Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:50 AM

Ken Burch (31,239 posts)

Should the U.S. do "Non-Intervention"(i.e., No More Coups)Treaties w/Latin America, Asia, & Africa?

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:13 AM USA/ET - Edit history (3)

(note: I'd have said "the countries of..." there, but there wasn't enough room in the thread title space).

President Obama has four more years. He no longer needs to worry about appeasing the hawks and the neocons. He could use this time to make history and totally change the way the world sees us.

Do you think it's time for the U.S. to say "we were wrong every time we blockaded, destabilized, or overthrew a government in the developing world in the past, and we won't ever DO that(or help cause that)again"?

7 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	5 (71%)
	No
	2 (29%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	No Opinion
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

7 replies, 423 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

7 replies	Author	Time	Post
Should the U.S. do "Non-Intervention"(i.e., No More Coups)Treaties w/Latin America, Asia, & Africa? (Original post)	Ken Burch	Dec 2012	OP
It would be nice if those voting "no" would say why. n/t.	Ken Burch	Dec 2012	#1
Basically you are asking if it is time to become isolationists	Riftaxe	Dec 2012	#2
Are there no choices but A)"isolationism" and B)not even promising not to stage coups?	Ken Burch	Dec 2012	#3
I say we stay isolationist	Dokkie	Dec 2012	#4
It isn't even "isolationism"...just "common decency".	Ken Burch	Dec 2012	#5
Yet there is also misery when we do not intervene.	Riftaxe	Dec 2012	#6
There can be misery in situations in which we do not intervene...	Ken Burch	Dec 2012	#7

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:37 AM

Ken Burch (31,239 posts)

1. It would be nice if those voting "no" would say why. n/t.

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:48 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Response to Ken Burch (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:43 AM

Riftaxe (2,301 posts)

2. Basically you are asking if it is time to become isolationists

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:47 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

and that we are so ignorant of history that we think only internal politics lies behind our previous actions, many of which i disapprove of.

As for apologies they are made out of the same ephemeral fabric of campaign promises, and have as much substance.

Reply to this post

Response to Riftaxe (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:56 AM

Ken Burch (31,239 posts)

3. Are there no choices but A)"isolationism" and B)not even promising not to stage coups?

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:04 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

It's not as if any U.S. interventionism in Latin America, Asia, or Africa(at least SINCE 1945)has had any progressive or humanist results.

Every time we've overthrown a government in any of those places, all that's ever come of it was unrelenting misery. It would have brought nothing but misery and increased poverty if we'd overthrown Fidel, too.

How can it ever again be defensible to use the kind of tactics we still seen our government use, and use recently, in places like Honduras and Haiti?

Reply to this post

Response to Ken Burch (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:05 AM

Dokkie (1,688 posts)

4. I say we stay isolationist

with our military until we balance the budget or provide every American with affordable university education. The US is just to broke to be playing the world's police man, let switzerland do it

Reply to this post

Response to Dokkie (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:59 AM

Ken Burch (31,239 posts)

5. It isn't even "isolationism"...just "common decency".

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:02 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

The fact that it was wrong to do nothing to stop Hitler(the situation that gave birth the term "isolationism")does not mean that it is now obligatory to be ready to send in the Marines or Seal Team ONE in EVERY situation...and generally as the default option.

There has to be some sort of positive, non-brutal way for this country to interact with the world.

Reply to this post

Response to Ken Burch (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:05 PM

Riftaxe (2,301 posts)

6. Yet there is also misery when we do not intervene.

Last edited Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:05 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

misery has hardly ever been an index for intervention, and as the arab spring turns towards winter...sometimes the cure is worse then the disease.

Either way it is hardly acceptable, the real question is when is it time for us to intervene i suppose?

The actions in Latin America I am probably more familiar with since they are more my time, I honestly cannot say I approve of most of them, I always hated that we backed the wrong rebels in Nicagura.

Reply to this post

Response to Riftaxe (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:39 AM

Ken Burch (31,239 posts)

7. There can be misery in situations in which we do not intervene...

but the question you always have to ask is whether our intervention could have prevented or even minimized that misery...or whether it might not have made it worse.

We should have offered sanctuary to people from Rwanda(also Bosnia and Kosovo, for example)when they were in humanitarian crisis-but it's not clear that the attempts to impose or abet "regime change" were useful in saving anyone from suffering.

I thank you for the thoughtful post...there are always complexities in these situations.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)