The thought is not that the base prevents them, but the idea that if they were to use aggression against that place, that that base is designed to say, “you want to attack this place then you’ll have to deal with the U.S. too.”
It is indeed a load of crap, but it’s a serious situation nonetheless.
it still seems like it’s endorsing military imperialism to say that we could not risk ending military imperialism.
these agreements usa has are binding, and the thought of binding contracts seems a bit illegitmate.
Well, if, say, Ron Paul was to get in the Oval Office, he could declare those contracts invalid due to the fact that they were signed by a representative of the military industrial complex. That might work…right?
It is difficult to see what business the USA has determining the victor in a conflict between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, or between the People’s Repubic of China and the Republic of China. If the PRC restarts its war with the RoC or vice versa that would seem to be nobody’s business but the Chinese’.
What a collectivist thing to say. I guess it would seem that if your Chinese neighbor is raping your other Chinese neighbor, then it’s nobody’s business but the Chinese.
If the US government has no business determining the victor between those states, it has nothing to do with not being Chinese or not a neighbor - at least for a libertarian.
Are you guessing or insinuating? Actually the point is the PRC and the RoC both claim to be the only legimitate government of both the island of Taiwan and mainland China. That being the case if either of them attacks the other then what follows is not an international conflict as I suspect someone talking about “China invading Taiwan” would probably be under the impression of, but a state of civil war in China. Now I lean to the position any civil wars in China should be left to the Chinese, a position I believe a conservative from the States ignorant of (and therefore probably largely dissinterested in) world affairs could be esspecially prone to come to sympathize with. OP asked for arguments which could help wean a pro-empire figure in his life from interventionist positions did he not?
To borrow from you, if you meant to be clear, you should have added in “nobody’s business but the Chinese governments’.”
Regardless, the OP asked for good arguments against US imperialism for a conservative, and the last thing that’s going to convince a conservative of that is “We should just let them kill each other”.
Actually I wouldn’t be so sure of that, but besides that is not my argument is it? I am talking about standing, legal and moral. It should be clear particularly to a state-sovereignty conservative (as opposed to a liberal internationalist) a foreign power has very little to intervene in a civil war in another state, between a foreign people. It is ultimately the Chinese who are going to be ruled by the PRC or the RoC so ideally it is they who should be making the decision which one shall it be, no?
I don’t see how would that be clearer, or less objectionable to you. And it’s certainly not what I meant. Your whole point was I was too restrictive in who can have a say, was it not? So how is limiting who has a legimitate say further, less unattractive to you?
Then my original criticism stands.
I don’t know what “civil war” means to you, but as I understand it, it means that the inhabitants are killing each other, typically for power, but they are killing each other nonetheless. To say that no one ought to intefere to help stop the aggressors is equivalent to stating that they ought to be left alone so that they may kill each other.
I don’t think that the US ought to be invading other places in the world and murdering nonaggressors, but I don’t see how that belief must lead to me believe that it is wrong per se to interfere. There are only two reasons I consider interference to be wrong:
So long as the state does not engage in aggression, then they can interfere and give aid. However, as FlyingAxe pointed out in another thread, they are still guilty of theft in order to fund their interference. But the two crimes are not related. If a group violates neither of those two rules, then I don’t see why it must necessarily be left up to the Chinese people alone. If they accept aid, then it’s not wrong, just as a rape victim would accept aid in order to end the rape.
In other words your critique consists of a nitpicking objection against my saying ‘nobody business but the Chinese’ even though it was a playful paraphrase of a line from a novelty song. Even though it was made in the context of a prompt to come up with an argument useful to pass on to a person who in all likelihood can not even concieve of an individualist intervention. I did not know that when aiming to dissuade collectivists (conservatives) from supporting imperialism it was a requirement to also make certain your wordding does not offend doctrinaire individualists?
I am giving an effective common-sense, down-to-Eart argument about a real world stand off and you are going off about neat little categories like “help stop the aggressors”, and “interference per se”. Know what, when making an argument to a conservative about the undesirability of American imperialists’ involvement in a potential war between the two Chinas I find it a little superflous to also make sure I also emphasise there is nothing wrong with “intervention per se” for example if carried out by Mother Theresa and the Seven Dwarfs. Nor do I believe the record of American imperialists is such they would be well equipped to determine who, in a potential war between the two Chinas, is the greater aggressor. In fact I do not believe any foreigner would be well equipped to make that call, but for a very few individual exceptions so as to make that not worth expending the energy to get into, particularly when tailoring your argument for style, collectivist audience and effectivness.
Oh please. Saying foreigners should aim to stay out is the equivalent of saying foreigners don’t know crap about China and therefore should be reluctant rather than eager to proclaim for the one side or the other as the relative lesser aggressor or even a generally virtuous actor. It is the equivalent of saying foreigners will not live with the consequences of either being wrong or right in their judgement and should think twice before they in their ignorance cause an outcome of the civil war that proves more tragic and aggression-laden for the Chinese than the alternative might have.
Hold the phone! You don’t like nitpicking objections?
I see no reason why a conservative could not understand that interfering by bombing innocent civilians is a bad thing, seeing as one of their claims for invading and installing democracies is for the “benefit” of the citizens there. Some benefit if you murder them and destroy their homes in the process.
Anyway, it’s interesting that you nitpick my choice of words here, considering that I am discussing this with you and not a conservative.
Oh please. Not this “I won’t stop my neighbor from murdering his wife” thing again. I don’t see why the US should help either governments in the event of a conflict between PROC and ROC. Both will murder innocents and destroy their homes. If anybody were to intervene, it should be on behalf of the people being murdered. To say otherwise is to say “I think it’s wrong to stop my neighbor from murdering his wife, as I don’t have to live the consequences”. If the victims in the (hypothetical) conflict between PROC and ROC don’t want foreigners to come to their aid, then so be it. But for you to say that it is wrong, what business do you have saying that?
gotlucky, what do you want from me?
Nothing. I’ve made my points.