Isolationism

[Denise]

Why is it always considered a bad thing? What would be wrong with the US bringing all of our troops home and not getting involved in other countries conflicts? I am not giving an opinion, just thought it would be a good discussion.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Denise
Why is it always considered a bad thing? What would be wrong with the US bringing all of our troops home and not getting involved in other countries conflicts? I am not giving an opinion, just thought it would be a good discussion.

It is inevitable that a super-power, like the U.S., will try to protect its political/material interests abroad - if only because it can, whether it's right or wrong.

[Denise]

Well, I for one, would like us to pull our troops out of other regions of the world and defend ourselves only.

[corplinx]

I actually agree. I would much rather see an international "free corps" volunteer army with no home country (so as not to have to bow to political concerns) that goes to places and fights the wars that the west is too apathetic to fight. Its perfectly obvious that an army controlled by politicians will never free the opressed of the world.

[patnray]

The US can not exist in isolation. We are part of the world. We depend on other countries for raw materials, goods, and for markets for our products and services. Other countries depend on us: Israel probably could not survive without our support.

We are both in and of the world. We would suffer if we tried to deny that....

[Advocate]

Originally posted by corplinx
I actually agree. I would much rather see an international "free corps" volunteer army with no home country (so as not to have to bow to political concerns) that goes to places and fights the wars that the west is too apathetic to fight. Its perfectly obvious that an army controlled by politicians will never free the opressed of the world.

How is an army without a country supposed to support itself except by plunder? This does not sound like something we would want to have around. And somebody has to control the army, otherwise how is it anything but a dictatorship looking for land?

[Denise]

Originally posted by patnray
The US can not exist in isolation. We are part of the world. We depend on other countries for raw materials, goods, and for markets for our products and services. Other countries depend on us: Israel probably could not survive without our support.

We are both in and of the world. We would suffer if we tried to deny that....

What do we need from other countries that we don't have ourselves?

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Denise


What do we need from other countries that we don't have ourselves?
Cheap labor, for one thing.

Historically, I think the isolationist movement was predicated on the notion that we didn't want to get involved in "other people's wars." That is to say, the isolationists were sick and tired of the constant battles being fought on the European continent. It wasn't until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor that isolationism really fell out of favor.

Lately, of course, politicians will dredge it up when it suits their needs. Conservatives blasted Clinton and the UN for getting involved in Kosovo and Somalia...remember all the controversy about the U.S. being "...the world's policeman?" OTOH liberal politicians were happy to attack Ronald Reagan and Bush senior for the same reasons.

I think most people will agree that the world economy and global terrorism has ended isolationism until further notice.

Tim

[ssibal]

The U.S. is damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[fishbob]

What do we need from other countries that we don't have ourselves? A large percentage of our shoes, fuel, clothes, hardware, electronics, auto parts, and food. I think that we have tried to be isolationist in the past. It didn't stop any wars, we were just more surprised when we got involved.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Rockon

Cheap labor, for one thing.

Historically, I think the isolationist movement was predicated on the notion that we didn't want to get involved in "other people's wars." That is to say, the isolationists were sick and tired of the constant battles being fought on the European continent. It wasn't until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor that isolationism really fell out of favor.

Lately, of course, politicians will dredge it up when it suits their needs. Conservatives blasted Clinton and the UN for getting involved in Kosovo and Somalia...remember all the controversy about the U.S. being "...the world's policeman?" OTOH liberal politicians were happy to attack Ronald Reagan and Bush senior for the same reasons.

I think most people will agree that the world economy and global terrorism has ended isolationism until further notice.

Tim

I would agree that the US's interventionist foreign policies are, in part, fueling global terrorism.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Scorpy


I would agree that the US's interventionist foreign policies are, in part, fueling global terrorism.
Well, in the sense that global terrorism can find any excuse it wants to justify itself. In other words, it doesn't matter what the United States (or any other major power for that matter) does there is always going to be an extremist group somewhere that is going to use our behavior as an excuse to blow things up.

Or are you suggesting that if the United States were to rethink it's interventionist policies, however you define them, that there would be less global terrorism?

Tim

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Rockon

Well, in the sense that global terrorism can find any excuse it wants to justify itself. In other words, it doesn't matter what the United States (or any other major power for that matter) does there is always going to be an extremist group somewhere that is going to use our behavior as an excuse to blow things up.

