Pages: 1 2

 

2007-06-22 05:16:02
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6735|Éire
I've often stated that I favour isolationism over interventionism in most situations but I know there are plenty on this forum who feel the opposite.

Hypothetical question... what if an International coalition of countries decided to instigate a regime change in a country that had begun preemptively attacking countries that posed no real credible threat to it and had cracked down on the civil liberties of its own citizens and operated secret torture camps and prisons throughout the world? A country that sold arms to dubious regimes and dictators around the world and stood shoulder to shoulder with brutal regimes that persecuted women and promoted Islamic extremism (like Wahhabism for example)? A nation that was expressing a desire to set up a missile system that would enable it to attack nations in Europe, the Middle east and the nation of Russia. A nation where there were serious questions about the legitimacy of how the incumbent President first gained office?

No prizes for guessing what I'm on about but my point is using the logic of interventionism the above scenario seems perfectly justifiable in many ways does it not? BTW I don't have any personal desire to see the US invaded.
2007-06-22 05:19:27
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7116|UK
I say such a country should burn!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-06-22 05:39:44
JahManRed
wank
+646|7073|IRELAND

I think about this every time I see another sexed up news storey or another shakey opinion of a neo con on Iran's involvement in Iraqi which is taken as gospel.
For each one of these heinous crimes which Iran is supposedly guilty of, the US has wrote the book on it in the past. Maybe not as guilty as the past but I have a problem with all this righteousness with regards to Iran, like the US is snow white with regards to its foreign polices in the past and present.

Funding insurgents...........check
Training insurgents...........check
Over throwing democratically elected governments.........check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check,
Giving weapons to factions to cause havoc in their own countries............check
Rigging your own elections...................check
Going against the will of the majority of the people............check
Torture..........................check
Inventing Intel................check
Lying to the UN................check
3billion a month to a terrorist state...............check.

Last edited by JahManRed (2007-06-22 05:41:02)

2007-06-22 05:50:02
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|7063|InGerLand

JahManRed wrote:

I think about this every time I see another sexed up news storey or another shakey opinion of a neo con on Iran's involvement in Iraqi which is taken as gospel.
For each one of these heinous crimes which Iran is supposedly guilty of, the US has wrote the book on it in the past. Maybe not as guilty as the past but I have a problem with all this righteousness with regards to Iran, like the US is snow white with regards to its foreign polices in the past and present.

Funding insurgents...........check
Training insurgents...........check
Over throwing democratically elected governments.........check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check,
Giving weapons to factions to cause havoc in their own countries............check
Rigging your own elections...................check
Going against the will of the majority of the people............check
Torture..........................check
Inventing Intel................check
Lying to the UN................check
3billion a month to a terrorist state...............check.
No country is perfect, you just have to hope that yours is marginally better than the other imperfects.
Most of the things the US has done in the past have often been for a good reason (though not all...) and then they simply get screwed up.
What Iran does is wrong, what the US has done was wrong, the difference is the tense.
2007-06-22 05:54:57
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6735|Éire

sfarrar33 wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

I think about this every time I see another sexed up news storey or another shakey opinion of a neo con on Iran's involvement in Iraqi which is taken as gospel.
For each one of these heinous crimes which Iran is supposedly guilty of, the US has wrote the book on it in the past. Maybe not as guilty as the past but I have a problem with all this righteousness with regards to Iran, like the US is snow white with regards to its foreign polices in the past and present.

Funding insurgents...........check
Training insurgents...........check
Over throwing democratically elected governments.........check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check,
Giving weapons to factions to cause havoc in their own countries............check
Rigging your own elections...................check
Going against the will of the majority of the people............check
Torture..........................check
Inventing Intel................check
Lying to the UN................check
3billion a month to a terrorist state...............check.
No country is perfect, you just have to hope that yours is marginally better than the other imperfects.
Most of the things the US has done in the past have often been for a good reason (though not all...) and then they simply get screwed up.
What Iran does is wrong, what the US has done was wrong, the difference is the tense.
Your assertion that the US acted for good reasons is purely subjective. Another nation could take an opposite view and still justify to itself the right to change your regime. This is my point, subjectivity and interventionism can be a dangerous mix.
2007-06-22 07:46:09
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7206

#1 - Don't try and be subtle, we see right through you.

#2 - I have given you my reason why isolationism is not always the best thing, which still stands.


