Should we Intervene in Venezuela - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should we Intervene in Venezuela
in Politics

By billbatardbillbatard 127 Pts
I say its tempting, intervention to promote democracy is a good motive. However the road to hell its paved with good intent . We for a century now have seen our good intentions become mountains of corpses? What do we do?
George_HorseZombieguy1987Random_Person3663
The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Diplomatically or economically, sure why not... But sending troops would be a mistake, again...
    Zombieguy1987ZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    One of the necessary conditions for a military intervention to lead to a positive outcome is the willingness of the people to work together with the occupants towards rebuilding the country in a better image.

    As far as I know, currently Venezuelans almost unanimously oppose the current regime, and the government is only holding its power by heavily employing the military. In addition, the people there, unlike, say, in Iraq or Afghanistan, have not been subjected to centuries of totalitarian conditioning, and the current regime is less than a generation old.

    I think the intervention would work out well for the people of Venezuela. It is another matter than Venezuela is such an insignificant chunk of land that the US barely has anything to gain from Maduro's regime falling. I do not think the money investment into the operation will be covered by the consequential gains.
    Random_Person3663
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Are you suggesting that if there were somehow a financial gain for the US, then it would be justified to send troops to Venezuela?!?!?! I can't even think of where to start deconstructing the multilayered wrongness in that argument. It's saturated in wrongness. The stench of wrongness in that argument could make a Calcuttan ambulance driver sick!!!


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    @piloteer

    I made absolutely no moral judgement in that regard. I simply mentioned it to illustrate that I do not believe the US government will actually do anything like this.

    But if it is the people of Venezuela that our government cared for (it does not), then such an intervention would probably occur. Of course, why the government should serve the interests of Venezuelans over ours would be a very valid question then, but that is beside the point.
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Oh, ok. Sorry for the misinterpretation on my part.
  • billbatardbillbatard 127 Pts
    @MayCaesar it is tempting but is it another vietnam than?
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • DeeDee 652 Pts
    Why not intervene in North Korea or any of the other hell holes worldwide where humans suffer untold miseries , governments mostly take to social media to finger wag and condem practices in these hell holes of countries. One only has to look at a country like Saudi Arabia which is incredibly wealthy but is ruled with a fist of iron under Sharia law , my own country like many others trades with this oil rich hole and refused to condem it’s barbaric treatment of mostly women who disobey it’s Bronze Age belief system all because trade comes first.

    Governments worldwide pick and choose which country to condem and support all based mainly on self interests and nothing else
  • I believe we should. I kind of think of this like the Vietnam War, why involve yourself in a situation you don't belong in? But then again, it would be beneficial that Maduro be removed from power. Let us NOT be direct, but like in the old days, fund rebel groups with sufficient supplies (guns, etc), so that they may overthrow the regime. That would be the best course of action, if it worked in Cuba, if it worked in Afghanistan in the 1980s, then it could most likely work in Venezuela. And I laugh over and over at those who support this terribly flawed economic system, its terrible to see those poor Venezuelans fight for their lives, to literally LOOK through trash bins to find whatever they can eat.
    piloteerZombieguy1987Polaris95
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    edited May 2
    @Dee

    One consideration is that it is impossible to intervene everywhere where humans suffer. We cannot wage a holy war to liberate billions people worldwide, because our resources are limited, and our voters will not stand up for the enormous expenses required for it. 
    No matter how noble the intentions are, we do not work hard day and night to fund liberation of others. We work hard day and night to improve our own lives. And intervening in other countries' matters should only go as far as it, in some way, makes our lives better in the long run, in my opinion.

    Another consideration is that there is a very loose correlation between people suffering in any given country, and that country negatively affecting the rest of the world. For example, people in Saudi Arabia suffer a great deal, but Saudi Arabia barely does anything outside the Middle East, and its people's problems are mostly self-contained. Same goes for North Korea and, I believe, Venezuela.
    Something like Russia, Syria or Iran are a different matter, as these states disrupt peace in dozens nations worldwide and significantly affect the international economy. 