Or are you suggesting that if the United States were to rethink it's interventionist policies, however you define them, that there would be less global terrorism?

Tim

I think that terrorists use the disaffection that the US's foreign policies generate to gain support just as the Nazis used the punitive Treaty of Versailles to gain support. Changing our policies may not get rid of terrorists, but I think it may take some of the wind out of their sails.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Scorpy


I think that terrorists use the disaffection that the US's foreign policies generate to gain support just as the Nazis used the punitive Treaty of Versailles to gain support. Changing our policies may not get rid of terrorists, but I think it may take some of the wind out of their sails.
Ok. What policies?

Tim

[NullPointerException]

Isolationism is crappy. As for the freecorps army, it is impossible unless it is funded through the U.N. but not part of the U.N. Also, it would have to be made of people trained since Childhood otherwise they would have allegiances to their own countries. Finally, a free-corps would be a danger if it ever got big enough and be forced to disband, which it wouldn't. The result would be a war.

[Saturn]

I have to admit that I've been leaning towards "isolationism" on a governmental level. However, I think that term is a bit of a misnomer, as it's commonly used in reference to military force or government imposed sanctions. I'm all in favor of international trade, cultural exchanges, and the like. And non-governmental organizations that promote human rights, like Amnesty International, are also very good. But in most circumstances, I think threats or use of military force against other countries, particularly to change those countries' purely internal affairs, do more harm than good.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Rockon

Ok. What policies?

Tim

The policy of insinuating itself into the conflicts and disputes of other countries by supporting one side over the other with aid and/or military support. The policy of attacking other countries even when those countries never attacked the US. The policy of supporting unpopular leaders (i.e. the Shah of Iran) simply because they're friendly to US interests.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
Well, I for one, would like us to pull our troops out of other regions of the world and defend ourselves only.

I thiink there is a false dichotomy being presented here. Either the US dominates the world, or it withdraws from it completely. The US is part of an international community either way. It just has to act as a responsible citizen.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Denise


What do we need from other countries that we don't have ourselves?

A partial list of raw materials the US imports:

oil
aluminum ore
timber products
coffee
fruits and vegetables (especially in the winter)
textiles

Then there is labor. For example, most chip making companies manufacture the chips in the US (where the major cost is the macinery and engineering labor) but ship the wafers to Singapore to be cut up and packaged into carriers (where the major cost is relatively unskilled labor).

We are deeply enmeshed in the world economy. We have significant investments in other countries. We are dependant, in some ways, on other countries. When those investments and dependancies are threatend, we have to protect our interests...

[Saturn]

Originally posted by patnray


We are deeply enmeshed in the world economy. We have significant investments in other countries. We are dependant, in some ways, on other countries. When those investments and dependancies are threatend, we have to protect our interests...

I don't even remotely believe that international trade depends upon backing by military force. Sure, certain segments of our economy are dependent upon other countries. But guess what? They're dependent upon us, too. And since our economy is much bigger and more diversified than theirs, they'll feel it a whole lot worse if they try to withdraw from the U.S. market.

[DrChinese]

We all know that we are not going into Iraq to protect American business interests.

We all know that we are not going into Iraq to protect American citizens interacting with Iraq while overseas.

Bush claims to be acting as the U.N.'s policeman, plain and simple. He also claims Iraq is threatening the U.S., and is capable of carrying out these threats.

We Americans can choose to be more involved or less involved in the internal affairs of other sovereign states. I am not an isolationist because I recommend less involvement in the internal politics of other countries.

Strictly speaking, every member of the United Nations has some interaction with every other member of the U.N. This can always be used as a pretext to "prove" we are protecting our interests.

I think Pat Buchanan is the leading advocate for the isolationist message at this time. And George W. Bush is the leading advocate for the other extreme - but what would you call it? Sticking your nose in other people's business? Intermingling? Internationalism? A new form of colonialism?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Denise
Why is it always considered a bad thing? What would be wrong with the US bringing all of our troops home and not getting involved in other countries conflicts? I am not giving an opinion, just thought it would be a good discussion.

Just to be pedantic: You're talking about noninterventionism, not isolationism. Isolationism also includes closing the borders and cutting off trade with foreign nations. Think Pat Buchanan.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rockon

Cheap labor, for one thing.

We have cheap labor here; those people are just relegated into unemployment by the Minimum Wage.

