4 ms·

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

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.

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.