    Finally, some nations are simply easier to liberate than others. In this regard, Venezuela should be a relatively easy picking. As would Cuba. But North Korea, Iran, Russia or Saudi Arabia? Those would be extremely bloody and costly wars.

    At the very least, we could stop justifying those regimes and ideologies in our public discourse. No, Cuba does not have a "good healthcare". No, pointing out that Islamic countries oppress women is not being "Islamophobic". No, the problems in Africa are not because of evil colonists. No, Russians are not better off for securing their "independence" from Western investors.
    Ilhan Omar claims that the US is directly responsible for the state of Venezuelan economy. When prominent politicians make such claims, to their voters' applause, then the discussion is too far away from even starting to address the issue.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    It wouldn't be a good idea to get too involved.  Venezuela has always ranked towards the bottom of the Corruption Perception Index; 44 out of 52 in 1997, 81 out of 102 in 2002, 162 out of 179 in 2007, 165 out of 174 in 2012, 169 out of 180 in 2017.  They rank even worse on the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index. Corruption appears to be an inherent problem in Venezuelan society. I suspect it might devolve into something more like Libya after the death of Qaddafi, with drug gangs taking the place of Islamic warlords.
    piloteer
  • billbatardbillbatard 127 Pts
    @Dee its a tough call i agree for the reasons you state, but does that mean we always do nothing?
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • DeeDee 652 Pts

    @MayCaesar

    You say .....At the very least, we could stop justifying those regimes and ideologies in our public discourse. No, Cuba does not have a "good healthcare". No, pointing out that Islamic countries oppress women is not being "Islamophobic". No, the problems in Africa are not because of evil colonists. No, Russians are not better off for securing their "independence" from Western investors.
    Ilhan Omar claims that the US is directly responsible for the state of Venezuelan economy. When prominent politicians make such claims, to their voters' applause, then the discussion is too far away from even starting to address the issue.

    My reply .....I totally agree , I detest that term Islamaphobe as it’s normally used to shut down discussion before it starts.

    Politicians are the ones who can speak out but wont preferring to tip toe around and rarely condemning  brutality, victimization, and oppression where it’s blatantly obvious in many cases that it’s taking place on a large scale.

    Politicians do us all a disservice by this totally dishonest practice of blaming everyone and anything for the problems in countries like the examples you gave , it’s truly appalling 
    MayCaesar
  • DeeDee 652 Pts
    @billbatard


    It’s a good question and really hard to answer as I guess each one will have a different answer as to who’s suffering deserves our help , for me I cannot believe that we let a country like North Korea persist in its present form where entire families  are routinely sent off to correction camps and where famine is commonplace and hunger a constant worry.

    There are many equally deplorable countries worldwide and the suffering of ordinary citizens is still sufffering no matter the country or politics .

    Where would you intervene if you had the power?
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @George_Horse

    If American taxpayers are expected to fund and possibly be drafted into wars to ensure the "freedom" of other countries, then we cannot consider ourselves free!!! If the people of Venezuela cannot fight for, and obtain freedom, then they do not deserve freedom!!!
    Zombieguy1987George_HorsePolaris95
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @piloteer
     
    Wouldn't your comment be more specific, if your comment read more like this?:

    (If some, American taxpayers are expected to fund and possibly be drafted into wars to ensure the "freedom" of other countries, then we cannot consider ourselves free!!! If the people of Venezuela cannot fight for, and obtain freedom, t"hen they do not deserve freedom!)

    I expressed the above, being that you do speak for me, but yourself, right?

    Because it would appear that you maybe speaking in general terms?

    "Definition of generally speaking. —used to say that a statement describes ageneral feeling or opinion relating to or affecting all the people or things in a group Generally speaking, people like her as a leader."

    Thus, the POTUS, is the Commander In Chief, so if he decided to send some troops to Venezuela, then so be it, he can do that.

