Here is interventionism at its best(or worst, depending on your point of view):

[url]http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1[/url]

This is why I oppose interventionism: Because it ALWAYS gets perverted, because the gov't is NEVER the answer to help out other people,  because it ALWAYS fails, because we are NEVER better off then we were, and because we always pay very very harshly for our meddling.

That's what is so amazing about these pricks.  There is a very strong pro-Arab sentiment in the state department and, to a certain extent, in the country as a whole (for example, the palestinians have always enjoyed at least some popular support in the US--up until now).  They can't take their own side in an argument.  

libertyof76,  I have been reading stuff from you for the last couple of days and really don't know whos side you are on.  I understand your possiion on interventionism, but your tone clearly smacks of "I told you so" and "It's our own damn fault".

I am disgusted by your stance, your call name, and the fact that you are a moderator of this board.

sgtar15

I'd gladly answer any questions you have of my position.

I can answer why my tone "smacks" of "I told you so": Because that's what I believe. If you look at what the US has been doing for the past 60 odd years, this was bound to happen. If you haven't been paying attention(like I was), just visit [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com[/url] to catch up. The articles can explain it much better than I can.

I don't understand how you can be disgusted by my call name: It is in reference to the Founding Fathers beliefs in liberty and independence, and one of their tenets was isolationism. Just read George Washington's Farewell address. Since you are disgusted, that suggests to me that you either haven't read it, or you don't understand it.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I shouldn't be moderator. If you have a problem with that, GoatBoy is the go to man, but he has a lot on his mind, and I don't think he'd appreciate being bothered.

And I believe it's in very poor taste to start saying that BEFORE we've dealt with the current threat.  After Bin Laden and his cohorts are safely dead, THEN we can start dissecting foreign policy.

The only thing you have been keeping up with is your anti-Semitism and all the articles by at Rockwell can explain better than you is, again, anti-Semitism.

libertyof76, Moran's article, while being right on target, just scratches the surface!

Hindsight is always 20/20! I don't think anyone could have predicted that the US's covert support of the various factions in Afghanistan against the Soviets, would have produced a terrorist of bin Laden magnitude.  But NOW we know better!

Read this! It is a great site on Usama bin Laden!  Gives a very good insight on WHY he does what he does!
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/bio2.html[/url]

DaMan

Well, all I can say is that lewrockwell.com, as far as I can determine from the links which have been provided lately, is a crock of ca-ca!

Eric The(ButIMeanThatInThe'Nicest'Way!)Hun[>]:)]

DaMan,
thanks for the link. Very informative!

I still don't see why we have to wait until we have dealt with the current threat. Could you expand upon why we should?
The reason I am bringing this up now is because to prevent these attacks in the future we need to understand why they occurred in the first place.


You have yet to show me why leaving others alone is "Anti-Semitism". Instead of logically arguing your point, you write baseless names. If any one is a hateful person it is you. I have nothing but love for my fellow man, including Jews. You seem to hate anyone that disagrees with you.


Well, then you are terribly mistaken. LewRockwell.com is a clearinghouse of excellent writings. The columnists there are the most articulate and logical people I have every read. In fact they side with conservatives more times then not. Guns, liberty, etc. Their only beef with neo-conservatives(the correct term for most "conservatives today) is their position on the South and Foreign Policy.
And yet they are attacked as if they are liberals, which I don't, and probably never will, understand.

If for no other reason, then to advance your own cause...if you bring this "I told you so" shit up NOW, you're simply going to piss people off and keep them from listening to you when things are calmer.  Not a very good strategy, but then Libertarians have never been very astute at politics.

Post from libertyof76 -

What is their 'position on the South'?  Are you referring to the 'South' as in those States that comprised the former 'Confederacy'?

Eric The(Southerner,AndDamnProud)Hun[>]:)]

That the South was right.


See the problem I have with that is two-fold:
1. By the time we punish those who attacked us, people won't care why the terrorists did it, because they will say "what does it matter, we punished them, so they won't do it again"
2. The way we punish the terrorists should be based on why they did it, in order to prevent future attacks.

See, I fear that the whole sale war that most here want, and the US will probably do, will only end up creating more terrorists, who will be even more bold in attacking the US on our soil, resulting in many, many more deaths, resulting in the loss of more of our liberties, and more attacks on the terrorists, until the end of our Country has occurred. That is why I am asking these questions now.

I would rather prevent future attacks by killing the terrorists now.

Damn straight Rik! Being proactive is the key.
libertyof76, hindsight is always 20/20. Of course we can learn from the past, but the best thing to do now is to stay positive, united, and strong and deal with the situation at hand.

Tyler

Trust me, go to

[url]  http://www.geocities.com/burningbush2000/3.html[/url]

that's all I'm saying.