And JahMan..... 3 billion to a terrorist state?  I could go through a checklist for Ireland, but I won't.  Because I do not give two shits about your little island.
2007-06-22 07:52:32
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7206

JahManRed wrote:

Funding insurgents...........check
Training insurgents...........check
Over throwing democratically elected governments.........check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check,
Giving weapons to factions to cause havoc in their own countries............check
Rigging your own elections...................check
Going against the will of the majority of the people............check
Torture..........................check
Inventing Intel................check
Lying to the UN................check
3billion a month to a terrorist state...............check.
Now that we covered Clinton, let's do Bush.
2007-06-22 08:13:45
JahManRed
wank
+646|7073|IRELAND

usmarine2005 wrote:

#1 - Don't try and be subtle, we see right through you.

#2 - I have given you my reason why isolationism is not always the best thing, which still stands.


And JahMan..... 3 billion to a terrorist state?  I could go through a checklist for Ireland, but I won't.  Because I do not give two shits about your little island.
LOL, are you trying to compare Israel to Northern Ireland? Don't make me laugh.
The Billions thrown at Israel are to help them keep a strangle hold over the area and make them top military dog in the region which the Israeli people want. It subsidises their economy as it doesn't trade with its neighbours.
The billions thrown at N.I was to subdue half the population who most defiantly didn't want the money thrown at the security forces. I certainly didn't want the British army on the streets of my country. And not a penny of the billions ever seen its way towards me, it was all for the British army.

And Marine how about tackling my post if you are so against what I said, formulate an argument instead, tell me why you think Israel isn't a terrorist state. Its much easier to do the usual, "I hate Ireland I hate micks" routine. If you are going to criticise Ireland or the Irish, set out your reasons why and I will counter them.
2007-06-22 08:52:27
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7206

JahManRed wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

#1 - Don't try and be subtle, we see right through you.

#2 - I have given you my reason why isolationism is not always the best thing, which still stands.


And JahMan..... 3 billion to a terrorist state?  I could go through a checklist for Ireland, but I won't.  Because I do not give two shits about your little island.
LOL, are you trying to compare Israel to Northern Ireland? Don't make me laugh.
The Billions thrown at Israel are to help them keep a strangle hold over the area and make them top military dog in the region which the Israeli people want. It subsidises their economy as it doesn't trade with its neighbours.
The billions thrown at N.I was to subdue half the population who most defiantly didn't want the money thrown at the security forces. I certainly didn't want the British army on the streets of my country. And not a penny of the billions ever seen its way towards me, it was all for the British army.

And Marine how about tackling my post if you are so against what I said, formulate an argument instead, tell me why you think Israel isn't a terrorist state. Its much easier to do the usual, "I hate Ireland I hate micks" routine. If you are going to criticise Ireland or the Irish, set out your reasons why and I will counter them.
No....You are calling Israel a terrorist state is what I was questioning dear.  I would compare Ireland to Palestine.

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-06-22 09:56:49)

2007-06-22 09:08:58
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6668|Escea

I thought the 3 billion is to maintain Israel's Defence Force. Whatever Israel does with the military funded by the US, is in no way the US' fault, the US isn't telling them to go bombard someone are they? If someone buys a car, which is then stolen or taken without permission by a family member and then used to kill someone, is not the fault of the person who bought it.
2007-06-22 09:24:22
PureFodder
Member
+225|6730

M.O.A.B wrote:

I thought the 3 billion is to maintain Israel's Defence Force. Whatever Israel does with the military funded by the US, is in no way the US' fault, the US isn't telling them to go bombard someone are they? If someone buys a car, which is then stolen or taken without permission by a family member and then used to kill someone, is not the fault of the person who bought it.
So you'd happily sell tanks, guns and bombers to say, Sudaneese rebels knowing full well that they'd most likely end up being used to commit human rights atrocities? Hey we just sold them the stuff, it's up to them what they do with it?

If you sell someone military equiptment knowing full well what it has and will be used for then it IS your resposability.
2007-06-22 09:27:41
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6668|Escea

But the Israelis don't purely go out and just kill civilians do they, civilians are killed as a result of collateral damage when engaging terrorists, the US knows that these weapons are being used to equip an army to attack terrorists and to defend themselves against their arab neighbours. Plus I doubt you'd sell tanks and bombers to Sudanese rebels to begin with. But its none of my business anyway, I'm no soldier or a politican.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-06-22 09:30:40)

2007-06-22 09:36:14
PureFodder
Member
+225|6730

M.O.A.B wrote:

But the Israelis don't purely go out and just kill civilians do they, civilians are killed as a result of collaterl damage when engaging terrorists, the US knows that these weapons are being used to equip an army to attack terrorists and to defend themselves against their arab neighbours. Plus I doubt you'd sell tanks and bombers to Sudanese rebels to begin with.
Probably because they couldn't afford it.