    "If American taxpayers are expected to fund and possibly be drafted into wars to ensure the "freedom" of other countries, then we cannot consider ourselves free!!! If the people of Venezuela cannot fight for, and obtain freedom, then they do not deserve freedom!!!"
  • piloteer said:
    @George_Horse

    If American taxpayers are expected to fund and possibly be drafted into wars to ensure the "freedom" of other countries, then we cannot consider ourselves free!!! If the people of Venezuela cannot fight for, and obtain freedom, then they do not deserve freedom!!!
    So essentially you're saying they DESERVE socialism? 
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    edited May 4
    @George_Horse

    Not essentially!! I'm absolutely saying that 
    George_Horse
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @TKDB

    Not exactly sure what you're trying to say. The changes you've made to my comment would not make it more specific, it would do the opposite. The President does not have total control of the choice to send troops to foreign countries. Congress can withhold funding from any military strike. The funding that I'm talking about is paid by ALL American taxpayers, not some!
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    @piloteer

    As Milton Friedman said, "Nobody deserves anything". It does not mean that we cannot help people achieve their goals when they cannot achieve it on their own, however. Especially when doing so helps us acquire new political allies and economical partners - then I can see the taxpayer's money investment into the occupational war as reasonable.

    Occupying Japan and establishing democracy there was very costly for the American economy, but the investment more than paid off over time. Every time we drive shiny Japanese cars, we do so because 70+ years ago we invested into the country properly.

    I agree that we cannot consider ourselves free when our tax money is used to fund foreign wars, but then I do not think we can consider ourselves free when our money is taken away by the government in the first place. I do not think our degree of freedom drops significantly simply because the money the government has already taken away from us is used to help other people, rather than us, in the short run.
    piloteer
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    edited May 5
    @piloteer

    The POTUS is the Commander in Chief, and if he may want to send some of the US troops, here or there or to wherever, the US troops are going to go to wherever, because that's their job, to do so, being that they individually volunteered to be a member of the U.S. military.

    "If American taxpayers are expected to fund and possibly be drafted into wars to ensure the "freedom" of other countries, then we cannot consider ourselves free!"

    And the above statement, is of your own creation, and I'm guessing, that some of the 325 million U.S. citizens, don't have a problem, or an issue with their taxpayer dollars, being used to fund the U.S. military, as you alone maybe have a problem, or an issue with how your taxpayer dollars, might be used to fund the US military?

    And I'm guessing as well, that a draft of sorts, would not be a part of the U.S. militaries plans.

    1 out of 150 citizens, volunteer, to join the U.S. military, of their own free will.

    https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military

    "The United States ended the draft for military service in 1973, transitioning to the all-volunteer force that exists today. At the time, the active component of the military comprised 2.2 million men and women. Now, this group comprises just under 1.29 million, or less than 0.5 percent of the U.S. population. Who are they? Where are they from? How diverse are they? Let’s dive into the demographics."

    Active Duty Personnel 

    "Not exactly sure what you're trying to say. The changes you've made to my comment would not make it more specific, it would do the opposite. The President does not have total control of the choice to send troops to foreign countries. Congress can withhold funding from any military strike. The funding that I'm talking about is paid by ALL American taxpayers, not some!"
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    The country of Japan declared war on the United States. That's an obvious fundamental difference between your argument and mine. The military effort to try and stop Japan was not an effort to bring freedom to Japan simply for the sake of bringing freedom to another country. It was an effort to try and stop an enemy who was willing for every last Japanese citizen to die for the sake of the honor of Japan. In the end, the only way the US was able to stop them was by proving to them that the possibility of every Japanese citizen dying, was actually possible. Even when Emperor Hirohito decided to surrender, members of the Japanese hierarchy tried to stage a coup and kill the emperor in the hopes that they could go forward with their plans for every last citizen to die for the honor of Japan. That's an obvious far cry from Venezuela and the non-threat they pose to the United States, or any other nation.

