• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

How much should we intervene in other countries affairs?

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .


2 time Reigning BuckeyePlanet Poker Champion
Ok, now I'm curious... maybe we should maybe we shouldnt be in Iraq, but now we are. Maybe we should have helped the rwandans, but we didnt. Most people agree Somalia was a mistake, what about kosovo? kuwait? I just wanna see what everyone thinks we SHOULD be doing as far as world intervention. Im afraid I havent made up my mind yet so lets hear some arguements and hey you guys actually can convince someone this time :wink:
I don't buy that it's our "duty" to interfere elsewhere. It does so happen that we are the most aptly equipped entity to carry out such endeavors, but I don't think anyone would dare to suggest that we do so out of some love or concern for humanity. It's equally silly to propose that we not involve ourselves in any foreign conflicts whatsoever - even if we wanted to, we would eventually be torn out of non-intervention, and would look foolish for having tried to do so (see World War II). So while my opinion has and will never have any bearing whatsoever on what this massive, lumbering giant of a nation chooses to do to or for the rest of the world, I think the best outlook as far as this issue goes is to be honest and realistic about it. Sometimes there are circumstances under which some intervention is all but necessary, such as when basic human rights are being grossly violated. I don't think the installation of any certain type of government (i.e. communism, evil dictatorship, what have you) justifies our involvement, but if it's resulting in serious human strife or casualties, then some sort of action is okay in my book. At the same time, in a case such as Iraq where human rights were not being grossly violated (don't bite my head off - there were and are worse places to be than pre-war Iraq), I think we have to recognize and be truthful about the fact that we have very clear and identifiable ulterior motives. The problem is that our government tries to put a happy face on everything, which the rest of the world looks at and says, "Okay, humanitarianism is dandy, but you are there for other reasons, you lying American pigfuckers." So just like most people who offer commentary on foreign policy, I have no real solutions other than to suggest that we cut out the bullshit, and purport an accurate image of ourselves as an international political and military entity. Ultimately, we're out for ol' no. 1, and I think if we had just said that from the jump, we'd be in better shape.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It is too our advantage for nations to be at peace, and stable with a structure.

If this doesn't happen we have to go into a Afghanastan and clean up the mess, when terrorist make it their home. Plus if there is someone clearly in power then we can have a dialog with that person. So in instances of Chaos Rwanda, Somolia, etc. It is in our intrest.

Was Iraq in our interest? Well I think if we thought that they had WMD's which by now I am fairly sure they didn't, then yes. If they were just a stupid government we didn't like, then I don't think so. Those people should have fought for their own freedom. Maybe they would appreciate it more. Since we did what we did I think we are trying to do the right thing by setting up a government that will work, and obviously we are doing something that scares our enemies, that is why they keep attacking. They must not feel that it is doomed to fail, otherwise they wouldn't care.

What I would like to see is us do is try to keep the peace, try to stay out of civil wars/revolutions, unless it turns into Chaos. Then I would like for us to try and resolve it and keep the peace. Afghanastan, looks like the first model we may have where it works. Why do you thing Iran is getting nervous. They will have a democracy and likely US friend to their east and west. They will be the next to fall, but I think it will be by their own people's hand.

Also had we interfered in North Korea before they had Nucs, that situation would be a whole lot easier to deal with. Now we have a maniac with nuculear weapons, who may fire them, may not, and may sell them for food etc.
Upvote 0
I am more supportive of intervention when it deals with human rights violations, but I can also see why we would want to invade a country for strategic reasons. I think the point where my opinion diverges from the standard government philosophy is that the American people should have a say in whether to invade, and that includes an honest statement of the reasons for such a venture. We need a law similar to Sarbannes-Oxley for the government so that if the president goes to war on baloney reasons without checking to make sure that the intelligence reports are correct, than he should be on the hook.
Upvote 0

If we really were going after countries with unstable govt's looking to aquire nukes, India and Pakistan should've been first on our list. Not only that, they have already shown that they are willing to sell the technology to other rogue govts. Masharaff was on our shit list before 9-11, now all of a sudden we're buddy buddy? Please. American Foreign Policy in the last 10 years is as bad as it has ever been and we're all paying the price now. One day you're our sworn enemy, next day you're on our payroll. It needs to be consistent and harsh. I understand the reasons to put the smackdown on a few countries that get out of line, but if we're the ones constantly doing it and consistantly undermining the UN, then we need to be held accountable when things go wrong. This whole war on terror could've been avoided in my opinion IF some of the following decisions were made with more forethought:

1)Hadn't aided and instructed Saddam on how to use his chemical weapons to quell the advancing Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war. Rumsfeld himself personally gave Saddam US satellite maps on where the Iranian troops were. Saddam used this to massacre tens of thousands of them turning the tide in the war to his favor

2)Hadn't aided, trained and paid Osama Bin Laden himself when he was fighting the Russians in the Afghan War. Once he was off the CIA payroll, he turned his sights and expertise on us. Think about it, he had his Saudi citizenship revoked and was expelled from that godforsaken country WHILE stilll on a US govt payroll. Ridiculous.

3) Pulled our troops out of Saudi or at least brought the troop level down to pre-war levels after the first Gulf War. I lived in Saudi before and after the first Gulf War and I can tell you firsthand that the level of hatred for the US increased exponentially after the war was over and troops were still there. I understand that they want/need us there, but they have bought enough technology from us to defend themselves against a depleted Iraqi army. I also remember the hundreds of scuds that slimeball sent our way, and if there was ever an oppurtunity to get rid of Saddam WITH ARAB and international support, it was then. we missed the boat, and now we're paying the price for the bad foreign policy.

4) Either come up with a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or REMAIN neutral. There is nothing that fuels the anti-American sentiment than to see the US taking sides. Especially when it's US/Israel vs. The World. And make no mistake about it, the Israeli govt is just as guilty in this conflict as the suicide bombers in Gaza. Those that argue that it's a regional issue and it can never be solved are flat out wrong. IF we can't solve it, then we shouldn't be supporting EITHER side. And yes, the conflict was there before 9-11, but Bush 1 actually had the best way of dealing with the Israelis.. He cut off their American funding when they refused to comply with our suggestions, and low and behold they actually listened to us. How many times has Sharon told Bush where to shove it this past year? Also, Do you know that every Israeli citizen gets roughly $10,000/year from the American govt? I don't get that, do you? Now do you see why the Palestinians hate us too?

I don't claim to know all the answers but these are just a few suggestions, to what I think would improve the lives of every American.
Upvote 0
We should intervene when the national security interests of the United States are at stake.

We should provide moral, but not financial or military support, to efforts to overthrow dictators.
Upvote 0
I believe that we are--to an extent--the world's police, but not to the degree we should be involved in every little thing. We should limit our external involvement to areas of vital strategic and national secuirty interests, and also in grave human rights violations.
Upvote 0
isolationism baby.....

think about how much better off our economy would be if all our efforts were spent domestically....keep our high tech military technology to ourselves....quit giving it to rogue leaders.....

go back to the pre-truman doctrine era of america....oh yeah...close the friggin borders off too...if we were a restaurant with a sign in it that says maximum occupancy is 200...were at 350 already.....

edit for spelling...
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
....oh yeah...close the friggin borders off to...
Unless you guys are full-blooded native Americans, I find this statement *extremely* hypocritical. How would your immigrant forefathers feel about your attitude? If not for the traditional American policy of 'give me your tired, your poor, etc. etc.', most of our ancestors would not have been able to immigrate here. For us to say 'okay, now that I'm here, screw the rest' is hypocracy at it's finest.

For years, I've struggled with the idea of 'isolationism' vs. 'open borders'. It seems that whenever we engage in an 'unpopular' military mission/police action/conflict, there's a movement of citizens calling for less involvement on the world stage. I've long thought our self-proclaimed roll as 'world cop' was a bad idea, but the fact remains, we *are* the leader of the free world, and if we don't stand up for the basic tenants of human rights, than no one will.

Now I must also admit, I have been a detractor of our war on Iraq. Not because I thought Hussain was a great leader - he was not. He was the worst kind of tyrant. But because I feel that the American pubic was 'sold' this war under false pretenses. We knew how bad Saddam was before/after the '91 Gulf war, why didn't we just finish it then? I think removing him was a good thing, but now we find ourselves in a quagmire that seems to get worse with the passing of each week. I hope and pray things work out in Iraq, and soon, but I get more and more discouraged with each roadside bomb blast and each attack on the 'American-trained Iraqi police force'.
Upvote 0
its not fair to compare 1800's america with today's america in terms of open borders...

if you want to say the native americans were wronged....im with you....

the difference is that the country was wide open and ripe to support a larger population....i am saying that today....our resources are tapped out.....

edit: at one time america NEEDED a larger population base...hence your "give us your tired...etc..".....that is no longer the case....
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
FCollinsBuckeye said:
Unless you guys are full-blooded native Americans, I find this statement *extremely* hypocritical. How would your immigrant forefathers feel about your attitude? If not for the traditional American policy of 'give me your tired, your poor, etc. etc.', most of our ancestors would not have been able to immigrate here. For us to say 'okay, now that I'm here, screw the rest' is hypocracy at it's finest.

At some point, there has to be a limit to it. Very few people leave the United States and hundreds of thousands come each year. That cannot be sustained forever. It is a simple fact.
Upvote 0
You guys are correct in that it is a simple fact that 'x' amount of land will support 'y' amount of population. The world is quickly filling up. I believe some have written that we will be at our population limit within our children's or our grandchildren's lifetime. Scary thought, really.

So, what's the solution to global overpopulation? Attempting to limiting birth rates like China? Letting people who overpopulate an area starve to reach an equalibrium with their local environment? (Earlier in life, I was a proponent of this - it's just so Darwinian :wink: ) I guess I don't have the answer, but I think it plays into this discussion of our roll as 'world interveners'. We ship food to regions where the population is starving - they can't grow enough food to feed themselves, but they are 'artificially' supported by internatinoal handouts. And they're *still* reproducing! So, do we steralize them? Give 'em rubbers? Who knows.

I must continue to my next point on the topic. I've always thought that the global overpopulation issue was a reasonable justification for voluntary abortion. To force an unwanted pregnancy on a person who knows they cannot care for a child at that point in their life doesn't help our population problem. I know, you'll say 'what about that poor barren couple who would love to adopt!'. Why don't they go adopt a kid from Laos or Cambodia? There's lots of kids their with a none-to-bright future.

Okay, just a few thoughts on the subject. Back to your regularly scheduled program....
Upvote 0
For those isolationist out there. May I remind you we tried that strategy with Hitler. We could have rapped things up quick before he got too powerful, but we were too busy playing neutral, and making money on the situation. So instead we had thousands of Americans dying where if we would have flexed our muscles earlier, estimates show that not nearly as much fighting and killing would have taken place.
Upvote 0