Author Topic: An open question to non interventionists.  (Read 739 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
An open question to non interventionists.
« on: May 20, 2009, 10:08:16 pm »
How do we prevent regional conflicts from becoming world wars if we cannot intervene directly.

Here is a scenario, Israel threatened by the nuclear program of Iran, which has made their intention to destroy Israel clear. Finally strikes, a nuclear exchange takes place. The UN condemns, brings international forces to bear against Israel with states in the region. The Jewish state is dismantled, and the Jews are forced out of the middle east in a mass exodus. Many nations including America are forced to take them in, at a huge cost in services. Cancer rates world wide increase due to the radio active fallout.

How do we as Americans prevent this chain of events, without war?
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+


Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2009, 10:49:10 am »
How do we prevent regional conflicts from becoming world wars if we cannot intervene directly?

It's a question, put a question mark.

Everything you're saying is speculation. That aside, Iran is threatening Israel, not us. If we allow hypothetical doom scenarios to force us to jump in and protect others at every turn in order to prevent it, we only create more threats in the long run. It doesn't involve us; we need to leave it alone.

If we really believe your scenario is possible, we need to investigate ways to protect ourselves from radioactive fallout. Decontamination methods ought to be researched. And we don't need to be taking in ever-more immigrants just because they're destitute. At some point we need to maintain our own country and stop helping others when we obviously can't afford it. I think you know that's a separate question all-together.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2009, 03:23:40 pm »
Ok assuming we can develop a way to mitigate nuclear fall out for a scenario set to take place in the next 2 years or less. And assuming we magically fix the border problem.

There is still the oil question, with the middle east reduced to a smoking crater thanks to a regional nuclear exchange. From where will America and more importantly Europe, and china get their oil?

You have to understand the economic shock waves such a conflict would produce, it would be more devastating than the credit crunch. It would be the oil crisis in the 80's on steroids.

I'd also like to know how you are going to protect Americas image when global media outlets are broadcasting pictures of starving refugees on our borders being held off at gun point by our soldiers. That sounds like the ideal anti American propaganda photo op.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2009, 11:17:49 pm »
The shock waves will come. Oil is not a renewable (as fast as we're using it) resource. We're going to have to eliminate our oil dependence sooner or later, why not sooner?

And the border problem could be solved easily, any number of ways. I like your Number of the Beast system. The PC people are playing a numbers game to get majority control. Just because it isn't being fixed doesn't mean it can't be fixed.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2009, 11:19:23 pm by Alia »

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2009, 08:14:45 am »
Ok, but that still doesn't address our image problem, how do we justify millions of people starving in refugee camps on our border?
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2009, 11:17:49 pm »
Only in the eyes of idiots does protecting our own become an image problem. People starve, that's just how it is. It's not our fault nor our responsibility. Using tax money - the only money available to government - to feed them is forcing charity on the taxpayer, which isn't right especially when he cannot afford it.

Any sane person knows this.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2009, 12:23:20 am »
You act like everyone in the world is a realist, and like there aren't people who will purposely spin this into anti American propaganda to justify undermining our sovereignty.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2009, 01:45:20 am »
Then how is it that every other country in the world protects its own first and none of them ever recieve any bad propaganda for it?

It seems to me that if you rattle off a list of countries that are forced into causing their own natural-born citizens into poverty over foreigners at the sharp end of the guilt-stick are all of a certain native ethnicity.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2009, 08:56:06 am »
First world countries as a rule do not serve the interests of their citizens they leave their borders wide open and impose nothing on those who enter, this is because they hate themselves, and third world countries are like minorities, you dare not question them for fear of being called an imperialist or a bigot

Most of Europe, and America fall into the self hating suicidal nation state category. and since most of the worlds economy and hard and soft power rest in those two groups, we dare not offend them.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2009, 01:14:48 am »
I think I just won the argument.

Besides which, "fair" is very selective. Everyone understands that the corporation has to make a buck. If you took all the donuts, muffins, and bagels, day-olds, that are thrown away each day, and gave them away, you could put a serious thorn in the side of hunger.

The only reason this is not done is because when things are given away free they become devalued. The mighty corporation must make a buck, rather than feed the hungry.

Why can't the American taxpayer keep his buck, rather than feed the hungry? See how understanding and rationality applies in some cases over bleedingheartism, and in other cases not? It's a matter of power; the citizens have none. We should act to put our own citizens first. That includes not sending them to die in pointless interventionist wars.

Nin

  • Censura
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2009, 02:26:58 am »
Wanting to keep what you earn? Greed.

Taking what others have earned? Bravery.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2009, 11:57:56 am »
No you haven't won the argument. You essentially said all my concerns and points were irrelevent.

I asked how do we prevent the conflict, your answer was that we don't have to

I asked how do we prevent the use of nuclear weapons, your answer was we don't have to

I asked what do we do with the millions of refugees, you said nothing

I asked how do we deal with the public image issue, your answer was nothing

So you have essentially dodged every point I have made by flippantly denying they are problems, when they are.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2009, 10:22:40 pm »
Conflict isn't ours to prevent.

We should protect our citizens, not other countries' citizens.

We will not allow the refugees in.

Public image would only be bad if we let it. If necessary, make laws that bleedinghearts can't speak ill of an America that's only protecting them and theirs. If you still feel bad about it, let people donate charity money to the refugee camps along our borders, individually. Don't force it on the taxpayer.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2009, 10:54:45 am »

Quote
Conflict isn't ours to prevent.
Because millions of lives lost means nothing to you?
Quote
We should protect our citizens, not other countries' citizens.
What is so special about our citizens as apposed to that of our allies?
Quote
We will not allow the refugees in.
So we should let the die?
Quote
Public image would only be bad if we let it. If necessary, make laws that bleedinghearts can't speak ill of an America that's only protecting them and theirs. If you still feel bad about it, let people donate charity money to the refugee camps along our borders, individually. Don't force it on the taxpayer.

That won't have any effect on anti american propeganda, if we allow this to happen to one of our allies, why would any of them trust us?
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An open question to non interventionists.
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2009, 09:03:07 pm »
Because millions of lives lost means nothing to you?

I think you know that by now.

So we should let them die?

Eventually, yes, for their own follies.

That won't have any effect on anti american propeganda, if we allow this to happen to one of our allies, why would any of them trust us?

If they can't accept that they must take care of their own and suffer the consequences of their own actions then we don't need parasites as allies.