    Your argument that we are essentially not free because our government takes taxes from us anyway is flawed on a multi-layered and in a multi-angled manner. You're using a radical point of view, and stretching it almost to the point of irrationality, to make your point. Then you attempt to rationalize your point by arguing that since we're not free because of taxation, it shouldn't matter how our tax money is spent anyway!?!?!?!?!?!?

     First off, just because our government taxes us, it doesn't mean we are not free. All countries need taxes to maintain their ability to be a sovereign nation. We are however, free to vote for people who will represent our feelings on how our tax dollars should and can be spent. We are also free to vote for people who will represent our feelings on how much of our money can be taxed. Other countries do not even allow the simple common courtesy of letting the budget be determined by the people. We (the US) do!!!

    Secondly, it absolutely does matter how our tax dollars are spent, especially if the manner they're being spent in, opens the possibility of us needing to be drafted into military action. If our taxes are being spent on aiding other people, whether they live in the United States or not, it will probably annoy me, but if our tax dollars are being spent on the type of "aid" that requires people to die, including myself, then I will be far more than annoyed. I'll be outraged and appalled. Acquiring new political allies and economic partners does not require military action, it requires diplomatic relations.

    Mr Friedman was correct, nobody deserves anything. Everything must be earned, including sovereignty. The first step in earning sovereignty, whether it be individual, or national, is by standing up for what's yours. In this case, my tax dollars are mine, and I don't want them to be spent on unnecessary military actions. 
     
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @TKDB

    My apologies. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here with that chart. I most certainly do have a problem with funding the military because it is NOT a job, it's an overglorified welfare scheme. If the United States is threatened by another country, the people of the United States should fight willingly to guard it, they should not expect compensation for it. The military should not be a career path, it should be willingly used by willing citizens only when it's needed. If you're trying to argue that I should feel obliged to financial compensation for the people who are "employed" by the military, I'm the absolute last person on this site who will buy that argument.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    @piloteer

    Japan only attacked the US directly once, when its flyers bombed Perl Harbor. Since then, Japan never threatened the US territory, and by 1945 it was too beaten to be able to attack the US in a meaningful way in any foreseeable future. Nevertheless, immense resources were invested into first occupying it, and then establishing democracy there. Why? Because the well-being of Japan ultimately would benefit the US and the rest of the developed world.
    The well-being of Venezuela would benefit the US as well. Maybe not to such an extent as that of Japan, but nonetheless.

    I do not think you understood my argument with regards to the taxation. My point was that the act of the government taking your money by force constituted taking away your freedom - you can argue however much you want that the tax system is necessary, but that does not refute this point in any way: just because violation of freedom is allegedly necessary, it is still violation of freedom.
    However, once your money has been taken away, unless it is used in a way that directly harms you, your freedom does not depend on how the government uses it. If the government invests the money into a war on the foreign soil, that act of investment does not affect you immediately in any way, hence it has nothing to do with your freedom. If you are drafted into the military, then it is another matter, but drafting civilians against their will has been a thing of the past for a few decades now in the US in any case.

    You are arguing from the point of your personal morals and political vision; I am arguing from the point of definitions.
  • piloteer said:
    @George_Horse

    Not essentially!! I'm absolutely saying that 
    Then maybe it would be ok for you, if you were a Venezuelan, to see your mother starving, and fellow Venezuelans looking through DUMPSTERS and garbage bins to find something to eat. You sick sob.
    piloteer
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    I knew a female member of the opposition from Venezuela who became disabled as a result of being beaten down by Chavez' police during a peaceful demonstration. She tried her best to change the system for the better, and still got the short end of the stick.

    The notion that all individuals in a nation are somehow collectively responsible for its state is very strange. Every nation consists of an enormous number of individuals, many of which may oppose the current system very strongly, and putting them all in one basket is not reasonable.
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    edited May 5
    @George_Horse

    Maybe A&E can put those people on a tv show so my family can at least be entertained by their suffering. That way their lives will at least have some worth. Entertainment value!!! If you wanna save the world, do it on your own dime.
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    If the U.S. had just dropped their weapons in 1945, and left Japan to their own devices, Japan  could have still waged war. The U.S. did not know if Japan wasn't trying to build a nuclear weapon. The U.S. was just assuming that Germany, Japan, or Italy was actively seeking to build nuclear weapons. To ensure the safety of the U.S., we needed to make sure Japan was absolutely incapable of waging war. There's still a blatant and obvious difference between the circumstances preceding WW2, and Venezuela today. Venezuela represents no threat to U.S., or any country whatsoever. Venezuela is no kind of nuclear threat. I still don't see any similarities between Venezuela in 2019, and Japan in the 30s and 40s. I also fail to see exactly what about Venezuela's supposed freedom will benefit the U.S.

    Your argument about how taxation renders us unfree is still incomplete. If we were held against our will to pay those taxes, you'd have a good case, but we're not. We are free to leave a country that we consider to economically intrusive and go to other countries with less, or no taxation. Furthermore, we are free to leave society altogether. There still exists places on this earth where one can go to be truly alone. We are free!!

    Yes, how my tax dollars are spent does matter. I am a voter, and I vote accordingly. If I find it wasteful, or potentially harmful or destructive, I vote in a manner that stops that kind of spending. Remember, so far, the U.S. still let's the public decide on how our tax dollars are spent, and your argument that military intervention is a public "investment" is falling flat on its face. If you could show us any evidence of any kind of payouts from these military "investments" since WW2, other than how it supposedly makes those countries better off, that would be nice (remember, I've schooled you on this subject before, and you've yet to respond to my argument). As far as I'm concerned, those "investments" have yet to render any returns, and are still costing the US money, and these actions usually cause big messes that require more public funding to try and litigate the damage they cause. Please demonstrate the return on investment the U.S. had received from the Korean war, the Vietnam war, our involvement in Greece, our involvement in Cuba, the Russian Afghanistan war, our involvement in Cambodia, in Iran, the Iran-Iraqi war. How have any of those "investments" been beneficial for the US? I guess you can also prove, without any shadow of a doubt, that the draft act won't ever be reversed and reinstated?!?!

    Arguing that my arguments are based on my moral or political vision is a meaningless argument without merit. Yes, I am arguing from my political and moral point of view, if you can demonstrate how that renders my arguments illogical, or unreasonable, kudos to you. While your at it, perhaps you should also demonstrate how you yourself are not arguing from your personal moral or political vision. Exactly what definitions are you arguing from?



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    edited May 6
    @piloteer

    So you claim that the government taxing us does not limit our freedom, because at any point we can opt out and leave the country. If that is your definition of freedom, then why do you call you being drafted and sent into a hot zone a violation of your freedom? Just as much, you can opt out and leave the country, and never be drafted by the government and sent anywhere.

    In addition, from your definition it follows that absolutely everyone is free. A slave on a boat heading towards the American colonies was free, because he/she could attempt to flee, build a boat and cross the ocean back to Africa. A North Korean led towards executioners is free because he/she can fight back, run away and escape the country.

    I am not saying that you are wrong as far as this argument goes, but is this truly your definition of freedom, or are you just trying to save a collapsing argument by any means necessary?

    As far as Japan goes, the US could just invade it, raze everything and leave, rendering Japan incapable of waging any wars for decades to come. There was no military need to stay and invest vast amounts of resources into building democracy in Japan. The need there was economical, political and humanitarian, not military.
    For the same reason the US invested heavily into South Korea, West Germany, Chile, Israel and so on. None of these countries posed any threat to it, and all of these countries were actually very friendly towards the US. The investment had long-term return in mind, and I fail to see why Venezuela, a country full of natural resources and talented people, would be different.
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Is the idea of countries being "very friendly towards the US" really the mark of a good "return" on a military "investment". I always thought that when someone invests money, they would hope to get back what they invested and then some, not just good vibes from other people. If that is people's idea of a job well done when it comes to military interventions, I think I'd rather keep the taxes spent on that and buy some scratch tickets instead. I'd definitely have a better chance of getting an actual return on my investment. Those good vibes seem far to expensive for my blood, and I think I can get by just fine without the good vibrations. And remember, those are the military actions that went well. What about the ones that went nightmarishly sideways? You know, all the other ones I mentioned earlier which you curiously haven't mentioned.

