tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2917414509937962286.post1337871754854947785..comments2024-03-24T22:15:13.118-07:00Comments on Beholding the Beauty: Non-Intervention and WWIISteve Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04448197527704114806noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2917414509937962286.post-43378815102868074252012-01-11T17:13:43.661-07:002012-01-11T17:13:43.661-07:00@Godwin's law: I was making a joke...sheesh!
...@Godwin's law: I was making a joke...sheesh!<br /><br />What I say in this article is that non-interventionists are not absolutely pacifist. We do, however, prefer peace -- real peace. That is, as far as is humanly possible, we dwell peaceably with all, bearing insult and blustery threat with dignity and humility, not provoking others. We do not use coercion to "further our interests around the world" -- read: "steal or bully others into giving up their stuff". We remain strong, so that they know the consequences of trying take -our- stuff. But we do not assume that their stuff is ours.<br /><br />If we start drifting towards war, the non-interventionist asks Congress to take a good, hard, open look at the issue, and decide whether a) it's actually necessary, and b) we can afford it, and c) what the blowback will be.<br /><br />This is why the non-interventionist has no problem with WWII. It was done decently and in order, with a proper declaration of War according to the law, for the express interest of stopping an in-progress active aggression (i.e. not preemptive, and not reacting to mere grandstanding).<br /><br />This is the principle. It is not a detailed set of applications. This principle can be applied anywhere at any time. As I said in this post, I am in the process of writing a post about how it applies to Iran.<br /><br />Your statement beginning your third paragraph is not so much a problem. The problem is it's presumption. Ok, fine -- we rely on all that "before any full invasion"; but the underlying problem is: who decided that we should be aggressive toward Iran (or any other country) on any of these fronts? As you say, these things are prelude to war, with "full invasion" as it's final destination. But who decided we should wage such a diplomatic, economic, and military (however covert) war?<br /><br />In real life, cutting someone off is one of the most insulting things you can do, diplomatically! It's one of the most devastating things you can do financially. Is that not an act of war? If not, then it is at least an act of aggressive coercion, which is precisely what the non-interventionist is against. "Live and let live," we say.<br /><br />Regarding Iran specifically, as I showed in a comment on another post: this isn't about the security of the US, or even Israel. Never has been. This is about oil, plain and simple. The rest is war propaganda, as I will show in the post about Iran.Steve Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04448197527704114806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2917414509937962286.post-74420661806552618902012-01-09T18:59:40.491-07:002012-01-09T18:59:40.491-07:00As you should know Godwin’s Law states that “given...As you should know Godwin’s Law states that “given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis. Since I am NOT criticizing any point you made in this discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis Godwin’s Law does not apply. In sum, I am simply asking you how someone with your view of foreign policy would have responded to an aggressive nation such as Germany in the WWII era. <br /><br />What you say in the balance of the article is that non-interventionists are not really non-interventionists but a different-sort-of-an-interventionist. But I see no real difference between current US policy and your view. <br /><br /> Currently the US relies on diplomacy, economic pressure, show of force, covert ops, and etc before any full on invasion. Take the current situation with Iran. There is much evidence indicating they are building nuclear weapons. Or at least the components to build a nuclear weapon. Western countries think this is a very very bad idea. They have tried threats of diplomacy, economic pressure, and covert ops (stuxnet) to force them to reconsider. They responded with a show of force as did the US. Note with all of the above there is no war. The US does not just immediately go to war. They have many diverse cards to play before that happens. <br /><br />As I said before, since you have defined what you meant by non-interventionist, I don’t see much of any substantial difference between your position and the current US foreign policyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com