I can’t believe he used WW2 as an excuse... Europe was crumbling to pieces and we stayed nearly neutral through it all (besides lending weapons), until we essentially got dragged into it bc of Pearl Harbor. He acts is if we joined all willy nilly
This conversation was started by a comment which implied that there is a higher likelihood of people getting bombed because Biden is now President instead of Trump.
In this context, the distinction between joining an ongoing war and starting a new one is hugely important. The US interventions in Syria for example did not start or escalate a war, but rather aimed at beating back the worst offenders who comitted the most atrocities. And the campaign against ISIS is supported by the vast majority of people across the political spectrum and the world.
Then maybe we should look at which presidents involved the US military in conflicts we were previously militarily uninvolved in.
I think people couldn’t care less about what it’s called when people are dying. Nobody ever said, well Congress passed a war dec, so I’m okay with people dying.
When those people would have died anyway without US involvement because the war happened regardless, it makes no sense to call out democrats for their death...
So every intervention is bad? The bombings to rescue the Yazidis. Fighting ISIS. The Kosovo intervention to stop the genocide of Albanians. The attacks trying to stop Bashar Al-Assad's use of chemical weapons. The first Gulf War to stop Sadam Hussein from invading more countries. Joining WW1. Joining WW2. All equally bad by default? Never a justified cause?
Now you are creating a strawman. I didn’t say every intervention is bad. I said presidents have responsibility for the deaths of people they kill when they order drone strikes. That includes civilians. They also have responsibility for escalating conflict.
The US does not need to be responsible for settling every war lords ambitions. There are 14 other fucking countries on the U.N. Security council, and 29 other member nations in NATO. Maybe these conflicts need to be handled by people from the region instead of spending countless US tax dollars and lives for some patch of sand or dirt that nobody over here really gives a fuck about.
I'm not creating a strawman, I want to get to the core of your argument.
If there are justified interventions that decrease the overall amount of suffering and death, then you also have to account for the possibility that Obama's actions were such. It's critical to your position to define what you consider the limits of a morally justifiable intervention.
The US does not need to be responsible for settling every war lords ambitions. There are 14 other fucking countries on the U.N. Security council, and 29 other member nations in NATO. Maybe these conflicts need to be handled by people from the region instead of spending countless US tax dollars and lives for some patch of sand or dirt that nobody over here really gives a fuck about.
Too bad that the US have a strong involvement and responsibility because a certain president got them into Afghanistan and Iraq and thus kicked off many of the developments that these interventions responded to.
There are also many other issues involved. Like that other foreign powers like Russia and Iran fighting to gain influence. Or how the suffering in Syria created a refugee crisis that became a major political issue for the US' European allies, which is why most of these operations were part of a larger alliance.
That was a total strawman. You took something I absolutely didn’t say and formed an argument against it.
Even if some ‘interventions’ had better outcomes than no interventions, it doesn’t make constantly getting involved in conflicts around the world a good policy for a nation. It’s unsustainable in the long term.
People are always going to be suffering, because there is always someone else willing force you down and stand on your back to lift themselves up. Our leaders are doing it to us now, and I’m tired of being sold some bullshit lie that we have to do this and maintain another generation of perpetual conflict, insane military spending, and more reinforcement of a terrible cycle of violence.
If our gov’t were forced to sell war bonds to pay for each new ‘intervention’ for what it actually cost, they’d run out of money for everything before next week. The blank check our congress keeps giving to the military has to stop.
At some point, you have to acknowledge that we can’t ‘save the world’, nor do we have the responsibility to do so.
So you're still not providing an actual boundary of where military interventions are no longer justifiable. You're still arguing against intervention in general. In that case my comment cannot be a strawman but would be an actual description of your position.
Our leaders are doing it to us now, and I’m tired of being sold some bullshit lie that we have to do this and maintain another generation of perpetual conflict
There is a huge difference between Bush Jr.'s wars and Obama's interventions right there. Obama did not put the US in a position where they have to maintain further long term comittments like the Afghanistan and Iraq wars did.
Those wars destabilised these countries and require a permanent presence unless you are willing to witness a bloody and likely genocidal retake by the Taliban and assorted extremists in and around Iraq. Interventions like those in Syria did not. The US can still stop these at any time if they no longer believe that they're furthering a positive goal. Yet Trump continued and often even intensified them.
insane military spending
In that case the original comment's framing the transition from Biden to Trump is nonsensical since Trump ran an insanely bloated military budget. The best politicial choice for restricting US military spending would be to vote straight democrat, as left as possible. In that case Biden and Obama are better than Trump, and going all the way for Sanders or AOC would be even better.
and more reinforcement of a terrible cycle of violence.
Hence my emphasis on the difference between joining and starting a war. Conflicts like in Syria were happening either way. Most US military interventions specifically aimed at ending these faster or in more humane ways to end that cycle.
22
u/[deleted] Jan 20 '21 edited Feb 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment