Interventionism

[Steampunk]

Thought this might be interested to discuss here. For those who don't know, "interventionism" is when Country A interferes (usually via military or economics) with how Country B manages its domestic affairs because Country A doesn't like Country B's policy decisions. Yeah it's a really stripped down definition, but I prefer to keep things simple when I can. Anyway, most people would probably think there was nothing wrong with that when we're talking about genocide or martial law; but not all cases are so clear cut. So, I submit for your consideration, when is it okay for one country to tell another country how to keep shop? When is it okay for Country A to wield military, economic, or political force to coerce Country B into making policy decisions that Country A likes? Do you think countries should be left to handle themselves, or should countries should "police" each other?

P.S.: this isn't criticism of or in reference to any particular historic event or example. This is just a general question on the matter.

[RPG]

I'd say that "policing" other countries isn't the right way to do things. Nations are huge, with so many lives taking their course and internal issues going on, nobody would want another country breathing down their neck on top of that.

There are instances that could draw attention however, like if the people are unhappy as a whole and suffering as a nation due to the bureaucracy or others in charge. If people are dying, other countries would naturally want to step in. But if a nation's issues are unclear to the extent that taking sides on internal affairs is messy or exceedingly complicated, I think it's generally best to stay out of it and not complicate matters further.

There's really no easy answer to a question like this, because the world does not run on one nation's morals or laws...but maybe looking at such complicated issues from all viewpoints can find a preferable source of action.

[Life]

Let's cut the crap here; We're talking about the USA from 50's onwards.

I can explain the US's case really easily. The United States of America views itself as the "city on a hill". In the past (we're talking about prior to 1945), the US would stay out of foreign affairs because they were an example to the world. Everyone was fighting at the bottom of the hill so why should the US lower themselves to everyone else's standards? Later on, the idea changed to the US feeling that it was their duty to bring everyone else to the top of the hill, hence intervensionism.

That's your daily history lesson.

[Rewjeo]

I haven't exactly studied US history in depth, but I was of the understanding that the US started intervening in other countries' affairs to indirectly combat the USSR. Now that we've established that it's "okay" to intervene, the government basically does whatever is politically convenient while justifying it morally, even though it should be painfully obvious that the those are really not the primary reasons for any conflict we've been in... ever, that I can think of.

[Espinosa]

Let's cut the crap here; We're talking about the USA from 50's onwards.

I can explain the US's case really easily. The United States of America views itself as the "city on a hill". In the past (we're talking about prior to 1945), the US would stay out of foreign affairs because they were an example to the world. Everyone was fighting at the bottom of the hill so why should the US lower themselves to everyone else's standards? Later on, the idea changed to the US feeling that it was their duty to bring everyone else to the top of the hill, hence intervensionism.

That's your daily history lesson.

The US certainly had something to gain in both the former and the latter case.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Espinosa

[Life]

Umm not really. Go check up on your American history. Start from 1776 (or even a little before that) and apply the "city on a hill" to every event. You'll see that it fits way too perfectly.

[Rewjeo]

Pretty sure that works for every state ever. Countries with self esteem issues don't last long.

[Espinosa]

The Roman Empire had a good deal of that tbqh

[Anouleth]

Let's cut the crap here; We're talking about the USA from 50's onwards.

Are we? This could just as easily be describing USSR Cold War policy where they "intervened" to ensure that all their neighbours were run by friendly communists. Or present-day Germany policy where they bail out their neighbors as long as they adopt austerity policies favored by the Germans.

And why 50's onwards? Apparently gifting enormous quantities of food, weapons, and supplies to the UK and USSR in World War II under Lend-Lease agreements isn't "intervention". Nor is providing military training to Chinese Nationalists, apparently. It wasn't Eisenhower or Truman who first called the United States the "Arsenal of Democracy".

[Original Alear]

From a realistic perspective, I suppose there might be reason, first of all, to keep other countries weaker militarily to ensure one's own military is the best. There are other kinds of oppression as well which might be advisable. I'm not in favor of them, but w/e.

Umm not really. Go check up on your American history. Start from 1776 (or even a little before that) and apply the "city on a hill" to every event. You'll see that it fits way too perfectly.

