Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: Bias, and Bright Lines

September 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Adam Baney keeps coming back! Great.

Selected reactions:

Regardless of how you feel about the on-going war in Iraq, it does serve as a warning to those who remain defiant, despite international condemnation. I refuse to believe that Gaddafi just gave up his weapons ambitions.

I might grant the point on Gaddafi. But, with billions of US tax dollars and the lives of Americans, Iraqis and others lost, I don't buy that the Iraq War was an "investment" in imposing the US's pre-eminence on the world. Is there REALLY any nation that fosters the desire to overwhelm the US, landing in Baltimore and taking our fair land? No. The US is simply not threatened in that way.

There is no question that the U.S. should do everything in it's power to avoid world conflict...but, at the same time, not run from responsibility.

And here's the rub: What IS the US's responsibility? What is the basis for intervening in places like Korea, Vietnam and Iraq when there was no clear and present danger? You maintain there's this "responsibity," yet you do not justify it. Is it in the US Constitution? Even in legislation? No. It's an unspoken, vague statement by some that the US has some "responsibility" to maintain the peace, even despite the fact that our most recent wars have done the opposite.

What piece of evidence leads you to believe that either Stalin or Hitler would have stopped at the opposing country. Our involvement in WW2 effectively stopped a communist superpower from forming. That superpower would have killed millions more than any number complied by Stalin or Mao.

Excuse me! Siding with Stalin lead to the Soviet bloc and the Maoist takeover of China.

The balance must be taken into consideration. We will not survive as a country if we do not defend our allies, and deter those who wish to harm us. The counterpoint being...we must choose our battles wisely.

Yes, balance is the key. I simply don't agree that the US would not survive without military alliances. Look at landlocked Switzerland. Europe has experienced centuries of war, yet the non-aligned Swiss remain friend to all, foe to none. My view is the US has, in fact, NOT chosen its battles wisely over the past 50 years. That leads me to a strong bias against foreign wars. A bright line? No.

-Robert Capozzi

Comments

I don't like playing the "pick-a-dictator" game, however, in proving your point, you have reaffirmed mine. It's impossible to pick and choose with these conflicts. We never chose Stalin, we just had a common enemy. As for Mao, did you want a US takeover of China? That seems to differ harshly with your "we are a island" theory. A large majority of this country's ancestry comes from Europe...safe to say we all had a stake in WW2. The vast majority of us understand the importance of our involvement in that war.

The Swiss...seriously...the Swiss...The only reason they were not invaded was their cooperation with the nazi's. They initially allowed refugees, but later in the war, denied as many as 30,000 Jews...knowing full well the German governments plan was to systematically murder them. It's real noble to be neutral when your neighbor is murdering innocent people.

Posted by: abaney18 | December 1, 2006 11:06 AM