[jchen]

Has the US ever been completely successful in mitigating an international conflict? To clarify, our current debate topic deals with the issue of moral obligations of a government and I question that I am anticipating to be asked is whether the US has truly succeeded in previous years.

For example, one argument that I have heard is World War I. Yes, the United States won but at the same time was the conflict truly resolved? Most likely not as World War II came shortly after, furthermore, had the US continued to remain neutral and Germany did conquer Europe, would that conflict still be in place (it would seem like it would be resolved, Germany wins and the rest of Europe surrenders and therefore if the US did not intervene, the conflict would technically be over). Am I making any sense? Anyway, just wondering.

[Spliffdaddy]

You have to define "success" as viewed from a particular perspective.

Then you have to define what length of time must elapse until the standard of "success" is met. A week? A year? A decade?

One thing I'm sure of is that success is earned. The only people that succeed or fail are the people who make an effort. The rest just sit on their asses and comment about how they would have done things differently - IF they had made an effort.

[Echelon]

Originally posted by jchen:
For example, one argument that I have heard is World War I. Yes, the United States won but at the same time was the conflict truly resolved? Most likely not as World War II came shortly after,

your analysis of the US's role in 'resolving' World War One is flawed. The US, with Woodrow Wilson at its head, opposed all that the Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany. France and Britain pushed for it, to their later doom, as the harsh reparations and belittling of Germany allowed an environment to fester, creating conditions which undermined the Weimar Republic and allowed Hitler to get his foot in the door.

so you see, the US tried to resolve WWI in a manner that would have helped all the countries of Western Europe, victims of their own entangled alliances, but France and Britain insisted on putting Germany down rather than working to build her up.

[jchen]

Originally posted by Echelon:
your analysis of the US's role in 'resolving' World War One is flawed. The US, with Woodrow Wilson at its head, opposed all that the Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany. France and Britain pushed for it, to their later doom, as the harsh reparations and belittling of Germany allowed an environment to fester, creating conditions which undermined the Weimar Republic and allowed Hitler to get his foot in the door.

so you see, the US tried to resolve WWI in a manner that would have helped all the countries of Western Europe, victims of their own entangled alliances, but France and Britain insisted on putting Germany down rather than working to build her up.

Okay but what I was trying to say was that suppose the United States were simply to stand by and not intervene in such a scenario, the conflict would perhaps alleviate on its own (which is to say that the antagonistic party would win and thus a conflict would no longer exist, example of Vietnam). So is the US really mitigating in such circumstances or simply augmenting the situation to its benefit?

[RooneyX]

I believe prevention is better than the cure. It's just a shame that most politicians believe in chasing a cure around in circles only to recreate the mess they claim to be fixing. Now Bush wants to pull out of Iraq quickly, no doubt a new tyranny will present itself. This time in the form of a Shi'ite theocracy allied with Iran. How much money will it cost to pay off those dictators and to keep them happy? Will they support the process towards peace between Israel and Palestine? Will they refrain from funding jihad? Will they give Kurds and Sunnis equal treatment?

I doubt it. The Bush mob has successfully given the world a new enemy, a new reason for Israelis to be scared, a new enemy for the ever hungry Christian Right, a new demand for the arms trade that was dwindling. That's what Bush's job was, so it seems. Otherwise he'd have used some global humanist foresight for the betterment of the world, for peace and cultural dialogue.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Echelon:
your analysis of the US's role in 'resolving' World War One is flawed. The US, with Woodrow Wilson at its head, opposed all that the Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany. France and Britain pushed for it, to their later doom, as the harsh reparations and belittling of Germany allowed an environment to fester, creating conditions which undermined the Weimar Republic and allowed Hitler to get his foot in the door.

so you see, the US tried to resolve WWI in a manner that would have helped all the countries of Western Europe, victims of their own entangled alliances, but France and Britain insisted on putting Germany down rather than working to build her up.

And using that same logic, the placing of sanctions on so called 'rogue nations' never helped foster peace but only strengthened the grip of dictators and hatred towards those who created the sanctions.

[Sherwin]

The World won't sort itself out until nations are left to sort themselves out. That means no military intervention (defence only), no peacekeeping, no foreign aid, no acceptance of refugees.

The stable cultures of the world didn't get to where they are by having someone bail them out in every crisis - they had to work it out for themselves.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
The stable cultures of the world didn't get to where they are by having someone bail them out in every crisis - they had to work it out for themselves.

I'm not sure which is more startling--the sentiment expressed or thinking that you actually believe it.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm not sure which is more startling--the sentiment expressed or thinking that you actually believe it.

It's the truth.

Make your mind up. Do you want the US meddling in other nation's affairs or do you want it to keep its nose out? Can't have it both ways.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
It's the truth.

Make your mind up. Do you want the US meddling in other nation's affairs or do you want it to keep its nose out? Can't have it both ways.

Sherwin, one problem: who do the states rely on to get their oil from?

who is having it both ways?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
It's the truth.

Make your mind up. Do you want the US meddling in other nation's affairs or do you want it to keep its nose out? Can't have it both ways.

I was talking about your notion that the "stable cultures" achieved success without outside assistance or intervention. You might want to find some history texts written after 1900.

Not to mention what the "stable cultures" did to the "unstable cultures" along the way.

If you want to advocate political isolationism, go right ahead. Its hardly a new idea and probably has some limited merit.

But until the "stable cultures" start practicing economic isolationism rather than globalization and exploitation, political isolationism is a self-delusion to keep the right hand from knowing the left hand's business.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

But until the "stable cultures" start practicing economic isolationism rather than globalization and exploitation, political isolationism is a self-delusion to keep the right hand from knowing the left hand's business.

Globalization and exploitation? Man, honestly, when (or where) in human history has stability been about something other than trade or economics? When has war been about something other than economics? How and when was "exploitation" done differently enough from how it is now (better, in your eyes I guess) to warrant not having a negative image?

My take is that we're at a point in human history when "exploitation" is at an all-time low and positive externalities from mutual trade are at an all-time high. Has it ever been better than this? Why should we not expect human rights and freedom to be more and more prevalent and cheap in the future?

Your choice of the word "exploitation" implies evil doings. I'm just curious as to what kind of Utopia we can expect, how we'll know when it's arrived, and how it is that keeping the US out of world affairs is going to bring it about.

[thunderous_funker]

All of human interaction is economic, eh? You sound like a Marxist.

Propping up dictators in the third world which facilitate very lucrative concessions on natural resources definitely falls under the heading of "exploitation" in my book.

So do sweatshops and prison labor.

And I'm not talking about Utopia. I was reminding people that isolationist politics and globalized economics are not compatible.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
The World won't sort itself out until nations are left to sort themselves out. That means no military intervention (defence only), no peacekeeping, no foreign aid, no acceptance of refugees.

The stable cultures of the world didn't get to where they are by having someone bail them out in every crisis - they had to work it out for themselves.

This isolationist thinking doesn't work out in reality.

The idea of a superpower intervening is good, but only when they are there to genuinely help and have a well thought out strategy that is shared to and contributed to by all. This has never happened. Secrets and lies foster the hatred and that's why intervention is seen as invasion. It's time for total transparency, but I guess people like me have been asking for that for centuries.