Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 83

Thread: Libertarianism and the balance between individual rights and anti-interventionism

  1. #11
    Hall of Famer B-Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Montclair, NJ
    Posts
    47,407
    Quote Originally Posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
    I think your criticism of isolationism would carry a lot more weight with me if our interventions weren't all incredible failures in nearly every regard. Are Libya and Syria better off because of our involvement ? Do you have any examples of successes ?
    I'd probably divide this question into military interventions and non-military interventions. Successful US military interventions:

    WWI
    WWII
    Korea
    Kuwait
    Haiti
    Bosnia
    Kosovo
    Afghanistan? (debatable)
    Kurdistan? (debatable)

    But certainly none of those were "incredible failures in nearly every regard".

    One could argue that WWII and Afghanistan don't count because they were only initiated following direct attacks on the US homeland, but I think the others count, no?

    As for successful interventions in the form of diplomacy, foreign aid, or the prospect of military defense, etc, there are too many to count. The Marshall Plan, The Cold War and NATO ultimately helped lead to the greater freedom and quality of life in much of Europe, no? We also helped South Korea and Japan to become thriving democracies and economies. Our foreign aid and support has helped Colombia become much better for its people (and the world). We've had a lot of success mitigating health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, including AIDS and malaria.

  2. #12
    Big Leaguer The Feral Slasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,070
    Quote Originally Posted by B-Fly View Post
    I'd probably divide this question into military interventions and non-military interventions. Successful US military interventions:

    WWI
    WWII
    Korea
    Kuwait
    Haiti
    Bosnia
    Kosovo
    Afghanistan? (debatable)
    Kurdistan? (debatable)

    But certainly none of those were "incredible failures in nearly every regard".

    One could argue that WWII and Afghanistan don't count because they were only initiated following direct attacks on the US homeland, but I think the others count, no?

    As for successful interventions in the form of diplomacy, foreign aid, or the prospect of military defense, etc, there are too many to count. The Marshall Plan, The Cold War and NATO ultimately helped lead to the greater freedom and quality of life in much of Europe, no? We also helped South Korea and Japan to become thriving democracies and economies. Our foreign aid and support has helped Colombia become much better for its people (and the world). We've had a lot of success mitigating health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, including AIDS and malaria.
    If Afghanistan is success I don't want to see failure. Anyway, I appreciate your response and I'll reply when I have some time.

  3. #13
    Big Leaguer The Feral Slasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,070
    Quote Originally Posted by B-Fly View Post
    I'd probably divide this question into military interventions and non-military interventions. Successful US military interventions:

    WWI
    WWII
    Korea
    Kuwait
    Haiti
    Bosnia
    Kosovo
    Afghanistan? (debatable)
    Kurdistan? (debatable)

    But certainly none of those were "incredible failures in nearly every regard".

    One could argue that WWII and Afghanistan don't count because they were only initiated following direct attacks on the US homeland, but I think the others count, no?

    As for successful interventions in the form of diplomacy, foreign aid, or the prospect of military defense, etc, there are too many to count. The Marshall Plan, The Cold War and NATO ultimately helped lead to the greater freedom and quality of life in much of Europe, no? We also helped South Korea and Japan to become thriving democracies and economies. Our foreign aid and support has helped Colombia become much better for its people (and the world). We've had a lot of success mitigating health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, including AIDS and malaria.
    I was asking more about military, but I'd agree non-military "intervention" is also a consideration and probably much more successful.

  4. #14
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    3,328
    Quote Originally Posted by TranaGreg View Post
    Every time I walk by or go in to donate, I encounter volunteers - my observation is that they tend to be the bleeding heart liberal types ... I don't see a lot of libertarians or right-wingers there.
    I don't doubt your experience, I think this situation is regional though. For example in the bible-belt, a large portion of those volunteers are church groups which *tend* to lean right.

    I would say that in general it's more left than right universally. But I'm not sure that even matters in the bigger question being addressed here.

  5. #15
    Hall of Famer B-Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Montclair, NJ
    Posts
    47,407
    Quote Originally Posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
    If Afghanistan is success I don't want to see failure. Anyway, I appreciate your response and I'll reply when I have some time.
    I think the removal of the Taliban ultimately benefited the Afghan people, although I agree it's terribly hard to justify with any cost-benefit analysis given the costs of the ongoing conflict to American and Afghan lives. Our interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq also did help the Kurdish people in both countries, despite the broader strategic and operational failures. That's why I put those two with question marks, but I can accept that the overall cost-to-benefit ratio is a tough sell, so when you reply, focus on the other ones I listed, lol.

  6. #16
    All Star DMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    9,296
    Quote Originally Posted by B-Fly View Post
    I think the removal of the Taliban ultimately benefited the Afghan people, although I agree it's terribly hard to justify with any cost-benefit analysis given the costs of the ongoing conflict to American and Afghan lives. Our interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq also did help the Kurdish people in both countries, despite the broader strategic and operational failures. That's why I put those two with question marks, but I can accept that the overall cost-to-benefit ratio is a tough sell, so when you reply, focus on the other ones I listed, lol.
    Huh?

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ntl/index.html
    If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
    - Terence McKenna

    Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

    How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

  7. #17
    Hall of Famer B-Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Montclair, NJ
    Posts
    47,407
    For the broader purposes of this thread, Afghanistan is probably a terrible case study. So although one can argue that Taliban control over 12.5% of Afghan districts is a lot better than the near total control the mullahs had in 2001, I'll officially withdraw my half-hearted, mealy-mouthed inclusion of Afghanistan on the list of successful US military interventions.

  8. #18
    Big Leaguer The Feral Slasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,070
    Quote Originally Posted by B-Fly View Post
    I'd probably divide this question into military interventions and non-military interventions. Successful US military interventions:

    WWI
    WWII
    Korea
    Kuwait
    Haiti
    Bosnia
    Kosovo
    Afghanistan? (debatable)
    Kurdistan? (debatable)

    But certainly none of those were "incredible failures in nearly every regard".

    One could argue that WWII and Afghanistan don't count because they were only initiated following direct attacks on the US homeland, but I think the others count, no?

    As for successful interventions in the form of diplomacy, foreign aid, or the prospect of military defense, etc, there are too many to count. The Marshall Plan, The Cold War and NATO ultimately helped lead to the greater freedom and quality of life in much of Europe, no? We also helped South Korea and Japan to become thriving democracies and economies. Our foreign aid and support has helped Colombia become much better for its people (and the world). We've had a lot of success mitigating health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, including AIDS and malaria.
    I think if we limit discussion to interventions this century we have a great record of failure: Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen...and you haven't listed any successes in the last 25 years or so. I don't really think WWI and WWII are particularly relevant to this discussion. Those are things you only do if you can't avoid them. Several of the other ones you list I don't think are so clear cut.

    So I guess we more or less agree on foreign aid aspects, but I'm apparently a much tougher grader and have a strong recency bias. Amending my claim --Pretty much every military intervention in the 21st century has been a complete disaster while costing trillions of dollars.

  9. #19
    All Star DMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    9,296
    John Mearsheimer's new book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities might be of interest.
    If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
    - Terence McKenna

    Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

    How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

  10. #20
    Big Leaguer The Feral Slasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,070
    Quote Originally Posted by DMT View Post
    John Mearsheimer's new book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities might be of interest.
    probably not much of interest is my guess.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •