Peace Amendment--there's nothing wrong with it.

[nyker96]

certain wars are necessary like Afghanistan. Of course Iraq is a different story. Putting range limit on the arm forces won't decrease the need for wars overseas. But your intention is honorable.

 

[Craig234]

because they werent worth addressing:

And you are not worth reading one word after that, which I did not. You ran from the questions, falsely attacking them.

 

[drebo]

We don't need a Constitutional Amendment to have a policy of non-interventionism. We aren't the world's policemen.

It's not hard to place all of our current economic problems on our interventions into foreign affairs, which has caused us to neglect our domestic issues.

 

[Narmer]

Lock this thread. The entire premise is beyond stupid.

 

[dali71]

I think the main thing to take away from this thread is that Smedley is a name that really needs to make a comeback.

 

[drebo]

There is only 1 truth to the terms of this world...
you either dictate them, or they are dictated to you...


a non-interventionist policy is the fast track to non-existance.

You are confusing isolationism with non-interventionism. They are two very, very different things.

The former is we ignore the rest of the world and what they are doing. This, indeed, would lead us to ruin, both economically and politically.

The latter, however, simply means that we allow other nations to sort their own internal affairs. Simply put, it means that the war in Iraq never happens, the first Gulf War never happened, Vietnam never happened, Korea never happened, and we don't have military bases in over 200 other countries. This is something that I think everyone could be happy with.

However, it runs contrary to the authoritarian nature of today's politicians on both the left and the right. Without the War, they have no reason to restrict our personal freedoms. They need the war to further their adjenda. War gives politicians power, and a career politician will never willingly give up power.

 

[werepossum]

I'm all for committing fully to a cause. If you're gonna be a bear, be a grizzly. But at some point even well-rounded buffoonery is absurd.

On the off chance that you are serious - that was the US policy after World War I. It almost cost us our freedom, for when war came to our shores, we were totally unprepared. Just because you don't want war does not mean you won't have war. France and England, not having the option of isolationism, practiced its cousin appeasement after the Great War. Germany was allowed to take Czechoslovakia, then Norway. When Germany invaded France soon afterward, it did so with Czech guns, tanks and other vehicles, and with German-made arms made of Norwegian steel powered with Romanian oil. Throughout World War II, Germany used Czech guns and armored vehicles (by far more reliable than German armored vehicles) it acquired with no more effort than to demand that the free world sacrifice one of its own.

Practically speaking, such policies began obsolete once nations could land armies at will on another continent. Today an aggressor could take the world one bite at a time, if only such idiotic policies held sway.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally Posted by matt0611
And if someone declares war on us?

No one ever has without us provoking them, and no one ever will unless we provoke them.

Thats is such a assine, idiotic moronic comment@!!

C

onstipatedVigilante says --Well, that's totally dumb. That means we can't come to the aid of our allies if they are attacked, and we can't attempt to defeat an evil entity when we are the only major power that can (e.g. WW2).

according to Anarchist420 they probably deserved to be attacked.....makes you wonder who Home Anarchist escaped from!!

 

[pcgeek11]

No one ever has without us provoking them, and no one ever will unless we provoke them.

So the Bombing in Pearl Harbor was a slip up? or we provoked Japan..
Please.

You sir are retarded.

 

[Kadarin]

Lock this thread. The entire premise is beyond stupid.

This, tbfh.

 

[drebo]

I'm all for committing fully to a cause. If you're gonna be a bear, be a grizzly. But at some point even well-rounded buffoonery is absurd.

On the off chance that you are serious - that was the US policy after World War I. It almost cost us our freedom, for when war came to our shores, we were totally unprepared. Just because you don't want war does not mean you won't have war. France and England, not having the option of isolationism, practiced its cousin appeasement after the Great War. Germany was allowed to take Czechoslovakia, then Norway. When Germany invaded France soon afterward, it did so with Czech guns, tanks and other vehicles, and with German-made arms made of Norwegian steel powered with Romanian oil. Throughout World War II, Germany used Czech guns and armored vehicles (by far more reliable than German armored vehicles) it acquired with no more effort than to demand that the free world sacrifice one of its own.

Practically speaking, such policies began obsolete once nations could land armies at will on another continent. Today an aggressor could take the world one bite at a time, if only such idiotic policies held sway.

Yes, isolationism (post-WW1 US foreign policy) and appeasement will lead to the destruction of the US.

Non-interventionism, however, is neither of these.

 

[sao123]

You are confusing isolationism with non-interventionism. They are two very, very different things.

The former is we ignore the rest of the world and what they are doing. This, indeed, would lead us to ruin, both economically and politically.

The latter, however, simply means that we allow other nations to sort their own internal affairs. Simply put, it means that the war in Iraq never happens, the first Gulf War never happened, Vietnam never happened, Korea never happened, and we don't have military bases in over 200 other countries. This is something that I think everyone could be happy with.

However, it runs contrary to the authoritarian nature of today's politicians on both the left and the right. Without the War, they have no reason to restrict our personal freedoms. They need the war to further their adjenda. War gives politicians power, and a career politician will never willingly give up power.

so we should have just let iraq take over the entire ME, setup a complete oil embargo to the US, and ruin our economy + military??


While there are some things we should not be involved in... like humanitarian crap like bosnia... you must identify foreign targets which are critical to your own nations security, and intervene when those things are threatened.

these can be important countries of trade, foreign lands used for militaary bases and supply lines.

 

[drebo]

Iraq was in no way set up to do anything of the sort. You sound like Bush and all of the cronies that supported the war in Iraq.

these can be important countries of trade, foreign lands used for militaary bases and supply lines.

Indeed, and no countries in the Middle East (Israel included) are at all useful to us from a trade standpoint. Remember, we get the majority of our oil from Canada and Russia. We don't need Middle Eastern oil.

 

[sao123]

Iraq was in no way set up to do anything of the sort. You sound like Bush and all of the cronies that supported the war in Iraq.



Indeed, and no countries in the Middle East (Israel included) are at all useful to us from a trade standpoint. Remember, we get the majority of our oil from Canada and Russia. We don't need Middle Eastern oil.

and yet you fail to understand international trade... oil costs the same...regardless of where it comes from. OPEC sets the prices and everyone sells.

if the ME sells its oil for $30 per barrel, so does everyone else. if the ME sells its oil for $300 per barrel so does everyone else. Even if we dont trade directly with them... the ME (and control over the oil market) is important from a trade standpoint.

 

[Thump553]

To the OP: do you deliberately seek out failed policies from the past to champion? A couple of weeks ago you were pushing the Articles of Confederation (which very nearly doomed our country at the start). Now you want to go back to the Isolationist faction before Pearl Harbor. What's next-flat earthers?

 

[drebo]

and yet you fail to understand international trade... oil costs the same...regardless of where it comes from. OPEC sets the prices and everyone sells.

if the ME sells its oil for $30 per barrel, so does everyone else. if the ME sells its oil for $300 per barrel so does everyone else. Even if we dont trade directly with them... the ME (and control over the oil market) is important from a trade standpoint.

That has nothing to do with non-interventionism.

Also, the oil cartel needs to go, one way or another. But that's a separate issue.