Britain has a similar issue in some ways with selling Hawk jets to Indonesia on the basis that they weren't to be used to bomb civilians in East Timor (which they obviously were used for). We sold them, and therefore we must accept some responsibility for them being used to do violently oppress people.
2007-06-22 09:38:26
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6668|Escea

I'll agree that some responsibility can be given to those who gave them the money weapons etc, but not as much as some people say. Like saying the US gives Israel weapons so it can delibrately kill civilians, which it obviously doesn't give them the weapons for that reason.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-06-22 09:39:43)

2007-06-22 09:49:14
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7046|132 and Bush

Non-intervention is not isolationism. I sincerely doubt you are an isolationist Braddock (Think old China).

That being said I stand with the our Founding Fathers. If there is a clear and immediate threat to our nation I support action. Don't confuse what happened in Iraq as a policy written in our Constitution, we were sold the idea that the threat was immediate. I also believe as citizens of humanity we have the responsibility to protect those who can not protect themselves. Innocent Palestinians being pulled out of there homes and executed in front of their families, using food as a tool to manipulate and gain power (Somalia), and slaughtering villagers/burning villages (Darfur) demands action from us as a species to ensure survival.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-06-22 10:35:08
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6668|Escea

Kmarion wrote:

Non-intervention is not isolationism. I sincerely doubt you are an isolationist Braddock (Think old China).

That being said I stand with the our Founding Fathers. If there is a clear and immediate threat to our nation I support action. Don't confuse what happened in Iraq as a policy written in our Constitution, we were sold the idea that the threat was immediate. I also believe as citizens of humanity we have the responsibility to protect those who can not protect themselves. Innocent Palestinians being pulled out of there homes and executed in front of their families, using food as a tool to manipulate and gain power (Somalia), and slaughtering villagers/burning villages (Darfur) demands action from us as a species to ensure survival.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
QFT
2007-06-22 23:35:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6850|North Carolina

sfarrar33 wrote:

What Iran does is wrong, what the US has done was wrong, the difference is the tense.
I assure you...  We still do plenty of wrong...
2007-06-22 23:38:42
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6850|North Carolina

M.O.A.B wrote:

I'll agree that some responsibility can be given to those who gave them the money weapons etc, but not as much as some people say. Like saying the US gives Israel weapons so it can delibrately kill civilians, which it obviously doesn't give them the weapons for that reason.
You're also forgetting that Israel can easily afford to fund its own military.  They get more in private donations than they do from our government, but the Zionists still insist that taxpayer money goes to Israel.
2007-06-22 23:41:42
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6850|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Non-intervention is not isolationism. I sincerely doubt you are an isolationist Braddock (Think old China).

That being said I stand with the our Founding Fathers. If there is a clear and immediate threat to our nation I support action. Don't confuse what happened in Iraq as a policy written in our Constitution, we were sold the idea that the threat was immediate. I also believe as citizens of humanity we have the responsibility to protect those who can not protect themselves. Innocent Palestinians being pulled out of there homes and executed in front of their families, using food as a tool to manipulate and gain power (Somalia), and slaughtering villagers/burning villages (Darfur) demands action from us as a species to ensure survival.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Sometimes I wonder if the survival of our species is such a good thing....
2007-06-23 05:22:03
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6735|Éire

usmarine2005 wrote:

#1 - Don't try and be subtle, we see right through you.

#2 - I have given you my reason why isolationism is not always the best thing, which still stands.


And JahMan..... 3 billion to a terrorist state?  I could go through a checklist for Ireland, but I won't.  Because I do not give two shits about your little island.
I think my OP was about as subtle as a punch in the face, we all know I'm describing modern day America. I was just using the language to show that on paper the US ticks all the boxes that would merit a regime change using it's own logic.

Kmarion wrote:

Non-intervention is not isolationism. I sincerely doubt you are an isolationist Braddock (Think old China).