     As far as any military involvement in Chile goes, there's no hard evidence that the US was involved in the 1973 coup. In fact, the 1975 church committee report explicitly states that the CIA was not directly involved in the coup, all that could be attributed to the CIA was intelligence that was given to the perpetrators of the coup. Phone conversations between Nixon and Kissinger also confirm that the US was not involved in the coup. Furthermore, the people of Chile always suspected that the US was involved because of a botched kidnapping attempt on a Chilean military general which ended in murder in 1970, which was planned and paid for by the CIA. Because of the bad sentiments of the Chilean public toward the US, it's hard to argue that US intervention in Chilean politics was a worthwhile endeavor, and nobody their really has any warm and cozy feelings for the US. In the end, we were lucky nobody ever retaliated for what the US did in Chile. Although, technically somebody did retaliate. The weather underground bombed ITT's headquarters in New York city for their involvement in Chilean politics.

    What seems to be missing from your argument is any hard justification for any military interventions. If your argument is going to solely be based on the idea that the US made the lives of the citizens of these countries better, I will challenge that idea in every instance, because it's plain and simply untrue. But even if it were true, one question still remains. Who cares about those people's political comfort? Why would I not be better off if I were allowed to keep the taxes that go toward other countries help? Are we going to get any solid statistics from you about any proper returns on US military investments (I'm not concerned about good feelings for the US, I want cold hard cash)?
  • If the Regime takes another step down the long path to murdering its own citizens, then we have an ethical duty 
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • billbatardbillbatard 127 Pts
    south central @Dee
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • I'm not sure. I am willing to learn more, though.
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 469 Pts
    @AmericanFurryBoy seriously? Do you know how many countries in the world are filled with humanitarian crisis? If we have an ethical duty we would have troops all across Africa, South America, middle East, and in parts of South East Asia.

    I'm so sick of sending American lives and tax money abroad for practically no real reason. Exactly what effect will ousting Maduro have on America? What we get easier access to their oil or push Russian influence farther away? One of the things I liked about Trump's "America first" was that he wasn't going to get involved in foreign conflicts that have little impact on us, although I guess he hasn't really changed the status quo in that regard yet. With John Bolton in the white House i wouldn't be surprised if their is military action, he's been calling for an invasion of Venezuela for a decade.

    I'm sick of these pointless, never ending conflicts. Not a single day of my life has the US not been involved in a military conflict. That's insane. Send guns, send said, send support, just got the love of God don't send anymore troops.
    piloteer
  • @WordsMatter
    Good point
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    @piloteer

    No, my argument is complex, accounting for all the positives. Generally it works like this:
    1. We invade, take down an authoritarian regime and occupy the country.
    2. We fund the democratic capitalist reforms.
    3. The growing economy in this now friendly nation starts actively trading with us, producing goods and services we need and selling them to us for favorable prices.
    4. Our return is the proceedings from the trade.
    Both we and the people of the liberated nations benefit from this. This is what is so amazing about liberal democracies: others' well-being is our well-being. It is very different from authoritarian states, that generally thrive at the expense of others.

    As for the other examples that did not go well, the part 2. was missing, or not represented enough, in all of them. Iraq is a good example: part 1. went flawlessly, but part 2. did not really happen, hence instead of parts 3. and 4., we got ISIS. The existence of poorly executed interventions does not mean interventions in general are bad.

    You seem to look at it as a zero-sum game: we fund something, we lose money. But you, as someone who has studied economics thoroughly, should know better than me that rarely, if ever, does a zero-sum game occur.
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    edited May 11
    @MayCaesar

    I've still yet to understand your logic here. You can't really show us any instances when your occupation plan actually went according to plan. Bringing up the Chile incident was kinda like shooting yourself in the foot. That one didn't go well. 

    You've yet to showcase any kind of moral reasoning behind US military interventions. We need a solid dispute to my claim that if we are expected to pay for and possibly be drafted into military interventions, then we ourselves cannot be free. The moral side to your argument is non-existent so far. 

     The US does provide Israel with military aid, but initially the US only provided the  with economic aid, not military aid. The US did not provide any military aid to help establish the nation of Israel. Furthermore, the US didn't militarily intervene in any way to help Israel, so it doesn't really even fit the criteria of a military intervention. A lot of people believe that the US gave Israel nuclear weapons, but that's not actually true. Most of the people who worked on the US nuclear program in WW2 were Jewish, and after the war ended, many of them moved to Israel and were asked by the Israeli government to build a nuclear program for them. This was done without the consent of the US government. Some people cried espionage after that little number, but because of such strong relations between the US and Israel, nothing ever came of it. 

    As far as any economic benefit the US has gained from interventionism, you claim that since the US ends up with a strong economic partnership with the countries we have military actions in, then we gain by opening lines of trade. As I've stated above, you're having much difficulty demonstrating when that has ever actually happened. You mentioned how Japan is an economic power house, but they initiated a war with the US in WW2, so the US needed to respond in kind. That was not the type of military intervention I'm talking about. I'm talking about the type of actions that are done to promote "international democracy". The actions in Chile turned out to be a wash, and you didn't even touch most of the other actions I mentioned earlier. I also fail to follow your logic here, because you're supposed to be demonstrating an economic benefit for the US, not just the benefits to a few US companies. Economic gains for those companies do not add up to a valid economic benefit for the US as a whole, especially when considering that it was the taxpayers who funded these actions, but those companies are somehow not expected to reimburse the taxpayers. Now all we have is a military scheme, paid by American taxpayers for the sake of making  it possible for US companies to do business in countries they would not have been able to with before. The only people really benefiting here are the companies themselves, not the US citizens. One could also argue that this actually hurts American labor because jobs will be sent outside the country. 

    You mentioned the first Iraq war, but it was the US who backed the Iraqi government during the Irag-Iran war, in the hopes that Iraq would topple Iran. We made Iraq the bullish country they were. If we hadn't backed Iraq before, they could have quite possibly lost the war with Iran, and there's no proof Iran would have tried to invade Kuwait. This is an instance where our intervention eventually backfired on us, and we had to try and clean up our mess. The second Iraq war was driven by the idea that Iraq was making WMDs, which turned out to be blatantly false. FAIL!!!! Just as I've pointed out before, many of these military actions actually cause bad headaches for US. You've already mentioned ISIS, would they exist if we didn't invade Iraq? Obviously that's only speculation, but is it an absolute fact that ISIS was created as a result of the second Iraq war. So far, the people of Iraq certainly don't seem to be benefiting from any sort of stability now, and again, American companies are benefiting from that war, but somehow they don't need to pay the American taxpayers back. 

    I thank You for suggesting that I'm well read when it comes to economics, but the truth is, I only vaguely understand the essentials. I know you are very good with mathematics, so economics is actually right in your wheelhouse, not so much mine. But thanks none the less.
  • Polaris95Polaris95 126 Pts
    America has already screwed over South America waaay too many times. As @Plaffelvohfen said, finding a diplomatic solution to the problem would be great. But military intervention? Definitely not. And why should it be the right of the US to police the entire world? That's what the UN's for. The US has no right to bring in troops and "liberate" Venezuela, even if the cause is just.
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    edited May 11
    @George_Horse

    Whoa, what happened there buddy, you couldn't think of a proper rebuttal to my argument so you had to resort to calling my mom a b!tch? Don't worry, nobody's that surprised that once again your words have failed you. Maybe some day you'll think of something.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch