Intervention without end

[Maratom]

You heard the question before: Can America go around policing the world? Are we going to "intervene forever?

humanevents.com/article.php?id=19999

 

[catsrus]

“It is a dangerous illusion to believe America is superior to other nations; we should not be attempting to reshape other nations in light of our values.”
“By an even greater proportion – almost three to one,” adds Broder, “they say the main goal of American foreign policy should be to protect the security of the United States and its allies, rather than the promotion of freedom and democracy.”

Exactly!

 

[gilliam]

protect the security of the United States and its allies, rather than the promotion of freedom and democracy." !

How does that fit into Catholic social teaching?

 

[JohnPaul]

How does that fit into Catholic social teaching?

Nowhere in Catholic teaching does it suggest that we should use force to impose democracy on other nations. God does not ‘force’ his ways on us, and we should follow his example.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nowhere in Catholic teaching does it suggest that we should use force to impose democracy on other nations. God does not ‘force’ his ways on us, and we should follow his example.

And by exention, we should not put criminals in jail, or punish people for cheating on their income tax.

Thousands of people die every day under the rule of brutal, bloody dictators. These people are killed by force, and if we want to stop it, we must use force.

America has attacked, repeatedly, for more than a quarter of a century. We have a right to self-defense, and that includes setting up conditions so that the fight will not be resumed after we leave.

 

[JohnPaul]

Thousands of people die every day under the rule of brutal, bloody dictators. These people are killed by force, and if we want to stop it, we must use force.

So we were wrong to stand by and let Stalin and Mao kill their 40 million? We should have intervened there? It ain’t our job to police the world. We have enough problems taking care of violence in the USA.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So we were wrong to stand by and let Stalin and Mao kill their 40 million?

Yes, we were – had we been wiser, neither one of them would have come to power.

We should have intervened there?

Actually, we did intervene. It took over 70 years and the help of the Catholic Church in the form of John Paul II, but the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Chinese Communists are undergoing a gradual transformation.

It ain’t our job to police the world. We have enough problems taking care of violence in the USA.

Remember that when someone talks about our responsibility to feed the starving people of the world – because to feed them, we must first deal with their brutal dictators.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by** gilliam**
How does that fit into Catholic social teaching?

We are taught to LOVE our neighbor as ourselves.
We are not taught to force our form of government on our neighbor. That’s not love.
Feed him and clothe him.
Leave the ideology at home and protect our own country.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We are taught to LOVE our neighbor as ourselves.
We are not taught to force our form of government on our neighbor. That’s not love.
Feed him and clothe him.
Leave the ideology at home and protect our own country.

How do you feed the hungry and clothe the naked when there are thugs with AK 47s blocking the food convoys?

Or is it okay to ignore the starving because, well, they’re not our sort of people, are they?

 

[JohnPaul]

Vern - you did not answer the question. Should we have intervened militarily to attempt to prevent Stalin and Mao from murdering the 40 million people that they did?

 

[rlg94086]

This is the only intelligent paragraph in Pat’s diatribe:

Why not? Because a world map highlighting those regions where the West’s vital resources are located would exactly overlap a map highlighting those regions where state power is crumbling, disease and poverty are pandemic and violence rules.

After that, he sets up the straw man argument that we are in Iraq for humanitarian and “idealistic” reasons. Those are components to our action, but they are not the reason we are in Iraq. We need stability in the region and to keep terrorism at bay and off of our shores. That’s why we are in Iraq.

Yes, we intervene when there is vital interest to the United States…with the exception of Kosovo, where we acted with NATO.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern - you did not answer the question. Should we have intervened militarily to attempt to prevent Stalin and Mao from murdering the 40 million people that they did?

I did answer the question – we did intervene militarily. We fought the Greek insurgency, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, and many minor skirmishes and engagements in between. Our allies fought in places like Malaysia and on the Trans-Siberian railway.

We were right to do so – we would have been more right to do so more forcefully and put an end to these murderous tryannies sooner.

 

[JohnPaul]

I did answer the question – we did intervene militarily. We fought the Greek insurgency, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, and many minor skirmishes and engagements in between. Our allies fought in places like Malaysia and on the Trans-Siberian railway.

We were right to do so – we would have been more right to do so more forcefully and put an end to these murderous tryannies sooner.

The US did NOTHING militarily while:

• Stalin murdered 7 million in the Ukraine in
• The Turks murdered 1 million Armenians
• Mao murdered 20+ million
• Pol Pot murdered 2 million Cambodians
• Rwandan massacres occurred
• Darfur genocide currently takes place

It simply is not feasible to intervene militarily to stop these atrocities. We do not have the resources nor does it serve our vital interests.

America was not ordained policemen of the world.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The US did NOTHING militarily while:

• Stalin murdered 7 million in the Ukraine in
• The Turks murdered 1 million Armenians
• Mao murdered 20+ million
• Pol Pot murdered 2 million Cambodians
• Rwandan massacres occurred
• Darfur genocide currently takes place

You need to study your history a bit more.

** Stalin murdered 7 million in the Ukraine**. The United States joined with the Western Allies in 1919 in attempting to prevent the Bolshevik takeover of Russia.

**
The Turks murdered 1 million Armenians ** TheUnited States entered WWI in 1917, and before that gave material aid to the Allies. The Allies made war on the Turks, and Turkey was defeated in late 1917.

Mao murdered 20+ million The United States supported and still supports the Nationalist Chinese. We fought Mao in the Korean War, 1950-53 under the Truman Doctrine.

Pol Pot murdered 2 million Cambodians Which occurred after the anti-war movement forced the United States to withdraw – and which prevented giving essential aid to South Viet Nam when the North launched two cross-border invasions.

Rwandan massacres occurred. That should be dear to your heart – we expected other nations in the region to stop it.

Darfur genocide currently takes place. You can go there if you want – I’ll lend you a gun.

It simply is not feasible to intervene militarily to stop these atrocities. We do not have the resources nor does it serve our vital interests.

America was not ordained policemen of the world.

Who was? And do you like living in a world with no police?

If you take a good look at the points above – note that our national interests are a key to involvement (except in Kosovo.) That’s why we went into WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam and other areas, and why we have not gone into Africa.

 

[JohnPaul]

You need to study your history a bit more.

** Stalin murdered 7 million in the Ukraine**. The United States joined with the Western Allies in 1919 in attempting to prevent the Bolshevik takeover of Russia.

FDR extended diplomatic recognition to the Stalin regime while the genocide occurred in the Ukraine in the 1930’s (and I need to study history more?)

I could go on and on but the point is that the US became a great power by following the wisdom of the Founding Fathers – Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Andrew Jackson, as well as modern heroes like Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur – to stay out of foreign wars that are none of our business.

The point was best made perhaps by John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the champion of freedom everywhere, but the vindicator only of her own.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

FDR extended diplomatic recognition to the Stalin regime while the genocide occurred in the Ukraine in the 1930’s (and I need to study history more?)

Yep – we had tried and failed to halt Stalin. Shame on us – but we lacked the will to push home the offensive.

I could go on and on but the point is that the US became a great power by following the wisdom of the Founding Fathers – Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Andrew Jackson, as well as modern heroes like Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur – to stay out of foreign wars that are none of our business.

You mis-characterize your authorities – mixing those who led a small, struggling nation clinging to the Eastern Seabord, with those who faced down Hitler and Tojo. Note that the two you cite last were indeed involved in foreigh wars. And that is because those foreign wars came to us – they **became **our business.

The point was best made perhaps by John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the champion of freedom everywhere, but the vindicator only of her own.”

And when the British Navy stopped American ships – even firing on our naval vessels on the high seas – when the Germans sunk our merchant ships, when the Japanese Navy lanuched an attack on Pearl Harbor, and when 19 terrorists killed as many Americans as the whole Japanese Navy did, what then?