense? How about South Korea? How about Taiwan? The Philippines? When you factor in the ease with which China would roll over some of those countries, it really begs the question of why it is in the interest of the US taxpayer to fund and guarantee the defense of some of those countries. It's one thing to make those types of defense agreements in a unipolar or even bipolar world. We're long past that that now.
It’s in America’s interests to not have Japan and China engage in an arms race, certainly. Japan could easily nuclearize and create a sufficient defence capability to defend its interests but following WW2 we all decided we felt more comfortable if Japan chilled the fuck out. The United States has received huge economic dividends from stability in the Far East.
Japan is easy enough to justify. How about Taiwan or the Philippines?
Taiwan is an American proxy off the coast of China. It is to China what Cuba was to America during the Cold War. Think of it like an aircraft carrier that can’t be sunk.
Philippines had strategic importance for control over trade in the area. That’s why America was able to strangle Japan in the run up to Pearl Harbor.
Philippines has some strategic importance given its proximity to major shipping lanes. It is also defensible.
Do you think Cuba could defend itself against the US military during the Cold War? They’re not trying to hold it in open war, if it comes to that the ICBMs are already flying.
In a tense peace it’s an extremely valuable asset, a staging point within short range of the economic heart of China that China can do fuck all about. It doesn’t even cost the US shit, the Taiwanese subsidize American military costs by placing continual orders for US hardware.
NATO could never hold West Berlin but it was still an extremely valuable proxy during the Cold War. The vulnerability during a hot war is immaterial.
On March 12 2019 03:23 xDaunt wrote: Rather than tell BSword what you think he means by "isolationism," why not ask him for policy specifics? Let's take the Western Pacific theater as an example, where we have multiple defense agreements with nations over there. Let's say China attacks Japan. Is it in America's interest to come to Japan's defense? How about South Korea? How about Taiwan? The Philippines? When you factor in the ease with which China would roll over some of those countries, it really begs the question of why it is in the interest of the US taxpayer to fund and guarantee the defense of some of those countries. It's one thing to make those types of defense agreements in a unipolar or even bipolar world. We're long past that that now.
It’s in America’s interests to not have Japan and China engage in an arms race, certainly. Japan could easily nuclearize and create a sufficient defence capability to defend its interests but following WW2 we all decided we felt more comfortable if Japan chilled the fuck out. The United States has received huge economic dividends from stability in the Far East.
Japan is easy enough to justify. How about Taiwan or the Philippines?
Taiwan is an American proxy off the coast of China. It is to China what Cuba was to America during the Cold War. Think of it like an aircraft carrier that can’t be sunk.
Philippines had strategic importance for control over trade in the area. That’s why America was able to strangle Japan in the run up to Pearl Harbor.
Philippines has some strategic importance given its proximity to major shipping lanes. It is also defensible.
Link literally writes "we could fix the problem for about $24 billion a year, one well-connected expert said, less than four percent of the Pentagon budget" as the second sentence in.
Wasn't Trump proclaiming that he will reduce China's influence and increase military spending? Seems like a good place to start. Spend 8 years at less than 0.5% of pentagon budget and all of a sudden your closest ally to China is curtailing Chinese influence in a major way.
Cheaper than a trade war to American taxpayers and vastly more effective without losing all your allies in the region.
On March 12 2019 05:20 xDaunt wrote: Pelosi has taken impeachment of Trump off of the table, saying "[Trump's] just not worth it." While I'm completely unsurprised that she has said this, I do find the timing rather curious. One would think that she'd at least wait for the Mueller report. My guess is that she already knows that there's not going to be anything worthwhile in it. Or maybe she's been listening to Hannity who has been saying since Friday that some of the FBI and DOJ officials who worked on the investigation are about to get indicted, and she's trying to get in front of that freight train.
Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.
In ’16, I never thought he would be elected president of the United States. How could it be? But then he was, so that made ’18 more crucial. And we won that. And thank God, because we now have a lever; we have leverage against this assault on the Constitution.
I just like the rhetoric wars. He’s leading such an assault on the constitution that we’re so glad Democrats won the House. But this dastardly assault narrowly averted is nothing compelling to provoke impeachment. There is nothing overwhelming and bipartisan out there to provoke a divisive action.
She’s a politician talking out of both sides of her mouth in the same interview. Her base does demand that somewhat. Virtue signal the right things, but preserve and expand power even if it contradicts goals and commitments.
On March 12 2019 03:23 xDaunt wrote: Rather than tell BSword what you think he means by "isolationism," why not ask him for policy specifics? Let's take the Western Pacific theater as an example, where we have multiple defense agreements with nations over there. Let's say China attacks Japan. Is it in America's interest to come to Japan's defense? How about South Korea? How about Taiwan? The Philippines? When you factor in the ease with which China would roll over some of those countries, it really begs the question of why it is in the interest of the US taxpayer to fund and guarantee the defense of some of those countries. It's one thing to make those types of defense agreements in a unipolar or even bipolar world. We're long past that that now.
It’s in America’s interests to not have Japan and China engage in an arms race, certainly. Japan could easily nuclearize and create a sufficient defence capability to defend its interests but following WW2 we all decided we felt more comfortable if Japan chilled the fuck out. The United States has received huge economic dividends from stability in the Far East.
Japan is easy enough to justify. How about Taiwan or the Philippines?
Taiwan is an American proxy off the coast of China. It is to China what Cuba was to America during the Cold War. Think of it like an aircraft carrier that can’t be sunk.
Philippines had strategic importance for control over trade in the area. That’s why America was able to strangle Japan in the run up to Pearl Harbor.
Philippines has some strategic importance given its proximity to major shipping lanes. It is also defensible.
Do you think Cuba could defend itself against the US military during the Cold War? They’re not trying to hold it in open war, if it comes to that the ICBMs are already flying.
In a tense peace it’s an extremely valuable asset, a staging point within short range of the economic heart of China that China can do fuck all about. It doesn’t even cost the US shit, the Taiwanese subsidize American military costs by placing continual orders for US hardware.
No, Cuba would not have been able to defend itself from a full-scale US invasion. However, the invasion would have taken much longer with Cold War capabilities than what is available now today. Same applies to Taiwan, though Taiwan is much easier to seize geographically.
But you've hit on the key point. It's the nuclear deterrent that hypothetically keeps China in check, not conventional American power. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that this deterrent will continual to be effective. In fact, I find it hard to believe that any US president would justify using nukes to defend Taiwan, notwithstanding our treaties with them. The average American is not going to accept that Taiwan is worth nuclear war.
On March 12 2019 03:23 xDaunt wrote: Rather than tell BSword what you think he means by "isolationism," why not ask him for policy specifics? Let's take the Western Pacific theater as an example, where we have multiple defense agreements with nations over there. Let's say China attacks Japan. Is it in America's interest to come to Japan's defense? How about South Korea? How about Taiwan? The Philippines? When you factor in the ease with which China would roll over some of those countries, it really begs the question of why it is in the interest of the US taxpayer to fund and guarantee the defense of some of those countries. It's one thing to make those types of defense agreements in a unipolar or even bipolar world. We're long past that that now.
It’s in America’s interests to not have Japan and China engage in an arms race, certainly. Japan could easily nuclearize and create a sufficient defence capability to defend its interests but following WW2 we all decided we felt more comfortable if Japan chilled the fuck out. The United States has received huge economic dividends from stability in the Far East.
Japan is easy enough to justify. How about Taiwan or the Philippines?
Taiwan is an American proxy off the coast of China. It is to China what Cuba was to America during the Cold War. Think of it like an aircraft carrier that can’t be sunk.
Philippines had strategic importance for control over trade in the area. That’s why America was able to strangle Japan in the run up to Pearl Harbor.
Philippines has some strategic importance given its proximity to major shipping lanes. It is also defensible.
Do you think Cuba could defend itself against the US military during the Cold War? They’re not trying to hold it in open war, if it comes to that the ICBMs are already flying.