Lately, of course, politicians will dredge it up when it suits their needs. Conservatives blasted Clinton and the UN for getting involved in Kosovo and Somalia...remember all the controversy about the U.S. being "...the world's policeman?" OTOH liberal politicians were happy to attack Ronald Reagan and Bush senior for the same reasons.

I think this is the most important lesson to learn: If you give a politician you do agree with a power, you also give it to the politicians you don't agree with.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The US is part of an international community either way. It just has to act as a responsible citizen.

I can be a responsible citizen without going into my neighbors' houses with a gun.

[Troll]

Originally posted by shanek


Just to be pedantic: You're talking about noninterventionism, not isolationism. Isolationism also includes closing the borders and cutting off trade with foreign nations. Think Pat Buchanan.

Rather an unfair comparison. Just because an idiot agrees with person A doesn't mean that person A is an idiot. It just means that person A's supporters are now depressed over the fact that they have to disassociate themselves from the idiot in order to be taken seriously.

[Beausoleil]

Originally posted by DrChinese

We all know that we are not going into Iraq to protect American business interests.


Perhaps, but misleading.

I think it quite possible that Bush is going into Iraq to further the interests of the oil industry. I don't think American or non-American has anything to do with it. Companies that size don't really fall into easy national categories. From that point of view all his flag waving and American patriotism is just so much wind to fool the populace into going along with it.

There was an oil industry spokesman on the tv the other night looking forward to the increased profits they'd get after using Iraqi oil to break the Opec cartel.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Troll
Rather an unfair comparison. Just because an idiot agrees with person A doesn't mean that person A is an idiot. It just means that person A's supporters are now depressed over the fact that they have to disassociate themselves from the idiot in order to be taken seriously.

That wasn't what I was trying to do. Pat Buchanan's ideas and policies are the perfect example of true isolationism. I was providing the most famous example of someone who holds that belief.

[Bearguin]

Will isolationism (or non-intervetntion) keep North Korea from creating nuclear weapons that could, eventually, be used on the US? Or will it keep the likes of Osama from engaging in terrorist acts in the US?

I think an unfortunate part of the global community is that there does need to be a police force in place. While I would prefer the UN managed that force, they are not competant to do so (IMHO). So, in the absence of the Police Force, do you build higher fences or take a shotgun to the crack house (I know, an extreme example, but I think it makes my point).

As I asked in another thread, I'm real concerned that other friendly nations (i.e. Canada) are not willing to say the UN is not doing it's job and back the US in what (I think) needs to be done.

[Troll]

Originally posted by shanek


That wasn't what I was trying to do. Pat Buchanan's ideas and policies are the perfect example of true isolationism. I was providing the most famous example of someone who holds that belief.

Oh I know. I'm just really spooked when I see that guy's name. haha

I don't agree with isolationism, but I do know that between the 50 states we could survive it better than any other nation. We do make our own cars, tv's trucks, trucks, trains, ships, planes, radios, etc. and grown our own foods.

My point is that we can honestly say we don't need countries a-z to help us survive and could do the isolationism thing and manage quite well if we decided to. How many others would then realize how nice we are with what we have if we did get all isolationist on them and they didn't get what we give them any longer?

*edited to add*: I said trucks twice? Oh well I currently make trailers for trucks so I'll chalk that up to a job slip.

[Saturn]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
Will isolationism (or non-intervetntion) keep North Korea from creating nuclear weapons that could, eventually, be used on the US?

I don't see any reason why North Korea would want to use nuclear weapons on an isolationist U.S. The only country with which North Korea has inherent disputes is South Korea. And South Korea has an economy 50 times as large as its neighbor to the north, can build its own nuclear weapons, and is more than capable of defending itself.


Or will it keep the likes of Osama from engaging in terrorist acts in the US?

Well, his goal is establish a sort of fundamentalist pan-Islamic empire, and his beef with the U.S. is that it is propping up relatively secular Arab states and supporting Israel. Israel has been shown to be capable of defending itself, and has nuclear weapons as a deterrent. I wouldn't guarantee that an isolationist U.S. would be spared Islamist terror attacks, but the likelihood would be considerably reduced.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Saturn

I wouldn't guarantee that an isolationist U.S. would be spared Islamist terror attacks, but the likelihood would be considerably reduced.

If OBL or some other Muslim fundamentalist gets a nuclear weapon, it will go off in Israel. Bomb number two will go off in the U.S.

Our foreign policy must be: do what is necessary to prevent rogue states from developing or obtaining nuclear weapons.

Iran is getting close.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
Will isolationism (or non-intervetntion) keep North Korea from creating nuclear weapons that could, eventually, be used on the US?

No, but if we actually focus on national defense (which we're not doing right now) North Korea would have a big deterrent not to mess with us.

Or will it keep the likes of Osama from engaging in terrorist acts in the US?

There's a reason Osama isn't engaging in terrorist acts against Switzerland. Without this interventionist policy, you won't have the massive anti-American sentiments that the likes of Osama need to commit terrorist acts against us.

do you build higher fences or take a shotgun to the crack house

You legalize drugs so that there are no more crack houses.

As I asked in another thread, I'm real concerned that other friendly nations (i.e. Canada) are not willing to say the UN is not doing it's job and back the US in what (I think) needs to be done.

Maybe because the US hasn't actually submitted satisfactory evidence that this is what needs to be done?

[Rockon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scorpy


The policy of insinuating itself into the conflicts and disputes of other countries by supporting one side over the other with aid and/or military support. The policy of attacking other countries even when those countries never attacked the US. The policy of supporting unpopular leaders (i.e. the Shah of Iran) simply because they're friendly to US interests. [/QUOTE
Those don't sound like "policies." You're describing the behavior of an ally. E.g. We fought the original Gulf War not because Iraq attacked the United States, but because Iraq attacked a country that we had a friendly relationship with. Are you suggesting that the U.S has to eliminate alliances to reduce global terrorism? Isn't that exactly what the terrorists are hoping for?

Tim

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Rockon

Those don't sound like "policies." You're describing the behavior of an ally. E.g. We fought the original Gulf War not because Iraq attacked the United States, but because Iraq attacked a country that we had a friendly relationship with. Are you suggesting that the U.S has to eliminate alliances to reduce global terrorism? Isn't that exactly what the terrorists are hoping for?

Tim [/B]

Alliances are NOT based on friendship. The U.S. supported Iraq during the Iraqi/Iranian war because Iran was the U.S.'s enemy and the Iraqi war against it served its purposes. A few years later things changed and it became in the U.S.'s interest to turn against Iraq in favor of Kuwait. And if it ever comes about that squashing Kuwait becomes in the U.S.'s interests, it's going to squash it. Alliances are relationships of convenience.

Now, how would the U.S. feel if some super-super-power regularly interfered in its internal affairs and in its relationships with its neighbors for the sole purpose of securing this foreign power's own interests? Don't you think it might resent it just teeny bit? And if the U.S. military wasn't up to convincing this foreign power to cease and desist, mightn't Americans turn towards terrorism, or might not the U.S. start looking for a single weapon powerful enough to convince this foreign power to stay out of its business?

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Scorpy
Alliances are NOT based on friendship. The U.S. supported Iraq during the Iraqi/Iranian war because Iran was the U.S.'s enemy and the Iraqi war against it served its purposes. A few years later things changed and it became in the U.S.'s interest to turn against Iraq in favor of Kuwait. And if it ever comes about that squashing Kuwait becomes in the U.S.'s interests, it's going to squash it. Alliances are relationships of convenience.
Well whatever alliances are based on, they exist. There is turmoil throughout the world and sometimes we take sides. You're saying we shouldn't take sides?

Now, how would the U.S. feel if some super-super-power regularly interfered in its internal affairs and in its relationships with its neighbors for the sole purpose of securing this foreign power's own interests? Don't you think it might resent it just teeny bit? And if the U.S. military wasn't up to convincing this foreign power to cease and desist, mightn't Americans turn towards terrorism, or might not the U.S. start looking for a single weapon powerful enough to convince this foreign power to stay out of its business?
I assume you are talking about Iraq here. The only reason their internal affairs are being interfered with is because they invaded one of their neighbors and wouldn't leave without fighting a war. If they would simply abide by the terms of the armistice (which they signed) their problems would disappear tomorrow.

Anyway, you haven't quantified anything. All you've said is that there are terror attacks because of a generalized feeling (on the part of the terrorists) that the U.S. is bugging people they like. So what else is new?

Tim

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rockon
Well whatever alliances are based on, they exist. There is turmoil throughout the world and sometimes we take sides. You're saying we shouldn't take sides?

On matters that don't threaten us in any way? No, we shouldn't.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by shanek


On matters that don't threaten us in any way? No, we shouldn't.
So when the warlords of Somalia use food as a weapon and literally starve hundreds of thousands of people to death we shouldn't take sides against them?

Tim

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Rockon

Well whatever alliances are based on, they exist. There is turmoil throughout the world and sometimes we take sides. You're saying we shouldn't take sides?


No, not unless the U.S. is being directly threatened.


I assume you are talking about Iraq here. The only reason their internal affairs are being interfered with is because they invaded one of their neighbors and wouldn't leave without fighting a war. If they would simply abide by the terms of the armistice (which they signed) their problems would disappear tomorrow.


Hey, one man's 'invasion' is another man's 'Manifest Destiny'. Who are we to interfere when we are currently enjoying the spoils of our own conquest of the continental U.S. and its native people?

Anyway, you haven't quantified anything. All you've said is that there are terror attacks because of a generalized feeling (on the part of the terrorists) that the U.S. is bugging people they like. So what else is new?

Nope. I'm talking about how non-terrorists feel about the U.S. and how that feeling leads them to become terrorists. I'm saying that U.S. policy has created an environment in which terrorism can take root and flourish.

So when the warlords of Somalia use food as a weapon and literally starve hundreds of thousands of people to death we shouldn't take sides against them?

If you want to take sides in foreign disputes, then fine - buy a plane ticket. However, I suggest you obtain your weapons after you arrive at your destination, just to avoid airport security hassles.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Scorpy

Hey, one man's 'invasion' is another man's 'Manifest Destiny'. Who are we to interfere when we are currently enjoying the spoils of our own conquest of the continental U.S. and its native people?
I guess I would agree with you that it is kind of hypocritical to act so high and mighty when we've got a lot of skeletons in our own closet. But your analogy is not completely accurate. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was a clear violation of well established international borders. An obvious act of war by any standard. The conquest of North America was a social phenomenon as well as a political initiative. American settlers were not going to be stopped regardless of the position of the federal government. And of course there were no real clear borders between the "Indians" and the "Americans."

The fact of the matter is that Iraq got caught with it's hand in the cookie jar in '91. If they had just put the cookies back and taken their medicine, they wouldn't be on the receiving end of an invasion right now...not that the invasion is necessarily justified, mind you.

Nope. I'm talking about how non-terrorists feel about the U.S. and how that feeling leads them to become terrorists. I'm saying that U.S. policy has created an environment in which terrorism can take root and flourish.
But that's what started this discussion in the first place. Your opinion is that there are specific policies that the U.S. engages in that plant the seeds of terrorism. You haven't noted any specific policy, nor have you been able to demonstrate how the terrorism is likely to diminish if the U.S. were to change said policy. How is the U.S. supposed to know how it's being measured? Shall it conduct an international poll?

Tim

[Scorpy]

I guess I would agree with you that it is kind of hypocritical to act so high and mighty when we've got a lot of skeletons in our own closet. But your analogy is not completely accurate. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was a clear violation of well established international borders. An obvious act of war by any standard.

But not an act of war against the United States.

But that's what started this discussion in the first place. Your opinion is that there are specific policies that the U.S. engages in that plant the seeds of terrorism. You haven't noted any specific policy, nor have you been able to demonstrate how the terrorism is likely to diminish if the U.S. were to change said policy. How is the U.S. supposed to know how it's being measured? Shall it conduct an international poll?

I never said there were 'specific' policies. There aren't any. The United States isn't going to be foolish enough to publicly declare its intention to manipulate the political landscape of the middle-east in order to protect its supply of oil. But it would be foolish to think that the oil has nothing to do with our interest in the middle-east. Oil is the U.S.'s lifeblood.

Also, if terrorist just hate us for what we represent to them, then why aren't they attacking other prosperous, democratic, non-muslim nations? Why aren't they blowing the hell out of Switzerland?

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Scorpy

I never said there were 'specific' policies. There aren't any. The United States isn't going to be foolish enough to publicly declare its intention to manipulate the political landscape of the middle-east in order to protect its supply of oil. But it would be foolish to think that the oil has nothing to do with our interest in the middle-east. Oil is the U.S.'s lifeblood.
True enough. That's why we try to have alliances with countries that produce oil. It's not immoral for a nation to have friendly relationships (which might include military aid) with the countries it has established trade with.

Also, if terrorist just hate us for what we represent to them, then why aren't they attacking other prosperous, democratic, non-muslim nations? Why aren't they blowing the hell out of Switzerland?
So because the Germans didn't blow the hell out of Switzerland in World War II their attack on the rest of Europe was justifiable?

Tim

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rockon

So when the warlords of Somalia use food as a weapon and literally starve hundreds of thousands of people to death we shouldn't take sides against them?

Nope.

The US has suspended habeas corpus and begun holding its own citizens without charge or legal counsel; should others take sides against the US government?

The sword cuts both ways.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Scorpy
Also, if terrorist just hate us for what we represent to them, then why aren't they attacking other prosperous, democratic, non-muslim nations? Why aren't they blowing the hell out of Switzerland?

I've been asking that question since 9/11. I have yet to get an answer.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by shanek


Nope.

The US has suspended habeas corpus and begun holding its own citizens without charge or legal counsel; should others take sides against the US government?

The sword cuts both ways.
Agreed: the sword cuts both ways.

But that means your answer should be "Yep" instead of "Nope."

Tim

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rockon

Agreed: the sword cuts both ways.

But that means your answer should be "Yep" instead of "Nope."

Why? That's hardly a refutation—or even an acknowledgement—of my argument.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by shanek


Why? That's hardly a refutation—or even an acknowledgement—of my argument.
Well, I assumed you meant that because the U.S. is just as guilty (in some respects) as other countries that we should expect other countries to line up against us, just like we might line up against countries that *we* feel are oppressive or immoral. I was agreeing with you. But I don't think we have to make sure our own house is completely in order (although that would be nice) before we take sides in international disputes.

So...we take sides in Somalia because we think they are engaging in genocide *and* other countries take sides against us because they think we are ignoring due process (or whatever).

Tim

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rockon

Well, I assumed you meant that because the U.S. is just as guilty (in some respects) as other countries that we should expect other countries to line up against us, just like we might line up against countries that *we* feel are oppressive or immoral. I was agreeing with you.

Then why did you say my answer should have been "yep" instead of "nope"?

[Rockon]

Originally posted by shanek


Then why did you say my answer should have been "yep" instead of "nope"?
Maybe I don't understand your point.

Question 1: Should the U.S. take sides against an immoral government? (E.g. The Somalia problem)
Answer: Yep.

Question 2: Should other countries take sides against the U.S.? (E.g. The suspension of habeas corpus.)
Answer: Yep.

As you said, the sword cuts both ways. If the answer to #2 is "Yep," then the answer to #1 should also be "Yep."

In other words, the U.S. should hold itself to the same level of accountability that we hold other countries to. We should expect other countries to apply trade sanctions, restrict travel, etc. if we are behaving in a way that is perceived as immoral to them.

Tim

[Scorpy]

So because the Germans didn't blow the hell out of Switzerland in World War II their attack on the rest of Europe was justifiable?

Why are these terrorists singling out the United States?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rockon
As you said, the sword cuts both ways. If the answer to #2 is "Yep," then the answer to #1 should also be "Yep."

And if the answer to #2 is "Nope," then the answer to number one should also be "Nope."

Now all you have to do is explain why it is right to answer both questions with "Yep" instead of "Nope."

[Rockon]

Originally posted by shanek


And if the answer to #2 is "Nope," then the answer to number one should also be "Nope."

Now all you have to do is explain why it is right to answer both questions with "Yep" instead of "Nope."
We're going in circles.

It doesn't *have* to be "Yep." I was merely trying to point out that if it's ok for a foreign government to take sides against the U.S. (because of our flawed application of habeas corpus) then its also ok for the U.S. to take sides against another country that is practicing genocide.

Or the reverse: regardless of our own "crimes and misdemeanors" it is still reasonable for the U.S. to take sides in international disputes, especially if those disputes involve crimes against humanity.

Tim

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rockon

We're going in circles.

It doesn't *have* to be "Yep."

That's what you said. "But that means your answer should be 'Yep' instead of 'Nope.'"

I was merely trying to point out that if it's ok for a foreign government to take sides against the U.S. (because of our flawed application of habeas corpus) then its also ok for the U.S. to take sides against another country that is practicing genocide.

Well that, at least, is consistent. (It's not, however, happening, nor would Bush ever tolerate such a retaliation against the US.)