6 ms·

> I remember the anti-interventionist Democrats of the 80s and 90s quite well. They criticized military adventures but never suggested dismantling NATO, abandon

> I remember the anti-interventionist Democrats of the 80s and 90s quite well. They criticized military adventures but never suggested dismantling NATO, abandoning treaty allies, or praising dictators while undermining their own intelligence agencies You’re making it sound like they were on board with the general idea of using american power to police the world, but only disagreed on the particulars. That was not the case. For example, a common refrain was to criticize America’s military bases all over the world, or spending 10 times as much on defense as the next 10 countries combined: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili.... You make it sound like they merely objected to use of that infrastructure in particular conflicts for fact-specific reasons. That’s not true. Anti-interventionist liberals opposed the idea of using american military power to defend far-away borders, and the imperialism and military apparatus required to underwrite that commitment. > Funny how this "anti-interventionism" only applies to defending democracies against Russian aggression, but not to inserting troops into cities to confront protesters or threatening military action against political opponents. Shutting down riots is good for the vast majority of americans. Defending far away borders isn’t. The logic is simple.

DrNosferatu 2y ago
Anti-interventionist Democrats criticized military spending but never advocated abandoning treaty obligations that maintained global stability since WWII. (or you would prefer that the US hadn’t even joined the Allies in WWII?) There's a profound difference between questioning military budgets and actively undermining alliances while praising dictators. Your characterization whitewashes the specific nature of Trump's positions, which uniquely align with Russian strategic objectives in ways no previous anti-interventionist movement ever did. As for "shutting down riots is good for the vast majority of Americans" while "defending far away borders isn't"—that's revealing. Democracy only matters within arbitrary geographic boundaries? The same argument justified ignoring Hitler's early aggressions. Strange how this selective "anti-interventionism" consistently benefits one specific foreign power while dismissing democratic values as irrelevant beyond US borders. But I understand—principles are flexible when they're just convenient vehicles for power rather than actual beliefs.
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    Your "yes, obviously!" response is refreshingly honest. At least you admit moral values are irrelevant to your worldview—just raw power and self-interest matter. This isn't the anti-interventionism of principled peace activists; it's naked realpolitik stripped of ethical pretense. I opposed the Iraq War too—the difference is I don't use it to justify abandoning democracies facing genuine aggression. Opposing misguided interventions doesn't require embracing callous isolationism. Strange how your selective anti-interventionism consistently aligns with Russian strategic objectives while claiming to represent American interests. You've moved from opposing specific military actions to dismissing the entire concept of international solidarity. The line between principled non-intervention and moral abdication isn't that difficult to see—unless you're deliberately looking away.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      > This isn't the anti-interventionism of principled peace activists; it's naked realpolitik stripped of ethical pretense. Yes, because ethics is a terrible basis for foreign policy. Who made you the god of what’s right and wrong, moral and immoral? The ideological nutjobs are worse for the world than the self interested dictators. > Opposing misguided interventions doesn't require embracing callous isolationism. The problem is interventionism itself. You’re arrogantly presupposing you understand the world well enough to intervene in the fate of foreign people. It’s the classic liberal conceit. > Strange how your selective anti-interventionism consistently aligns with Russian strategic objectives while claiming to represent American interests. It’s not just Russians: most of the world would prefer the U.S. to simply leave it alone. That’s why BRICS is a thing. And the anti-interventionists finally have a majority of Americans opposed to spending American lives defending the borders of countries they couldn’t find on a map. The american people and third worlders have common cause in opposing the liberal internationalists.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

Anti-interventionist Democrats criticized military spending but never advocated abandoning treaty obligations that maintained global stability since WWII. (or you would prefer that the US hadn’t even joined the Allies in WWII?) There's a profound difference between questioning military budgets and actively undermining alliances while praising dictators. Your characterization whitewashes the specific nature of Trump's positions, which uniquely align with Russian strategic objectives in ways no previous anti-interventionist movement ever did. As for "shutting down riots is good for the vast majority of Americans" while "defending far away borders isn't"—that's revealing. Democracy only matters within arbitrary geographic boundaries? The same argument justified ignoring Hitler's early aggressions. Strange how this selective "anti-interventionism" consistently benefits one specific foreign power while dismissing democratic values as irrelevant beyond US borders. But I understand—principles are flexible when they're just convenient vehicles for power rather than actual beliefs.

rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  Your "yes, obviously!" response is refreshingly honest. At least you admit moral values are irrelevant to your worldview—just raw power and self-interest matter. This isn't the anti-interventionism of principled peace activists; it's naked realpolitik stripped of ethical pretense. I opposed the Iraq War too—the difference is I don't use it to justify abandoning democracies facing genuine aggression. Opposing misguided interventions doesn't require embracing callous isolationism. Strange how your selective anti-interventionism consistently aligns with Russian strategic objectives while claiming to represent American interests. You've moved from opposing specific military actions to dismissing the entire concept of international solidarity. The line between principled non-intervention and moral abdication isn't that difficult to see—unless you're deliberately looking away.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > This isn't the anti-interventionism of principled peace activists; it's naked realpolitik stripped of ethical pretense. Yes, because ethics is a terrible basis for foreign policy. Who made you the god of what’s right and wrong, moral and immoral? The ideological nutjobs are worse for the world than the self interested dictators. > Opposing misguided interventions doesn't require embracing callous isolationism. The problem is interventionism itself. You’re arrogantly presupposing you understand the world well enough to intervene in the fate of foreign people. It’s the classic liberal conceit. > Strange how your selective anti-interventionism consistently aligns with Russian strategic objectives while claiming to represent American interests. It’s not just Russians: most of the world would prefer the U.S. to simply leave it alone. That’s why BRICS is a thing. And the anti-interventionists finally have a majority of Americans opposed to spending American lives defending the borders of countries they couldn’t find on a map. The american people and third worlders have common cause in opposing the liberal internationalists.