|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:02 pm
Wikipedia Interventionism is a term for a policy of non-defensive (proactive) activity undertaken by a nation-state, or other geo-political jurisdiction of a lesser or greater nature, to manipulate an economy or society. The most common applications of the term are for economic interventionism (a state's intervention in its own economy), and foreign interventionism (a state's intervention in the affairs of another nation as part of its foreign policy).
Ever since the Korean War, the United States has taken an increasingly interventionist stance on foreign policy. Vietnam followed hard on the heels of Korea, followed by a few minor invasions that never amounted to war, and eventually it came to the Gulf War. Ten years later came the efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan, followed by the invasion of Iraq. The leaders of the nation seek to change policies everywhere, from the nuclear issues in North Korea and Iran, to human rights policies in China.
However, is this really in the best interests of the country? Will actions taken early prevent a later attack on American soil, or does such a policy simply drain the nation of resources that could be put to better use? The fact that the US tends to do a shoddy job of fixing things anyhow (see: resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan) isn't the issue at hand, but the policy itself.
Is interventionism something that the United States should continue with, or should it return to the non-interventionism that it saw between and before the two World Wars?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:57 pm
I honestly think America needs to focus on itself more. How can we help others if we end up falling apart?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:00 pm
I think we should stop intervening in the actions of other countries, or at least do it with discretion. We should have gone into Afghanistan because they attacked us first (except for I think we should have just carpet bombed them and use them as an example to back off of our country). We had no right to go into Iraq. We do however need to do something about N Korea since they are posing a threat and are trying to start stuff.
Overall though, I do think we need to stop policing the world as it were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:40 pm
Go big or go home, I say.
We either need to start making our efforts worthwhile, or withdraw and leave them all to their own devices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:41 pm
Shiori Miko I honestly think America needs to focus on itself more. How can we help others if we end up falling apart?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:05 am
You yanks really need to knock it off. Constantly intervening everywhere isn't only depleting your resources, it's also painting a big target on your backs. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nespin Fernagon Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:24 am
Nespin Fernagon You yanks really need to knock it off. Constantly intervening everywhere isn't only depleting your resources, it's also painting a big target on your backs. sweatdrop >.> Even before we started intervening a lot we had a target on us because of our ideals, form of government and who are allies are (namely the majority of the super powers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:22 am
Cigour Nespin Fernagon You yanks really need to knock it off. Constantly intervening everywhere isn't only depleting your resources, it's also painting a big target on your backs. sweatdrop >.> Even before we started intervening a lot we had a target on us because of our ideals, form of government and who are allies are (namely the majority of the super powers). @.@ The target was there, is there, and shall be there no matter what we do. And there's not much we can do 'bout that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:47 am
Vajapocalypse I think we should stop intervening in the actions of other countries, or at least do it with discretion. We should have gone into Afghanistan because they attacked us first (except for I think we should have just carpet bombed them and use them as an example to back off of our country). We had no right to go into Iraq. We do however need to do something about N Korea since they are posing a threat and are trying to start stuff. Overall though, I do think we need to stop policing the world as it were. The reason we couldn't carpet bomb them was because a large number aren't in the Taliban or any related organization and the reason we went into Iraq was because they invaded Kuwait an ally and a big source of our foreign oil. Now what happened next of us taking down their leader was because of how big of a dictator he was, I mean did you see the celebration that happened when Sadam was taken down? The rest was setting up their government so that another dictator didn't just take over right after the other one and hopefully we'll be out of Iraq on scheduled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:44 am
SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse I think we should stop intervening in the actions of other countries, or at least do it with discretion. We should have gone into Afghanistan because they attacked us first (except for I think we should have just carpet bombed them and use them as an example to back off of our country). We had no right to go into Iraq. We do however need to do something about N Korea since they are posing a threat and are trying to start stuff. Overall though, I do think we need to stop policing the world as it were. The reason we couldn't carpet bomb them was because a large number aren't in the Taliban or any related organization and the reason we went into Iraq was because they invaded Kuwait an ally and a big source of our foreign oil. Now what happened next of us taking down their leader was because of how big of a dictator he was, I mean did you see the celebration that happened when Sadam was taken down? The rest was setting up their government so that another dictator didn't just take over right after the other one and hopefully we'll be out of Iraq on scheduled. Taliban is their government, not formally, but lets call a spade a spade. My uncle is from Afghanistan by the way (no he is not a terrorist or think woman are below him >.