American Intervention - A Force For Good?

[Lightfiend]

Recently, we have seen the rise of such sentiments as distrust of government, belief that government is incapable of really solving problems, and extreme angst over the state of our economy. Groups like the Tea Party have given voice to these feelings, and are seeming to try to bridge the gap between libertarians and conservatives, and all the nuanced positions in between. While these various groups may be able to find common ground on fiscal issues, they would be hard pressed to agree on foreign policy. There are two main points of view on foreign policy- should America be a force for good in the world, or should America pull back and adopt a policy of isolationism, only defending itself against our direct enemies when provoked.

Conservatives, especially neoconservatives, believe in an interventionist America. This thought had been brewing in the conservative movement since the days of the Reagan administration, and it saw its fruition with the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is a collection of neoconservative ideas that advocates the US being able to take preemptive action against any nation deemed to be a threat, and also argues that it is the duty of America to intervene on the behalf of freedom and democracy around the globe. Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, wrote an article titled “The Bush Doctrine and ‘Rogue’ States” in the October 2005 issue of the Foreign Service Journal wherein he explained “the Bush Doctrine advances three core propositions— pre-emption, democratization and dominance.” The Bush Doctrine ultimately was used to justify the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

Libertarians, however, would argue for nonintervention on the basis that the primary function of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. From this perspective, military defense is absolutely justifiable as a response to an attack. On December 7, 1941 Japan directly attacked the United States of America by bombing Pearl Harbor. Congress was fully justified when it declared war on the Empire of Japan on December 8, 1941 (by the way, this was the last official declaration of war by Congress as outlined in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution). Libertarians are not pacifists; we believe in self defense. But when the United States military acts on behalf of good in the world, or occupies nations for the benefit of that nation’s citizens and not our own, this violates the basic premise of the proper role of government...

SOURCE (click for the rest of the article).

 

[ConHog]

Recently, we have seen the rise of such sentiments as distrust of government, belief that government is incapable of really solving problems, and extreme angst over the state of our economy. Groups like the Tea Party have given voice to these feelings, and are seeming to try to bridge the gap between libertarians and conservatives, and all the nuanced positions in between. While these various groups may be able to find common ground on fiscal issues, they would be hard pressed to agree on foreign policy. There are two main points of view on foreign policy- should America be a force for good in the world, or should America pull back and adopt a policy of isolationism, only defending itself against our direct enemies when provoked.

Conservatives, especially neoconservatives, believe in an interventionist America. This thought had been brewing in the conservative movement since the days of the Reagan administration, and it saw its fruition with the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is a collection of neoconservative ideas that advocates the US being able to take preemptive action against any nation deemed to be a threat, and also argues that it is the duty of America to intervene on the behalf of freedom and democracy around the globe. Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, wrote an article titled “The Bush Doctrine and ‘Rogue’ States” in the October 2005 issue of the Foreign Service Journal wherein he explained “the Bush Doctrine advances three core propositions— pre-emption, democratization and dominance.” The Bush Doctrine ultimately was used to justify the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

Libertarians, however, would argue for nonintervention on the basis that the primary function of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. From this perspective, military defense is absolutely justifiable as a response to an attack. On December 7, 1941 Japan directly attacked the United States of America by bombing Pearl Harbor. Congress was fully justified when it declared war on the Empire of Japan on December 8, 1941 (by the way, this was the last official declaration of war by Congress as outlined in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution). Libertarians are not pacifists; we believe in self defense. But when the United States military acts on behalf of good in the world, or occupies nations for the benefit of that nation’s citizens and not our own, this violates the basic premise of the proper role of government...

SOURCE (click for the rest of the article).

The writer of that article needs to take some history classes. American has been in interventionist nation since 1823.

Monroe Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is who we are, and frankly instead of bemoaning that we should hold our heads high and be proud. We are the nation that practices what it preaches, we protect those who can't protect themselves, we bring freedom to those who can't gain it for themselves. If not for America "sticking it's nose in other peoples' business" this world would be a far different place. France would never have had their Revolution. WWI would have seen the world lost to evil, and right on down the line............

Is this noble sentiment always correctly applied? Of course not. Do we celebrate the deaths of our fellow Americans? Of course not, but we also shouldn't besmirch their sacrifices by suggesting that we as America shouldn't be fighting these wars, it is WHO WE ARE. And I'm damn proud of it.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Nope, intervention is a source for $$$$$$$$$ for the US. Nothing more. Otherwise, we don't do it. Iraq was not a war, but a capitalist-driven money-making scheme.

 

[ConHog]

Nope, intervention is a source for $$$$$$$$$ for the US. Nothing more. Otherwise, we don't do it. Iraq was not a war, but a capitalist-driven money-making scheme.

Didn't I just say that it is not always used for purely noble reasons? Hell, LBJ killed JFK and kept us in Vietnam so that his wife could continute making a buck. That's just human nature, but it doesn't change the absolute fact that American policy has ALWAYS been to fight for those who can't fight for themselves.


I'm sorry you're ashamed to be an American. I'm happy to provide one way transportation to the nation of your choice, as long as you give up citizenship and agree to never return to the nation you hate anyway. What say you?

 

[VaYank5150]

Nope, intervention is a source for $$$$$$$$$ for the US. Nothing more. Otherwise, we don't do it. Iraq was not a war, but a capitalist-driven money-making scheme.

So, besides Haliburton, who made money off the Iraq debacle?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Nope, intervention is a source for $$$$$$$$$ for the US. Nothing more. Otherwise, we don't do it. Iraq was not a war, but a capitalist-driven money-making scheme.

Yeah... mkaaayyyy.

Time for somebody to change the foil in their hat!