IAP Political Forum

I was having this conversation with some family earlier and one of them felt as though the United States is the "big kid" in the world, that we're the bully on the playground and every other kid (various nations) are at our mercy. And with that we get to go into other countries at our will.

So my question is do you believe an nterventionist policy is the way the US needs to handle things?

Only in some circumstances. With the largest military force in the world, it is important that the United States does not abuse its power. I believe America should intervene to maintain peace and protect innocent civilians in war zones or areas of genocidal violence, however it should not actively overthrow foreign governments in my opinion.

Sometimes, those two aren't mutually exclusive, don't you think?

I read a lot of Chomsky... so I think, in the end, US intervention is short sighted, dangerous and tends to do more harm then good if you simply extropolate beyond the next 6 months.

Me personally, I'd like to see us keep a non-interventionist policy, trade is good but conflict is not something we should look for.

The question isn't whether to intervene or not period.  It's when it's right to intervene and when such intervention is counterproductive.  I'd sure as hell like to intervene more in reducing human trafficking and ending genocides. I don't want us to intervene to protect the interests of a nation which is obviously funding our ideological enemies(Saudi Arabia).What about trade with a brazenly authoritarian regime which supports principles inimical to our own(China)?  We're strengthening them for a probable significant conflict with us.  Damned stupid if you ask me.

I thought Chomsky's central point is that US intervention is not intended to do good, but to further the interests of the US elite. If you look at it from that perspective they have been remarkably successful.

There *IS* short term success and to an extent, benefit for the parties involved.

Sadly, this leads to action that may endanger future interests.

Look at Latin America. We did all we could to stop socialism - installing dictators and preventing democracies - but then those dictators established dictatorships and cut off their capital to US buisnessmen.

It's failed us.

From what I have read, those dictators who failed to recognise their place (e.g. Noriega) were swiftly removed.

 Most of the world hates the US, not because we are free and wealthy. But because the US always does one thing ...we intervene.

I agree. All countries need to take care of themselves, including us.

No, that is not the point, and that is not a moral way to view the world.

Countries clearly don't want us to intervene...hate us for it, as freethinker so eloquently points out. If they hate us for it, then dang it, let's butt out.

It is absolutely a moral way to view the world. Look how many countries get by on living that way. They're not hated.

I'm not opposed to us sending troops as part of a UN or possibly NATO peacekeeping mission if the situation is particularly bad and the international community decides to act, but in most cases we should not act alone.

Often, it's our support of a regime that garners criticism, and generally speaking, I think we ought to be giving less military aid out than we do.


It's not all or nothing, IMO. We just need to scale it back a bit.

I don't even mind unilateral action by the US if it's long term effects don't outweigh the postive ones.

All of what we do in the Middle East is placated on the US's energy future. The Hostage Crisis in Iran, September 11th, the net sum of hate from Arab countries because of our unabashed support of Israel... and God only knows what our buisness in Iraq (and Heaven forbid Iran) will do to us in the long run.

And look at Latin America. The contanent is full of bull-headed dictators because we set off the fad by installing some of them.

Russia feels excused in it's foreign policy because we're doing the same thing around the world.

The majority of the problems we have are the result of short-sighted foreign policy and liberal interventionism.

Agreed and one of the most convincing arguments for finding domestic energy supplies that I've ever heard.

How about we research solar and nuclear energy and save a couple billion dollars?

Maybe, but it's not just one country's job to be the police of the world and to play God, we were not, as a nation, supposed to be for intervention and everything.

Gangsters of the world would be more appropriate.

Gangsters of the world??? ???

That's what I said. Do you disagree?

I don't really get the context of how you're using that statement. Explain.

The US regularly ignores international law, and invades countries with impunity to access resources and markets, sponsors terrorism, punishes disobedience even (or perhaps especially) of democratic governments with little regard for morality or human rights. This is the behavior of a criminal state, hence the "gangsters of the world" remark.

You make it sound like the U.S. is (was) the only one.

No... but the US is no better then the ones they criticise.

I neverr said that.

But it sure paints a different picture doesn't it?

Not really. Unless, "the others were doing it too" (a standard schoolboy excuse) is acceptable when it comes to international affairs.

Well yeah that makes plenty of sense, I mean there hasn't been a real just cause for intervention of the U.S. since WWII and we brought that partially on ourselves.

Only problem with that,,,well actually 2 problems....
1. the citizens of the US can't think past next week much less 6 months and

2. Politicians can't think past at least the next election

That of course depends on whether your an idealist or a realist.

Never heard a teacher say that...

In international politics there is no teacher.  That's the problem.

But morality is morality.

Morality isn't black and white.

Indeed. Does that excuse US aggression?

It depends... 

You can write volumes on interpreting the cost and benefits of US aggression.    Five-fold for British and 10-fold for Roman, Qin and Ottoman.

I just accept it as is and the answer isn't as easy as "morality."