Well, you asserted that the US tried to stay out of conflicts until the 45 or 50s, but one tension as the war of 1812 began was the US was trading with France, which Britain wanted stopped. I guess that trading with a country that is engaged in war is a tough thing to figure out in terms of whether it's "invervening" or not, but I'm not sure it really qualifies as the behavior of a higher authority to be engaged with the outside world in ways that could compromise its neutrality.

It's one thing to say that that sort of ideology was in the air among the people - maybe it was - but I'm not sure that means that the application of the ideology to what was happening sticks that well.

By the way, the war of 1812 also lead to this ever-prescient and wonderful song:

EDIT-I misspelled /quote /qoute!

EDIT2-goddamn me.

Edited June 15, 2013 by SeverIan

[Takano]

I haven't exactly studied US history in depth, but I was of the understanding that the US started intervening in other countries' affairs to indirectly combat the USSR. Now that we've established that it's "okay" to intervene, the government basically does whatever is politically convenient while justifying it morally, even though it should be painfully obvious that the those are really not the primary reasons for any conflict we've been in... ever, that I can think of.

I thought of providing some U.S.-Latin America Examples to try to comment on this statement, since often in the CW the U.S.used the USSR as a way of protecting its imperialist hold.

1954 Guatemala:

1959 Cuba

1964 Brasil

1970-1973 Chile

1981-1990 Nicaragua

Attempted 2002 Venezuela

While one might try to say the Cold War interventions were to "stop the threat of Communism", the US uses interventionism in order to ensure economic supremacy throughout Latin America. While CW US claimed to be fighting the USSR, they were diminishing nationalists, like Abenz from nationalizing US companies in order to carry on an economical hegemony.

Its only okay for country A to intervene if:

i: B asks for help

ii: B is hurting Civilians

Any more and Country A is just trying to make an imperialist hold on B, to serve its own interests.

[Phoenix Wright]

to give you an idea of how i feel:

i agree with our intervention during WWII

we should intervene in NK

we should intervene in Africa

we should not intervene in Egypt

we should not intervene in Libya

now, US only, as i'm an american:

we should not have intervened in Hawai'i

we should not have intervened in vietnam

we should not have intervened in Afghanistan

we should not have intervened in Iraq

so, basically, i feel that we shouldn't intervene in most cases, as i don't feel it's really any nation's right to do so. WWII Germany is a special case, as is NK. NK and many regions in Africa are suffering differently from the other places i've named (if my understanding of the basic facts of these places is correct).

edit: basically i hold takano's view

Edited August 19, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Takano]

to give you an idea of how i feel:

we should intervene in NK

we should intervene in Africa

Though I'm not siding with these nations, either they should seek help from within, or by other nations. If America harms the DPRK/NK there is no doubt that other nations such as Japan, RoK/SK, or other West Asian nations would get involved. I doubt that the DPRK, will ever go on the offensive, but if anyone, especially, the US, intervenes then they'll take the excuse to attack. The DPRK has a large number of forces, that we shouldn't give them the excuse to use.

I don't understand what you mean by Africa, surely not all of it? Countries like South Sudan, and Uganda need any help they can to fight off the LRA cultists. The LRA needs to be stopped, due to all the horrors they commit.

[Phoenix Wright]

yeah, i certainly don't mean all of the nations in africa. also, i don't necessarily want the United States to intervene, but more or less it to be discussed in the UN or something and having intervention happen. not sure of the logistics, as i really have no reason to think about it (there's absolutely nothing i could do).

[Takano]

also, i don't necessarily want the United States to intervene, but more or less it to be discussed in the UN or something and having intervention happen. not sure of the logistics, as i really have no reason to think about it (there's absolutely nothing i could do).

Honestly, I agree that the UN should just discuss it. The longer they wait, the more the LRA grows. In the end, I agree with Trite's point of view.

[Anouleth]

to give you an idea of how i feel:

i agree with our intervention during WWII

we should intervene in NK

we should intervene in Africa

we should not intervene in Egypt

we should not intervene in Libya

now, US only, as i'm an american:

we should not have intervened in Hawai'i

we should not have intervened in vietnam

we should not have intervened in Afghanistan

we should not have intervened in Iraq

so, basically, i feel that we shouldn't intervene in most cases, as i don't feel it's really any nation's right to do so. WWII Germany is a special case, as is NK. NK and many regions in Africa are suffering differently from the other places i've named (if my understanding of the basic facts of these places is correct).

edit: basically i hold takano's view

So, if you think that the Korean War was justified and the Vietnam War was not justified, what was the difference between the two wars? After all, part of the reason why the US got involved in Vietnam is because intervention in Korea had been successful. And of course, in retrospect, it seems obvious that the Vietnam War was bad and the Korean War good, but the difference might not have been so obvious in the early 1960s.

[dondon151]

That's your daily history lesson.

the monroe doctrine dates back to 1823. someone needs to review his US history.

[Phoenix Wright]

So, if you think that the Korean War was justified and the Vietnam War was not justified, what was the difference between the two wars? After all, part of the reason why the US got involved in Vietnam is because intervention in Korea had been successful. And of course, in retrospect, it seems obvious that the Vietnam War was bad and the Korean War good, but the difference might not have been so obvious in the early 1960s.

i think you are mistaken. i never mentioned the korean war anywhere. but, based on my post i believe one should have inferred the opposite about it; that is, i also disagree that the korean war was justified.

obvious that the korean war is good? i fail to see how such a view obvious.

[Green Poet]

the monroe doctrine dates back to 1823. someone needs to review his US history.

Still, that was effectively nullified starting Roosevelt's administration and onward. While drawing the line from the Cold War probably probably isn't the most relevant course of discussion, there isn't much ambiguity surrounding whether or not the United States' imperialistic phase could be considered "intervention."

Apparently gifting enormous quantities of food, weapons, and supplies to the UK and USSR in World War II under Lend-Lease agreements isn't "intervention". Nor is providing military training to Chinese Nationalists, apparently. It wasn't Eisenhower or Truman who first called the United States the "Arsenal of Democracy".

From the definition of intervention as presented by Dieselpunk, I would assume that these are qualifying examples. Naturally, the Presidents of the time would be disinclined to publicize their domestic affairs as "intervening."

Edited August 20, 2013 by Green Poet

[Anouleth]

i think you are mistaken. i never mentioned the korean war anywhere. but, based on my post i believe one should have inferred the opposite about it; that is, i also disagree that the korean war was justified.

obvious that the korean war is good? i fail to see how such a view obvious.

So somehow, "we should intervene in North Korea" now, but apparently, it was not acceptable to intervene when North Korea actually invaded South Korea.

Also, the view is fairly obvious, I think. Without US intervention, it seems highly likely that South Korea would have ended up as a totalitarian hellhole like it's neighbour. Instead, it is now an advanced, peaceful, wealthy, and democratic nation.

[Phoenix Wright]

So somehow, "we should intervene in North Korea" now, but apparently, it was not acceptable to intervene when North Korea actually invaded South Korea.

Also, the view is fairly obvious, I think. Without US intervention, it seems highly likely that South Korea would have ended up as a totalitarian hellhole like it's neighbour. Instead, it is now an advanced, peaceful, wealthy, and democratic nation.

yes. its people are starving with their leader doing pretty much nothing about it. it's almost like i could parallel this with scar and the pridelands. it's fucked up enough that i could basically make their position analogous to a disney movie.

it is not our right as americans to decide what nations become totalitarian and what nations become democratic. in retrospect, we can see that our intervention helped, but at the time we had no right to intervene. i still think, as noted above, that we don't have the right to intervene in NK just because we want to; it's an endeavor to be taken up and voted on in the UN. the US is not the world's cop.

by your logic, by the way, the vietnam war was not bad, it was just an american defeat. had we succeeded, it's very possible that vietnam would be similar to SK.

[Esau of Isaac]

I am honestly always at a loss between interventionism and isolationism, because while they are obviously not mutually exclusive they are surely at odds. And while either taken to the extreme is incredibly harmful, both can be equally valid when judged in retrospect. Since I am quite sure we are discussing the situation from a military rather than economic or general sociopolitical standpoint, I believe I don't stand so popular compared to even many conservatives today after obvious more recent failures of the past decade, in that I believe it is quite right and even necessary to intervene in the actions of another state that is committing some misdeed, whether or not it is legal from their standpoint. That said I realize that even those most fervently for interventionism are aware that military matters in modern society are never anything but complex cluster-fucks, so a blanket approach to the situation is impossible and moronic for any other reason than consistency for consistency's sake.

So, uh, judge it on a case-by-case basis, I suppose. Should always be the case for things like these in my opinion.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Espinosa]

In case they have oil, the misdeeds are sufficiently punishable I guess.

[Anouleth]

yes. its people are starving with their leader doing pretty much nothing about it. it's almost like i could parallel this with scar and the pridelands. it's fucked up enough that i could basically make their position analogous to a disney movie.

it is not our right as americans to decide what nations become totalitarian and what nations become democratic. in retrospect, we can see that our intervention helped, but at the time we had no right to intervene. i still think, as noted above, that we don't have the right to intervene in NK just because we want to; it's an endeavor to be taken up and voted on in the UN. the US is not the world's cop.

So, under what circumstances can Americans determine that intervention is necessary? Apparently, you do think that such circumstances do actually exist, because you support World War II and you support US intervention right now in North Korea and Africa, but you do not say what those circumstances are. It's not clear what you think on this issue, since after all, World War II was waged in response to the unjustified invasion of Poland by Germany in 1939, while the Korean War was waged in response to the unjustified invasion of South Korea by North Korea in 1950. What exactly was different between these two invasions that World War II was justified but the Korean was not unjustified?

Also, from what you say, you should think that the Korean War was justified, since it was the result of Security Council Resolution 83.

[Phoenix Wright]

So, under what circumstances can Americans determine that intervention is necessary? Apparently, you do think that such circumstances do actually exist, because you support World War II and you support US intervention right now in North Korea and Africa, but you do not say what those circumstances are. It's not clear what you think on this issue, since after all, World War II was waged in response to the unjustified invasion of Poland by Germany in 1939, while the Korean War was waged in response to the unjustified invasion of South Korea by North Korea in 1950. What exactly was different between these two invasions that World War II was justified but the Korean was not unjustified?

Also, from what you say, you should think that the Korean War was justified, since it was the result of Security Council Resolution 83.

TL;DR: You know, instead of writing down my opinions in 1000 words, it's much easier to state that Esau basically got it. For me, it's a case-by-case basis with a few things that I keep in mind when making my opinions.

i feel like you forgot the united states was bombed during world war II. prior to that, we were still not really an isolated nation, we were clearly on the side of the allies, but our military intervention was certainly justified once we were bombed. i pretty much hold an isolationist opinion, or at least a passive-until-they're-aggressive standing on a lot of world issues. meaning, unless we, the american people, are harmed, i don't think the united states has a right to dive head-first into the problems of other nations. also, the jewish people were kinda being treated worse than ants at the time, so yeah. that also plays a role in my opinion.

and while we're on the subject of me "agreeing with" the US intervention of wwII, i'd like to add that i don't agree with our bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki.

i'd also like to make an addendum: my views on iraq/afghanistan are largely that we should not have intervened for so long (or in afghanistan's case, ongoing intervention), acting as the peacekeepers of those nations.

"yeah, i certainly don't mean all of the nations in africa. also, i don't necessarily want the United States to intervene, but more or less it to be discussed in the UN or something and having intervention happen. not sure of the logistics, as i really have no reason to think about it (there's absolutely nothing i could do)."

allow me to make answer your initial question: So, under what circumstances can Americans determine that intervention is necessary?

-Military provocation/acts of war

That is really about it. As I have mentioned several times now, I do not think it is the right of the United States to intervene in Africa or North Korea because we may feel that they need the help. I think intervention should be decided by the United Nations. The United States, as a nation, does not have the right to determine intervention by itself unless we are provoked militarily or have experienced an act of war.

Didn't know that about the Korean War. I say that with shame. Still, our involvement in Korea then was to prevent Communist control, a very different reason than what I would support today (feeding the goddamn people of North Korea). And because of that, I still don't think I agree with the US intervention, but I suppose it actually is justified based upon my own standards.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Phoenix Wright