I too, tend to be an interventionist. I have a post coming up about how I used to be a neocon, and what opened my eyes about that. Although an interventionist is not necessarily a neocon, I'll add in some material on interventionism, as well.
Back in the days when I went to school I was also a neocon and a burning supporter of the war in Iraq although I'm from a country that was only involved in Afghanistan and not Iraq. But in 2008, a year before I joined the Navy, my opinion changed dramatically due to Ron Paul. So I skipped the opportunity to go pirate hunting in Somalia and stayed home.
Although there are some situations where intervention is warranted, the corruption of the politicians means that interventions are based on what benefits the politicians, not what benefits the country doing the intervention.
Even if we were going to argue about the pure morality of any given intervention, there would be "right" versus "right" arguments; lets say the r2p folks arguing to protect a society against it's dictator versus the people's right (of the intervening country) to decide IF,where,and how to go to war...
and like I noted, that is all moot since the corruption of the politicians means the arguments they make on moral or legal issues are based on their self-interest, and their use of moral arguments is usually based on lies
That's exactly right. I think a scenario like the Korean War could be a background for a reasonable intervention although the division of Korea was already a huge mistake. But most interventions are unwanted by the people they pretend to liberate and also unwanted by those who send their children to the battlefield.
I really like the Prager U Youtube Channel. The only topic I disagree with them is war. They are too much interventionists for me.
I too, tend to be an interventionist. I have a post coming up about how I used to be a neocon, and what opened my eyes about that. Although an interventionist is not necessarily a neocon, I'll add in some material on interventionism, as well.
Back in the days when I went to school I was also a neocon and a burning supporter of the war in Iraq although I'm from a country that was only involved in Afghanistan and not Iraq. But in 2008, a year before I joined the Navy, my opinion changed dramatically due to Ron Paul. So I skipped the opportunity to go pirate hunting in Somalia and stayed home.
Although there are some situations where intervention is warranted, the corruption of the politicians means that interventions are based on what benefits the politicians, not what benefits the country doing the intervention.
Even if we were going to argue about the pure morality of any given intervention, there would be "right" versus "right" arguments; lets say the r2p folks arguing to protect a society against it's dictator versus the people's right (of the intervening country) to decide IF,where,and how to go to war...
and like I noted, that is all moot since the corruption of the politicians means the arguments they make on moral or legal issues are based on their self-interest, and their use of moral arguments is usually based on lies
That's exactly right. I think a scenario like the Korean War could be a background for a reasonable intervention although the division of Korea was already a huge mistake. But most interventions are unwanted by the people they pretend to liberate and also unwanted by those who send their children to the battlefield.