Please read my link

For some reason clicking on link not working.  Cutting and pasting should get you there.

Libertyof76, I think you are right to an extent about interventionism causing more problems in the long run. But you have to define that word. Also bear in mind that Republicans are far more interventionist, than Democrats, and we know how swell them Democrats are.

In the early part of the 20th century the US Marines intervened in Nicaragua and El Salvador putting the future ruling families in place. Nicaragua then had a civil war and was taken over by commies. The US then supplied aid to the anti-government forces as well as to Iranian anti-government forces. Iran had been a democracy until the 50's when the president of Iran wanted to take over foreign oil companies that were operating with Iran that had gained their property rights from the British Empire. This was unacceptable, the US and Britain launched a covert op to remove the president of Iran and replace him with the Shah. The plan worked and we got the Shah of Iran, who used US training to torture his people. The Shah was overthrown. El Salvador is one of the most corrupt regimes in Central America.

Of course the British, under Neville Chamberlain, sought to remain isolationist and stay out of mainland European entanglements. Chamberlain did that by appeasing ad trying to buy off Hitler, it didn't work. Early in Hitler's "restoration" of Germany he sent German troops into the Rhineland that had been placed under Allied control after WWI. The troops marched in unopposed and the Allies left. Later it was learned that the German Generals had a plan in place to remove Hitler if there was any resistance to the retaking of the Rhineland. If Chamberlain had authorized forceful resistance by British troops in the Rhineland would the Germans have removed Hitler and WWII been avoided??

"Intervention" in a straight forward, my country to your country, is far less dangerous than the cloak and dagger covert ops. But many people like the gains of the cloak and dagger set and feel that covert ops in the nations interest are acceptable. Many of those ops are coming home to bite us. We supplied Afghanees with arms during their war with Russia.......

Intervention is dangerous so is isolationism.

Interventionism, by providing Peace Corps workers or food to other countries probably helps US interest 10 x the cost of the aid.

That the South was right in seceeding, that the North invaded a sovereign country and violated the Constitution in more ways than one, that the War of Northern Aggression was about taxes and State's Powers, and not slavery.


But that is my point: I don't believe that we will prevent future attacks by killing the terrorists now, at least in the wholesale war that many are advocating. We only will end up creating more terrorists, who will attack the US will more vigor. I fear for our country. I predict that if we slaughter ANY innocent people in our pursuit to punish those who helped the attack, we will see a lot more attacks which will be much more horrible than what happened on Tuesday. Remember what I said here, and why I will say "I told you so" in the future.

Historically, the American right was not interventionist. It was the left that was interventionist.

The American right became interventist during the Cold War, in response to the Soviet threat.

Some Republicans belong more to the left than the right. This is true of current Republican politicians like McCain, and former ones like Ford and Teddy. But generally speaking, expect Democrats to be more interventionist.

On things like the Peace Corp, my guess is that most find it a little condecending. I mean good god, how would you feel if someone sent you [i]their[/i] city breed wet eared college kids, to show [i]you[/i] how to "better" live your life?

Iran-Contra was brought to you by who?? Yes Lefties are more intervetionist, brokering treaties, offering aid, and so forth. I believe the Central American and Iranian examples were druing Republica or Right leaning years.

The intervention that is part of cloak and dagger stuff, esp. like Iran's President, that is due to political or economic pressures, not because of the nations security almost always backfire and are a good example of the wrong reasons to do things.  

I think the peace corps does ok because the "volunteers" often bring machines and skills people wouldn't otherwise have access to.

My point is that this is difficult stuff, too much activism is bad but so is isolationism. Don't try spy stuff to get rid of people you merely don't like. It may be costly in terms of support at home but if it is in the US's interest sometimes it is better to deploy US troops, and tell whoever cares in a straight forward, honest way what interests we are protecting and why. And the includes telling the people who live in the country that we send troops to.

I don't believe it is possible for the US to completely do away with terrorism.  It is however VERY possible to do away with STATE-SPONSORED terrorism.  If you make it too costly for a state to house and finance terrorism by holding that state responsible for anything those terrorists do, you can isolate the terrorists and thus limit the scope of their actions.

I have no problem with trying to eliminate state-sponsored terrorism. Its how that I have the problem with. With must be careful not to start another Vietnam(does anybody remember the Soviet's problem w/ Afgan? That was their Vietnam)

Not good comparisons really.  In Vietnam and Afghanistan, us and the Soviets were trying to occupy a country to prop up an unpopular government.  We don't need to occupy Afghanistan, we just need to punish it and haul the guilty parties out of the country.

But wouldn't that necessitate putting in another gov't, for fear that another regime came in that supported terrorism?

No, it would simply require making damn sure that whoever the new regime is, they know they had better not support terrorism, or their regime will go the way of the last regime.