In a tense peace it’s an extremely valuable asset, a staging point within short range of the economic heart of China that China can do fuck all about. It doesn’t even cost the US shit, the Taiwanese subsidize American military costs by placing continual orders for US hardware.
No, Cuba would not have been able to defend itself from a full-scale US invasion. However, the invasion would have taken much longer with Cold War capabilities than what is available now today. Same applies to Taiwan, though Taiwan is much easier to seize geographically.
But you've hit on the key point. It's the nuclear deterrent that hypothetically keeps China in check, not conventional American power. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that this deterrent will continual to be effective. In fact, I find it hard to believe that any US president would justify using nukes to defend Taiwan, notwithstanding our treaties with them. The average American is not going to accept that Taiwan is worth nuclear war.
Nothing is worth nuclear war, that’s why it’s mad, if you’ll pardon the pun. It’s fundamentally irrational to threaten to destroy everything if you don’t get what you want, but somehow it works better than not.
You are going to have to find some sort of supporting statement that it is that USA has nuclear weapons (not nukes...lets be mature here) that deters China from invading Taiwan as opposed to, I don't know, that China doesn't currently have any way to invade Taiwan safely or without immediate action from USA and American allies. Though Trump appear to be doing his best destroy that deterrence.
On March 07 2019 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok, I actually believe you don't understand what to be communist is, and you have confused it with an authoritarian form of government.
And what dare I ask do you think a communist is for the sake of conversation?
Normally, you would offer what you would think to be communist is, before asking what another person thinks to be communist is, but I suppose that we can assume by your lack of rebuttal, that my assumption that you you have confused the word "communist" with authoritarian government is correct.
I would say that the best way to describe a communist government as regards to a country would be to how its economy works. In relation to a capitalist economy, private ownership and private enterprise is banned, and only state or collective ownership is legal. Everybody would be in essense government employed, working in the public sector. Details may vary. China has many (usd) billionaires from private enterprises. A great proportion of the economy and people would be earning and working for private companies. Possibly more that state enterprises, I can't say for sure, because it is China, but whatever it is, it is certainly enough that China cannot be called communist. There is a free market. It exists. It is absurd that a country with a stock market, with a possible housing and investment bubble can be called a communist country.
Now its your turn Sermakola, as I don't want to play a game of "that isn't what I said, and I have unreservedly answered your question, though by your refusal to offer your own it can be inferred that my inference was correct, I do dare to ask you what you think a communist is, for the sake of conversation of course.
Ok I'm going to assume the best and go with you had a stroke.
You already asked me what I think a communist government is and/or why I think china is communist.
Then I posted this is response.
On March 07 2019 07:28 Sermokala wrote:
On March 07 2019 06:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:41 youngjiddle wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:27 Excludos wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:16 youngjiddle wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:11 Excludos wrote: [quote]
It's not all bad in China. They are building coal plants, which undeniably is bad, but they're also making absolutely enormous strides towards becoming greener on a national scale. I'm not well versed enough in Chinese politics to know how much power local provinces has to ignore national directives, but it's suggested that these new coal plants are set up as a short term solution to keeping the local economy ticking, more than an actual needed power source.
I would be very skeptical about what China is saying about their push for green energy. Check out this video,
I didn't see all of it but I get the gist. It's difficult to know honestly. I would suspect people who are researching this area is doing a better job than just taking the Chinese government's word for granted, and these two guys are more on the anecdotal level than national or statistical one. However if it turns out that it's true, then I would definitively appreciate some pressure on China to lower their greenhouse gasses. That would be a more reasonable justifications for tariffs than "I'm starting a trade war because they're easy to win".
Lets just say I am concerned with the promises that an increasingly communist country is making, a country that is also in a bubble.
China's fall will be harsh.
How exactly is China increasingly communist? A bubble is basically a capitalist phenomenon, be it tulips, or dotcom, or construction.
On March 07 2019 04:07 Sermokala wrote: The real issue with china and their green energy initiative runs into the buzzsaw that is their strange and frankly broken government. They have a mix of communism and federalism that feeds into insane levels of corruption and structural incompetence that is kept rolling through the will of the party and the momentum the country has established. It doesn't matter really what the government in Beijing wants when most of the country will act its its own short term best intrest. God help them when the peoples 70 year lease to the land beneath them starts to creep closer to it reverting back to the government.
Which part is it that you consider communist? State control and authoritarianism isn't the same thing as communism. Though I agree they have an insane level of corruption, they appear to be generally competent, at least when it come to their "federal" projects.
When I say federalism I mean it in its literal term as in the different levels of government being responsible for increasingly narrow jurisdictions. In the chinese state this manifests as governors and down being selected by the national congress. However this then works in reverse as the national congress is selected in a rather complicated method of elections that is at its core has the electors organized into groups to make their vote.
Its impossible to say what china really is when you take into account all of the differences in the laws they've carved out to allow capitalism in. What are special economic zones really? They're under commune elected state control but have the capitalist freedoms of a western country.
ANYWAY. Those "federal" projects are indeed legit it seems from everything I have seen. the real issue is what comes at the more local level. Stuff like the south china mall until recently and the apartment buildings that end up being little more then a series of concrete coffins so that people can buy their "third home".
I'm not going to tell you that I even 70% understand the chinese election system but at the end of the day the communist party controls the super majority of the seats and has always done. If you can't trust that they at least belive that they are comunist then I don't know what to judge things.
Then you posted
On March 07 2019 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok, I actually believe you don't understand what to be communist is, and you have confused it with an authoritarian form of government.
This is your rebuttle. You don't think china is communist, rather authoritarian. Now being those things don't contradict each other I asked you what you think a communist government is.
On March 07 2019 08:19 Sermokala wrote:
On March 07 2019 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok, I actually believe you don't understand what to be communist is, and you have confused it with an authoritarian form of government.
And what dare I ask do you think a communist is for the sake of conversation?
This is the last of the conversation before your post so I hope you can understand how baffling and infuriating it is when you decide to snark about how I'm not offering what I think a communist government is. I asked you that question. I already answered that question and you responded, even going so far as to offer what you think our point of disagreement is.
You bring up points that I already brought up and have been responded to not just by me but by other people in the thread. This is "Your posts don't have anything to do with even your own posts", I genuinely don't think you read your own posts let alone anyone else's.
This is what I get for engaging you in good faith. To be said to have a stroke. It is my fault I suppose as you are so predictable. What you posted is not an answer to what you think a communist government is, as most of it is how you think the Communist party in China works, none of which has anything to do with communism, but rather authoritarianism. Unless... your argument is that the ruling party has communist in the name, in which case that would be a one sentence answer, and one is left wondering why you wrote so much about something else, and in any case can be dismissed by the reasoning that by assuming the best and go with you didn't had a stroke and don't genuinely think that China is communist because of a name. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Its not that I'm denying your good faith its that I'm denying that you're engaging with me, the thread, and yourself. You can't just make statements like "I think you're confusing communism with authoritarianism." And then refuse to elaborate on how that makes sense at all. I said you had a stroke beacuse theres no other way to really explain what just happened.
I mean if anything that I described is a republic when Rome being a republic elected representatives through the use of organized groups. Essentially China doing the same thing but in a bottom up-then down method is still fairly Republican.
The rest of my post was elaborating on if China was really communist. Despite having private businesses be illegal They've opened a flurry of zones where it is legal. Its only at the very end that I joked about them calling themselves communist. But that ending bit seems to be the only part that you've read. You didn't read the posts responding to my post from other people saying the same things without the communist name part. You even didn't read the post you yourself made accepting my argument and explaining what you think I got wrong.
The only way this conversation moves forward is if you explain the difference between communism and authoritarianism and how I got it wrong in my post just like how conversations work with everyone else in the thread.
I've already defined Communism and why it doesn't apply to China. Now it's your turn. Oh wait, you now are saying you was just joking. How tiresome.
What you defined as communism was state control of businesses and other private enterprises. Which is what I described again in the very post that you just quoted. The question I asked was what you think the difference between communism and authoritarianism is.
I was jokeing when I said you had a stroke. I didn't deadpan diagnose you with a stroke based on your ignorance of you own posts.
You keep asking me to answer a question I keep answering.
On March 12 2019 04:16 Plansix wrote: It is always weird that we all hang out on a website devoted games about moving armies a map and playing games like Civ and Total War, but then ask questions like “Why does the us care about all these islands in the very big ocean?”
The national government bears sole responsibility for conducting foreign policy for the US. We’ve been debating what nations to befriend and oppose, and what means to do that, at what cost for hundreds of years.
The popular hobby here to play video games do not take the place of that history.
Recently, a candidate was electedthat promised to put American interests first, and criticized past policy as favoring elites within the country while hurting the common man. The whole reason he’s justifiably called a populist is because he claims the elites have been operating in their own, narrow interest instead of the country as a whole.
If universal goodwill was purchased for free, I assume the current America First and aggressive noninterventionists would support it. Since that is not the case, we can and will have the conversation on how much should be spent and what we should purchase abroad with blood and treasure. This includes NK and Iranian nukes, Chinese regional/global dominance, Venezuelan tranquility, and European magnanimity. It asks you to weigh billions in foreign aid and military subsidies and foreign intervention against domestic aid and concerns.
I find it interresting both that Putin is facing harsh critisism in Russia for spending too much resources on military operations and foreign ambitions.
I also wonder how Trump's line is clearly opposing the traditional GOP take on foreign policy. He has to lose support from a lot of conservatives, right?
Either Trump is playing some bullshit game again or he critically underestimates what US military presence and intel from around the world is worth to his country.
On March 12 2019 04:16 Plansix wrote: It is always weird that we all hang out on a website devoted games about moving armies a map and playing games like Civ and Total War, but then ask questions like “Why does the us care about all these islands in the very big ocean?”
The national government bears sole responsibility for conducting foreign policy for the US. We’ve been debating what nations to befriend and oppose, and what means to do that, at what cost for hundreds of years.
The popular hobby here to play video games do not take the place of that history.
Recently, a candidate was electedthat promised to put American interests first, and criticized past policy as favoring elites within the country while hurting the common man. The whole reason he’s justifiably called a populist is because he claims the elites have been operating in their own, narrow interest instead of the country as a whole.
If universal goodwill was purchased for free, I assume the current America First and aggressive noninterventionists would support it. Since that is not the case, we can and will have the conversation on how much should be spent and what we should purchase abroad with blood and treasure. This includes NK and Iranian nukes, Chinese regional/global dominance, Venezuelan tranquility, and European magnanimity. It asks you to weigh billions in foreign aid and military subsidies and foreign intervention against domestic aid and concerns.
I find it interresting both that Putin is facing harsh critisism in Russia for spending too much resources on military operations and foreign ambitions.
I also wonder how Trump's line is clearly opposing the traditional GOP take on foreign policy. He has to lose support from a lot of conservatives, right?
Either Trump is playing some bullshit game again or he critically underestimates what US military presence and intel from around the world is worth to his country.
Putin is? Hadn't heard that.
It's maybe not a huge surprise. Russia's been a bit wobbly in terms of its economy. I'd expect a lot of people there want the government to focus on that.
On March 12 2019 04:16 Plansix wrote: It is always weird that we all hang out on a website devoted games about moving armies a map and playing games like Civ and Total War, but then ask questions like “Why does the us care about all these islands in the very big ocean?”
The national government bears sole responsibility for conducting foreign policy for the US. We’ve been debating what nations to befriend and oppose, and what means to do that, at what cost for hundreds of years.
The popular hobby here to play video games do not take the place of that history.
Recently, a candidate was electedthat promised to put American interests first, and criticized past policy as favoring elites within the country while hurting the common man. The whole reason he’s justifiably called a populist is because he claims the elites have been operating in their own, narrow interest instead of the country as a whole.
If universal goodwill was purchased for free, I assume the current America First and aggressive noninterventionists would support it. Since that is not the case, we can and will have the conversation on how much should be spent and what we should purchase abroad with blood and treasure. This includes NK and Iranian nukes, Chinese regional/global dominance, Venezuelan tranquility, and European magnanimity. It asks you to weigh billions in foreign aid and military subsidies and foreign intervention against domestic aid and concerns.
I find it interresting both that Putin is facing harsh critisism in Russia for spending too much resources on military operations and foreign ambitions.
I also wonder how Trump's line is clearly opposing the traditional GOP take on foreign policy. He has to lose support from a lot of conservatives, right?
Either Trump is playing some bullshit game again or he critically underestimates what US military presence and intel from around the world is worth to his country.
What do you mean? You’re stating some conclusions without you and me staring at news articles that we can both judge.
And do you have a comment on the subject of my post before we go from my premises on foreign policy to specific emanations of it? I don’t know if you accept my characterization of the matter at hand. Even the degree to which Trump is populist, without thought to whether or not populism holds a partial or full cure, is a debatable point to some degree.
I will try to respond to all the posts after my last post, but there are so many. So I'll start with this.
Here is what my original posts were than started this whole discussion:
"Trump isn't perfect, but the closer we get to to isolationism, the better it is for us. "
"You still havent justified why the U.S. should practice interventionism.
The Constitution clearly defines the role of the government. being the world police is not outlined at all."
Those three sentences were the crux of my argument.
The things I am talking about are actions explicitly not said to be in the name of American interests.
Examples:
Training the Pakistani RAW and Afghani Taliban Vietnam War Saving Saddam Hussein from its war with Iran (in which Iraq was actually the aggressor) Sending the 7th fleet to intimidate India when it was wiping the floor with Pakistan in one of their wars Korean War Meddling with all those Middle Eastern countries/dictatorships Unconditionally backing Israel Troops in other countries to "protect allies" Invasion of Iraq etc etc
However, after readin this post
On March 12 2019 03:16 Nebuchad wrote: Are you (Berserk) using isolationism as the "opposite" of interventionism?
I think I should have used non-interventionism instead of isolationism. lol. because that is what I was using isolationism as. Which is still inline with the "American isolationism" that has dominated American policy for over a century since George Washington but I think "non-interventionism" would have avoided a lot of this disagreement?
On March 12 2019 09:08 BerserkSword wrote: I will try to respond to all the posts after my last post, but there are so many. So I'll start with this.
Here is what my original posts were than started this whole discussion:
"Trump isn't perfect, but the closer we get to to isolationism, the better it is for us. "
"You still havent justified why the U.S. should practice interventionism.
The Constitution clearly defines the role of the government. being the world police is not outlined at all."
Those three sentences were the crux of my argument. the closer we are to isolationism vs interventionism
The things I am talking about are actions explicitly not said to be in the name of American interests.
Examples:
Training the Pakistani RAW and Afghani Taliban Vietnam War Saving Saddam Hussein from its war with Iran (in which Iraq was actually the aggressor) Sending the 7th fleet to intimidate India when it was wiping the floor with Pakistan in one of their wars Korean War Meddling with all those Middle Eastern countries/dictatorships Unconditionally backing Israel Troops in other countries to "protect allies" Invasion of Iraq etc etc
On March 12 2019 03:16 Nebuchad wrote: Are you (Berserk) using isolationism as the "opposite" of interventionism?
I think I should have used non-interventionism instead of isolationism. lol
That could actually have helped. I do agree with what you just said, but i disagreed with what i thought you said earlier. I do think that the US is having to many wars, and might very well be addicted to war.
Let that all be a lesson to us that sometimes it helps to simply clearly explain what we actually think.
I still do not think that Trump is actually helping push the US towards a path of less military action.
On March 12 2019 09:08 BerserkSword wrote: I will try to respond to all the posts after my last post, but there are so many. So I'll start with this.
Here is what my original posts were than started this whole discussion:
"Trump isn't perfect, but the closer we get to to isolationism, the better it is for us. "
"You still havent justified why the U.S. should practice interventionism.
The Constitution clearly defines the role of the government. being the world police is not outlined at all."
Those three sentences were the crux of my argument. the closer we are to isolationism vs interventionism
The things I am talking about are actions explicitly not said to be in the name of American interests.
Examples:
Training the Pakistani RAW and Afghani Taliban Vietnam War Saving Saddam Hussein from its war with Iran (in which Iraq was actually the aggressor) Sending the 7th fleet to intimidate India when it was wiping the floor with Pakistan in one of their wars Korean War Meddling with all those Middle Eastern countries/dictatorships Unconditionally backing Israel Troops in other countries to "protect allies" Invasion of Iraq etc etc
However, after readin this post
On March 12 2019 03:16 Nebuchad wrote: Are you (Berserk) using isolationism as the "opposite" of interventionism?
I think I should have used non-interventionism instead of isolationism. lol
That could actually have helped. I do agree with what you just said, but i disagreed with what i thought you said earlier. I do think that the US is having to many wars, and might very well be addicted to war.
Let that all be a lesson to us that sometimes it helps to simply clearly explain what we actually think.
I still do not think that Trump is actually helping push the US towards a path of less military action.
Under Obama and Bush, all you'd ever hear about is keeping the troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Trump's goal is to get them out.
Then there are all those military interventions you dont hear about. Like when Obama entered the US into the Yemen Civil War. America is out of it now under the Trump administration.
Trump did sanction a huge military budget though. That is more suggestive of a huge stading military rather than more militar action though
On March 12 2019 09:08 BerserkSword wrote: I will try to respond to all the posts after my last post, but there are so many. So I'll start with this.
Here is what my original posts were than started this whole discussion:
"Trump isn't perfect, but the closer we get to to isolationism, the better it is for us. "
"You still havent justified why the U.S. should practice interventionism.
The Constitution clearly defines the role of the government. being the world police is not outlined at all."
Those three sentences were the crux of my argument.
The things I am talking about are actions explicitly not said to be in the name of American interests.
Examples:
Training the Pakistani RAW and Afghani Taliban Vietnam War Saving Saddam Hussein from its war with Iran (in which Iraq was actually the aggressor) Sending the 7th fleet to intimidate India when it was wiping the floor with Pakistan in one of their wars Korean War Meddling with all those Middle Eastern countries/dictatorships Unconditionally backing Israel Troops in other countries to "protect allies" Invasion of Iraq etc etc
On March 12 2019 03:16 Nebuchad wrote: Are you (Berserk) using isolationism as the "opposite" of interventionism?
I think I should have used non-interventionism instead of isolationism. lol. because that is what I was using isolationism as. Which is still inline with the "American isolationism" that has dominated American policy for over a century since George Washington but I think "non-interventionism" would have avoided a lot of this disagreement?
Alright. Could you explain why the things you've listed weren't in American interests? Because I'm not familiar with all of them, but some of them absolutely were considered to be in American interests.
I'm curious specifically in why you think the Korean War wasn't in American interests (and as a corollary, why you think the US got involved in the first place), Vietnam, and the training of the Afghani Taliban.
For what it's worth, the Korean War wasn't an American war. It was the first time the fledgling United Nations called upon member states to protect a member state against invasion by an aggressor in the years following the Second World War. The idea that the US should have failed to answer the call is absurd.
That's of course not even mentioning the fact that the Korean War had the same background as the other mentioned wars too.
Even without the UN, the USA would've intervened to protect their interests. Lets not forget that the only thing standing between China and Japan is indeed South Korea. It boils, as the other wars mentioned, down to simply "communism" vs "capitalism". That's the reason why Vietnam happened, that's the reason why Afghanistan was "supported".
As a sidenote, when did the US train Taliban? Was that before or after the UK trained IRA terrorists? Or do we in fact mean "trained Mujahedeen", something that even the old Rambo movie got right?
EPT