That being said I stand with the our Founding Fathers. If there is a clear and immediate threat to our nation I support action. Don't confuse what happened in Iraq as a policy written in our Constitution, we were sold the idea that the threat was immediate. I also believe as citizens of humanity we have the responsibility to protect those who can not protect themselves. Innocent Palestinians being pulled out of there homes and executed in front of their families, using food as a tool to manipulate and gain power (Somalia), and slaughtering villagers/burning villages (Darfur) demands action from us as a species to ensure survival.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
I see no problem in defending yourself when under attack and I fully acknowledge that Bush truly took the piss out of the constitution with his theory that Iraq were a credible threat, no argument there, but the point I was trying to get at with this topic is that unilateral action (or action without general International consensus) can a be a dangerous road for anyone to go down; if we all took this approach we could end up like it was years ago when every country was continuously at war with its neighbours. I mean what if Russia suggested a regime change in the US over the missile system debate? That missile system could be seen as a clear and present threat to Russian security (hypothetically speaking of course, obviously a US-Russia situation would not unfold anything like how the Iraq situation did).

I guess what I'm getting at is that as bad as the UN is in terms of slowing down action when it's needed it does at least put obstacles in the path of countries who can be a little too trigger happy sometimes. I honestly believe that if the US had acted fully within UN mandates over the Iraq issue it would not have the bad reputation it has today.
2007-06-23 05:30:45
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7026|SE London

M.O.A.B wrote:

I thought the 3 billion is to maintain Israel's Defence Force. Whatever Israel does with the military funded by the US, is in no way the US' fault, the US isn't telling them to go bombard someone are they? If someone buys a car, which is then stolen or taken without permission by a family member and then used to kill someone, is not the fault of the person who bought it.
By that logic the Iranians are not in any way responsible for attacks by insurgents with weapons provided by them.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-06-23 05:43:53)

2007-06-23 05:35:14
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6735|Éire

Bertster7 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

I thought the 3 billion is to maintain Israel's Defence Force. Whatever Israel does with the military funded by the US, is in no way the US' fault, the US isn't telling them to go bombard someone are they? If someone buys a car, which is then stolen or taken without permission by a family member and then used to kill someone, is not the fault of the person who bought it.
By that logic the Iranians are not in any way responsible for attacks by insurgents with weapons povided by them.
Exactly, let's see someone try the old 'one rule for the 'goodies' , another rule for the 'baddies'' argument here!
2007-06-23 13:36:21
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|7063|InGerLand

Braddock wrote:

sfarrar33 wrote:

No country is perfect, you just have to hope that yours is marginally better than the other imperfects.
Most of the things the US has done in the past have often been for a good reason (though not all...) and then they simply get screwed up.
What Iran does is wrong, what the US has done was wrong, the difference is the tense.
Your assertion that the US acted for good reasons is purely subjective. Another nation could take an opposite view and still justify to itself the right to change your regime. This is my point, subjectivity and interventionism can be a dangerous mix.
I know, and Turquoise I know that the US still do bad things
But i have noticed a common thing on this forum and in general life when dealing with any half-patriotic American is that simply saying "your country is evil BWHAHAHAHA" will not get you anywhere. I am optomistic about American intelligence and hope that they read between the lines of what I write and get the message "make up for all your past mistakes by sorting out Iran in a good way [not invasion]"
If you scorn that approach then are you not saying that Americans are dumb?
There are times when everyone questions the intelligence of the general American public but you've got to have faith, especially considering they are the most powerful nation in the world and all (even if not for much longer)
2007-06-23 14:17:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6850|North Carolina

sfarrar33 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

sfarrar33 wrote:

No country is perfect, you just have to hope that yours is marginally better than the other imperfects.
Most of the things the US has done in the past have often been for a good reason (though not all...) and then they simply get screwed up.
What Iran does is wrong, what the US has done was wrong, the difference is the tense.
Your assertion that the US acted for good reasons is purely subjective. Another nation could take an opposite view and still justify to itself the right to change your regime. This is my point, subjectivity and interventionism can be a dangerous mix.
I know, and Turquoise I know that the US still do bad things
But i have noticed a common thing on this forum and in general life when dealing with any half-patriotic American is that simply saying "your country is evil BWHAHAHAHA" will not get you anywhere. I am optomistic about American intelligence and hope that they read between the lines of what I write and get the message "make up for all your past mistakes by sorting out Iran in a good way [not invasion]"
If you scorn that approach then are you not saying that Americans are dumb?
There are times when everyone questions the intelligence of the general American public but you've got to have faith, especially considering they are the most powerful nation in the world and all (even if not for much longer)
I don't have faith in my country, but I do believe that, unless this administration is even dumber than I assume it to be, we won't invade Iran.
2007-06-24 07:35:52
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|7063|InGerLand

Turquoise wrote:

I don't have faith in my country, but I do believe that, unless this administration is even dumber than I assume it to be, we won't invade Iran.
You owe me a cookie if they do

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard