2 ms·

Anti-interventionist Democrats criticized military spending but never advocated abandoning treaty obligations that maintained global stability since WWII. (or

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.
    - notahacker 2y ago
      > 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. Nope, they've got a leader who is obsessed with the idea of turning Gaza, Panama and Greenland into American colonies and making agreements with Russia on the future of Ukraine. Pretty much every other leader manages a less interventionist first few weeks than that... If there were prizes handed out for intellectual dishonesty arguing that the people who don't think that ethnically cleansing Gaza to build casinos there is a route to peace in the Middle East are the ones who are arrogantly presupposing they understand the world well enough to intervene in the fates of foreign people would be a surefire winner.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  > > Democracy only matters within arbitrary geographic boundaries? > Yes, obviously! How other people run their countries is none of America's business. E.g. as long as Syria was keeping Muslim terrorists from attacking America, it was irrelevant to America how many of his own people he killed. Where do you think the Syrian's that don't want to die go? This question applies to other countries as well such as say Mexico. The world is very connected and ignoring that fact will just leave with you ton of problems. Say at the southern border ...
- dang 2y ago
  > For god's sake read another book. > you're beyond helping Please don't get on the wrong side of the guidelines like this. I realize these are high-energy topics but this is important. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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.
  - notahacker 2y ago
    > 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. Nope, they've got a leader who is obsessed with the idea of turning Gaza, Panama and Greenland into American colonies and making agreements with Russia on the future of Ukraine. Pretty much every other leader manages a less interventionist first few weeks than that... If there were prizes handed out for intellectual dishonesty arguing that the people who don't think that ethnically cleansing Gaza to build casinos there is a route to peace in the Middle East are the ones who are arrogantly presupposing they understand the world well enough to intervene in the fates of foreign people would be a surefire winner.
lesuorac 2y ago
> > Democracy only matters within arbitrary geographic boundaries? > Yes, obviously! How other people run their countries is none of America's business. E.g. as long as Syria was keeping Muslim terrorists from attacking America, it was irrelevant to America how many of his own people he killed. Where do you think the Syrian's that don't want to die go? This question applies to other countries as well such as say Mexico. The world is very connected and ignoring that fact will just leave with you ton of problems. Say at the southern border ...
dang 2y ago
> For god's sake read another book. > you're beyond helping Please don't get on the wrong side of the guidelines like this. I realize these are high-energy topics but this is important. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html