> at least if he did the brash, overbearing women in my family have beaten it out of him) and not only has he told me it is a s**t hole but the Taliban was their structure. According to him, it's been worse for the citizens since the US took many of the Taliban out. We went into Iraq because Bush felt he needed to finish the job his father started talk2hand I'm not saying dictators are good people, but it's not our problem until they attack us (like Afghanistan in which case we need to bring the war hammer down) or actually HAVE things that can be used to attack us, like N. Korea (although rumor has it pancreatic cancer has delayed things). It isn't out concern about how they treat their citizens, it's just not. Saddam was a bad guy, he was their bad guy. If his people wanted him gone, then they should have rose and done it themselves. No sooner did we do that then did the rest of that area start protesting against us cause guess what? It was none of our business. Iraq is still failing. It was a failure. Most countries can't function like we do. The US is an anomaly when you look at our system. We shouldn't be able to work as well as we do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:37 am
Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse I think we should stop intervening in the actions of other countries, or at least do it with discretion. We should have gone into Afghanistan because they attacked us first (except for I think we should have just carpet bombed them and use them as an example to back off of our country). We had no right to go into Iraq. We do however need to do something about N Korea since they are posing a threat and are trying to start stuff. Overall though, I do think we need to stop policing the world as it were. The reason we couldn't carpet bomb them was because a large number aren't in the Taliban or any related organization and the reason we went into Iraq was because they invaded Kuwait an ally and a big source of our foreign oil. Now what happened next of us taking down their leader was because of how big of a dictator he was, I mean did you see the celebration that happened when Sadam was taken down? The rest was setting up their government so that another dictator didn't just take over right after the other one and hopefully we'll be out of Iraq on scheduled. Taliban is their government, not formally, but lets call a spade a spade. My uncle is from Afghanistan by the way (no he is not a terrorist or think woman are below him >.> at least if he did the brash, overbearing women in my family have beaten it out of him) and not only has he told me it is a s**t hole but the Taliban was their structure. According to him, it's been worse for the citizens since the US took many of the Taliban out. We went into Iraq because Bush felt he needed to finish the job his father started talk2hand I'm not saying dictators are good people, but it's not our problem until they attack us (like Afghanistan in which case we need to bring the war hammer down) or actually HAVE things that can be used to attack us, like N. Korea (although rumor has it pancreatic cancer has delayed things). It isn't out concern about how they treat their citizens, it's just not. Saddam was a bad guy, he was their bad guy. If his people wanted him gone, then they should have rose and done it themselves. No sooner did we do that then did the rest of that area start protesting against us cause guess what? It was none of our business. Iraq is still failing. It was a failure. Most countries can't function like we do. The US is an anomaly when you look at our system. We shouldn't be able to work as well as we do. Ok lets say Taliban is/was their government. Do you really want to stoop to their level and attack civilian targets with carpet bombings? How can you say that Bush wanted to finish what his father started without any proof or sound reasoning to say so. Bring me something substantial then we talk. But it is our business when a country continuously attacks our friends even when we have told them to stop. Besides Iraq has been showing signs of improvement and have taken down insurgents with almost no help from the U.S. government at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:01 pm
SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse I think we should stop intervening in the actions of other countries, or at least do it with discretion. We should have gone into Afghanistan because they attacked us first (except for I think we should have just carpet bombed them and use them as an example to back off of our country). We had no right to go into Iraq. We do however need to do something about N Korea since they are posing a threat and are trying to start stuff. Overall though, I do think we need to stop policing the world as it were. The reason we couldn't carpet bomb them was because a large number aren't in the Taliban or any related organization and the reason we went into Iraq was because they invaded Kuwait an ally and a big source of our foreign oil. Now what happened next of us taking down their leader was because of how big of a dictator he was, I mean did you see the celebration that happened when Sadam was taken down? The rest was setting up their government so that another dictator didn't just take over right after the other one and hopefully we'll be out of Iraq on scheduled. Taliban is their government, not formally, but lets call a spade a spade. My uncle is from Afghanistan by the way (no he is not a terrorist or think woman are below him >.> at least if he did the brash, overbearing women in my family have beaten it out of him) and not only has he told me it is a s**t hole but the Taliban was their structure. According to him, it's been worse for the citizens since the US took many of the Taliban out. We went into Iraq because Bush felt he needed to finish the job his father started talk2hand I'm not saying dictators are good people, but it's not our problem until they attack us (like Afghanistan in which case we need to bring the war hammer down) or actually HAVE things that can be used to attack us, like N. Korea (although rumor has it pancreatic cancer has delayed things). It isn't out concern about how they treat their citizens, it's just not. Saddam was a bad guy, he was their bad guy. If his people wanted him gone, then they should have rose and done it themselves. No sooner did we do that then did the rest of that area start protesting against us cause guess what? It was none of our business. Iraq is still failing. It was a failure. Most countries can't function like we do. The US is an anomaly when you look at our system. We shouldn't be able to work as well as we do. Ok lets say Taliban is/was their government. Do you really want to stoop to their level and attack civilian targets with carpet bombings? How can you say that Bush wanted to finish what his father started without any proof or sound reasoning to say so. Bring me something substantial then we talk. But it is our business when a country continuously attacks our friends even when we have told them to stop. Besides Iraq has been showing signs of improvement and have taken down insurgents with almost no help from the U.S. government at times. Use them as an example. Their people didn't stand up in fight and they attacked out civilians. Why treat terrorists with respect? Burn then down and use them as an example. Think of a small scale example: A little kid is hitting you, yeah it doesn't really hurt, but the actions are disrespectful an annoying. You tell the kid to stop, he keeps prodding, you turn around and spank him, he suddenly has learned his lesson and stops doing such things. Same thing can be applied to other countries. Look at how we dealt with pearl harbor. We made two examples in japan and they surrendered and since then we've been pretty much on the same page. Bush went on a manhunt for Saddam without any reasoning. We suspected weapons of mass destruction and went in with absolutely no proof. Bush mad a few reference to desert storm (when his father was president and they choose to leave Saddam in power so he could control him masses). And no it's not. We aide them through selling off old military equipment but no other country really gets involved beyond that. The UN was against America's actions. Oh? What are these signs? The women there are still being abused and mistreated in the name of religion. There are still a lot of IED and suicide bombings lining the streets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:59 pm
Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse I think we should stop intervening in the actions of other countries, or at least do it with discretion. We should have gone into Afghanistan because they attacked us first (except for I think we should have just carpet bombed them and use them as an example to back off of our country). We had no right to go into Iraq. We do however need to do something about N Korea since they are posing a threat and are trying to start stuff. Overall though, I do think we need to stop policing the world as it were. The reason we couldn't carpet bomb them was because a large number aren't in the Taliban or any related organization and the reason we went into Iraq was because they invaded Kuwait an ally and a big source of our foreign oil. Now what happened next of us taking down their leader was because of how big of a dictator he was, I mean did you see the celebration that happened when Sadam was taken down? The rest was setting up their government so that another dictator didn't just take over right after the other one and hopefully we'll be out of Iraq on scheduled. Taliban is their government, not formally, but lets call a spade a spade. My uncle is from Afghanistan by the way (no he is not a terrorist or think woman are below him >.> at least if he did the brash, overbearing women in my family have beaten it out of him) and not only has he told me it is a s**t hole but the Taliban was their structure. According to him, it's been worse for the citizens since the US took many of the Taliban out. We went into Iraq because Bush felt he needed to finish the job his father started talk2hand I'm not saying dictators are good people, but it's not our problem until they attack us (like Afghanistan in which case we need to bring the war hammer down) or actually HAVE things that can be used to attack us, like N. Korea (although rumor has it pancreatic cancer has delayed things). It isn't out concern about how they treat their citizens, it's just not. Saddam was a bad guy, he was their bad guy. If his people wanted him gone, then they should have rose and done it themselves. No sooner did we do that then did the rest of that area start protesting against us cause guess what? It was none of our business. Iraq is still failing. It was a failure. Most countries can't function like we do. The US is an anomaly when you look at our system. We shouldn't be able to work as well as we do. Ok lets say Taliban is/was their government. Do you really want to stoop to their level and attack civilian targets with carpet bombings? How can you say that Bush wanted to finish what his father started without any proof or sound reasoning to say so. Bring me something substantial then we talk. But it is our business when a country continuously attacks our friends even when we have told them to stop. Besides Iraq has been showing signs of improvement and have taken down insurgents with almost no help from the U.S. government at times. Use them as an example. Their people didn't stand up in fight and they attacked out civilians. Why treat terrorists with respect? Burn then down and use them as an example. Think of a small scale example: A little kid is hitting you, yeah it doesn't really hurt, but the actions are disrespectful an annoying. You tell the kid to stop, he keeps prodding, you turn around and spank him, he suddenly has learned his lesson and stops doing such things. Same thing can be applied to other countries. Look at how we dealt with pearl harbor. We made two examples in japan and they surrendered and since then we've been pretty much on the same page. Bush went on a manhunt for Saddam without any reasoning. We suspected weapons of mass destruction and went in with absolutely no proof. Bush mad a few reference to desert storm (when his father was president and they choose to leave Saddam in power so he could control him masses). And no it's not. We aide them through selling off old military equipment but no other country really gets involved beyond that. The UN was against America's actions. Oh? What are these signs? The women there are still being abused and mistreated in the name of religion. There are still a lot of IED and suicide bombings lining the streets. So your plan is to kill thousands of innocent civilians just to try to scare the Taliban who already hate our gust and will use those actions to recruit even more? Not even that but on the global scale all the countries in the world will hate us more than they already do. Of course there was reason to hunt Saddam you don't just go into a country and let the person you invaded to take out of power go free. Yes I do say there was little reason or good intelligence to go in but now that we are in there is nothing we can do but set up the government we took down. The signs are all of the succeesful operations they have operations they have carried out by themselves. It may be a little early now but give it time. Iraq is far from a lost cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:04 pm
SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse I think we should stop intervening in the actions of other countries, or at least do it with discretion. We should have gone into Afghanistan because they attacked us first (except for I think we should have just carpet bombed them and use them as an example to back off of our country). We had no right to go into Iraq. We do however need to do something about N Korea since they are posing a threat and are trying to start stuff. Overall though, I do think we need to stop policing the world as it were. The reason we couldn't carpet bomb them was because a large number aren't in the Taliban or any related organization and the reason we went into Iraq was because they invaded Kuwait an ally and a big source of our foreign oil. Now what happened next of us taking down their leader was because of how big of a dictator he was, I mean did you see the celebration that happened when Sadam was taken down? The rest was setting up their government so that another dictator didn't just take over right after the other one and hopefully we'll be out of Iraq on scheduled. Taliban is their government, not formally, but lets call a spade a spade. My uncle is from Afghanistan by the way (no he is not a terrorist or think woman are below him >.> at least if he did the brash, overbearing women in my family have beaten it out of him) and not only has he told me it is a s**t hole but the Taliban was their structure. According to him, it's been worse for the citizens since the US took many of the Taliban out. We went into Iraq because Bush felt he needed to finish the job his father started talk2hand I'm not saying dictators are good people, but it's not our problem until they attack us (like Afghanistan in which case we need to bring the war hammer down) or actually HAVE things that can be used to attack us, like N. Korea (although rumor has it pancreatic cancer has delayed things). It isn't out concern about how they treat their citizens, it's just not. Saddam was a bad guy, he was their bad guy. If his people wanted him gone, then they should have rose and done it themselves. No sooner did we do that then did the rest of that area start protesting against us cause guess what? It was none of our business. Iraq is still failing. It was a failure. Most countries can't function like we do. The US is an anomaly when you look at our system. We shouldn't be able to work as well as we do. Ok lets say Taliban is/was their government. Do you really want to stoop to their level and attack civilian targets with carpet bombings? How can you say that Bush wanted to finish what his father started without any proof or sound reasoning to say so. Bring me something substantial then we talk. But it is our business when a country continuously attacks our friends even when we have told them to stop. Besides Iraq has been showing signs of improvement and have taken down insurgents with almost no help from the U.S. government at times. Use them as an example. Their people didn't stand up in fight and they attacked out civilians. Why treat terrorists with respect? Burn then down and use them as an example. Think of a small scale example: A little kid is hitting you, yeah it doesn't really hurt, but the actions are disrespectful an annoying. You tell the kid to stop, he keeps prodding, you turn around and spank him, he suddenly has learned his lesson and stops doing such things. Same thing can be applied to other countries. Look at how we dealt with pearl harbor. We made two examples in japan and they surrendered and since then we've been pretty much on the same page. Bush went on a manhunt for Saddam without any reasoning. We suspected weapons of mass destruction and went in with absolutely no proof. Bush mad a few reference to desert storm (when his father was president and they choose to leave Saddam in power so he could control him masses). And no it's not. We aide them through selling off old military equipment but no other country really gets involved beyond that. The UN was against America's actions. Oh? What are these signs? The women there are still being abused and mistreated in the name of religion. There are still a lot of IED and suicide bombings lining the streets. So your plan is to kill thousands of innocent civilians just to try to scare the Taliban who already hate our gust and will use those actions to recruit even more? Not even that but on the global scale all the countries in the world will hate us more than they already do. Of course there was reason to hunt Saddam you don't just go into a country and let the person you invaded to take out of power go free. Yes I do say there was little reason or good intelligence to go in but now that we are in there is nothing we can do but set up the government we took down. The signs are all of the successful operations they have operations they have carried out by themselves. It may be a little early now but give it time. Iraq is far from a lost cause. Oh you thought I was talking about just the taliban? I meant make the area an example for the who region. They don't want us there. None of the middle eastern countries do, save Israel. Iraq wants us out, Iran wants us out, you name it they hate us. Why should we help them? We shouldn't let them burn and make it known not to ******** with us. That entire area is a lot cause. Look at Iran, they have an "election" that is rigged and the opponent is up for war crimes against the country for just running! What successful operations are we talking about? The ones were there are still suicide bombings? Mild protest (against us)? The murder of our troops and construction workers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:12 pm
Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse Taliban is their government, not formally, but lets call a spade a spade. My uncle is from Afghanistan by the way (no he is not a terrorist or think woman are below him >.> at least if he did the brash, overbearing women in my family have beaten it out of him) and not only has he told me it is a s**t hole but the Taliban was their structure. According to him, it's been worse for the citizens since the US took many of the Taliban out. We went into Iraq because Bush felt he needed to finish the job his father started talk2hand I'm not saying dictators are good people, but it's not our problem until they attack us (like Afghanistan in which case we need to bring the war hammer down) or actually HAVE things that can be used to attack us, like N. Korea (although rumor has it pancreatic cancer has delayed things). It isn't out concern about how they treat their citizens, it's just not. Saddam was a bad guy, he was their bad guy. If his people wanted him gone, then they should have rose and done it themselves. No sooner did we do that then did the rest of that area start protesting against us cause guess what? It was none of our business. Iraq is still failing. It was a failure. Most countries can't function like we do. The US is an anomaly when you look at our system. We shouldn't be able to work as well as we do. Ok lets say Taliban is/was their government. Do you really want to stoop to their level and attack civilian targets with carpet bombings? How can you say that Bush wanted to finish what his father started without any proof or sound reasoning to say so. Bring me something substantial then we talk. But it is our business when a country continuously attacks our friends even when we have told them to stop. Besides Iraq has been showing signs of improvement and have taken down insurgents with almost no help from the U.S. government at times. Use them as an example. Their people didn't stand up in fight and they attacked out civilians. Why treat terrorists with respect? Burn then down and use them as an example. Think of a small scale example: A little kid is hitting you, yeah it doesn't really hurt, but the actions are disrespectful an annoying. You tell the kid to stop, he keeps prodding, you turn around and spank him, he suddenly has learned his lesson and stops doing such things. Same thing can be applied to other countries. Look at how we dealt with pearl harbor. We made two examples in japan and they surrendered and since then we've been pretty much on the same page. Bush went on a manhunt for Saddam without any reasoning. We suspected weapons of mass destruction and went in with absolutely no proof. Bush mad a few reference to desert storm (when his father was president and they choose to leave Saddam in power so he could control him masses). And no it's not. We aide them through selling off old military equipment but no other country really gets involved beyond that. The UN was against America's actions. Oh? What are these signs? The women there are still being abused and mistreated in the name of religion. There are still a lot of IED and suicide bombings lining the streets. So your plan is to kill thousands of innocent civilians just to try to scare the Taliban who already hate our gust and will use those actions to recruit even more? Not even that but on the global scale all the countries in the world will hate us more than they already do. Of course there was reason to hunt Saddam you don't just go into a country and let the person you invaded to take out of power go free. Yes I do say there was little reason or good intelligence to go in but now that we are in there is nothing we can do but set up the government we took down. The signs are all of the successful operations they have operations they have carried out by themselves. It may be a little early now but give it time. Iraq is far from a lost cause. Oh you thought I was talking about just the taliban? I meant make the area an example for the who region. They don't want us there. None of the middle eastern countries do, save Israel. Iraq wants us out, Iran wants us out, you name it they hate us. Why should we help them? We shouldn't let them burn and make it known not to ******** with us. That entire area is a lot cause. Look at Iran, they have an "election" that is rigged and the opponent is up for war crimes against the country for just running! What successful operations are we talking about? The ones were there are still suicide bombings? Mild protest (against us)? The murder of our troops and construction workers? Oh really? the entire region? Might I remind you that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all allies of the United states? and any mass strike against a large group of civilians is just political suicide for the United States. You think it is bad now with just the Middle East hating us? Think what it would be like if the United states did that and violate tons of U.N. regulations as well as the Geneva convention. Any kind of mass attack any where in that region that could harm civilians is a bad idea. Yes Iraq wants us gone. Hell we don't even want to be there but it is taking time for us to leave but it is going to happen and who knows we might get an ally out of Iraq. But Iran is undergoing change at the moment there are still protests all over the streets of Tehran and the result of this election was that the regime will fall. About 70% of Iran are 30 or younger and want a new chance with the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
