• A US Constitutional Amendment forcing the US military to be strictly defensive in nature
    101 replies, posted
I can see other countries exploiting this and tempting the US into war deliberately. [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34643995]Could you please give us a list of the strong, prosperous nations that have benefited greatly from a staunch policy of non-interventionism?[/QUOTE] switzerland?
The amendment makes it legally impossible for the United States to come to the aid of it's allies unless it's attacked. Which means the NATO alliance is essentially null and void. If, for instance, Russia were to invade Norway sometime after the amendment is implemented, the United States would not be allowed to help the Norwegians unless the Russians land in Anchorage. That's stupid.
We need to preserve first-strike capabilities in the off chance we get 100% concrete proof that someone's gonna launch a nuke at us, we know where the silo is, and we have the capability to put a conventional bomb in the launch tube and take the whole facility out. I do agree that something needs to be done about the world police attitude Congress seems to have, though.
Keep foreign military presence, allow decisive preemptive attacks on enemies we know for sure will hurt us if we don't intervene, support allies indirectly with supplies Foreign bases are advantageous in that they provide quick supportive, defensive, and relief operations. To allied countries, we're showing them that we'll be willing to help them against foreign aggression or in-country disasters like tsunamis, famine, or whatever they need help with. To enemy countries bordering our allies, they'll be far less likely to make the first move towards war with our allies with the threat of us lending a hand to our allies. If another Pearl Harbor were going to happen, and we knew with 95% certainty that it were going to happen, intervening with that operation to save lives would be the only option. We'd keep the preemptive attack as isolated and independent from the rest of the hostilities as possible, trying not to provoke the enemy into escalation. The Lend-Lease act was a beautiful idea that would need reinstating if a policy like the one you're suggesting would be put into place. "Suppose my neighbor's home catches fire, and I have a length of garden hose four or five hundred feet away. If he can take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant, I may help him to put out his fire...I don't say to him before that operation, "Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it."... I don't want $15--I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. " We lend supplies like food, water, guns and ammunition to allies at war willingly and expect little to no profit for it. [sp]Did I get the future perfect tenses right in paragraph 2?[/sp]
[QUOTE=Strongbad;34637757]Yeah this is a terrible idea. A REALLY REALLY terrible idea. How well did isolationism work out for us in WW2?[/QUOTE] Japan did not attack for no reason, I don't know why people assume we were SUPER "isolationists" until Japan came along and was mean for absolutely no reason at all. We did stupid shit too, interfering in a war between China and Japan is not "isolationist"
[QUOTE=s0beit;34645236]Japan did not attack for no reason, I don't know why people assume we were SUPER "isolationists" until Japan came along and was mean for absolutely no reason at all. [B] We did stupid shit too, interfering in a war between China and Japan is not "isolationist"[/B][/QUOTE] You're right, considering what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese it was humanitarian.
[QUOTE=s0beit;34645236]Japan did not attack for no reason, I don't know why people assume we were SUPER "isolationists" until Japan came along and was mean for absolutely no reason at all. We did stupid shit too, interfering in a war between China and Japan is not "isolationist"[/QUOTE] Cutting off oil supplies does not mean we are not isolationist.
How does not invading other countries make us isolationist? Isolationism implies avoiding trade with other nations, and mixing of cultures, like in the Qing Dynasty. If not invading countries is isolationist, most countries in the world are isolationist.
Absolutely. The very first moral principle that should be adopted is the non-aggression principle; and it should be adopted universally. Of course, this is a silly suggestion as far as states are concerned because that would necessarily result in the dissolution of said states. *this is a good thing [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] Saying "only if AMERICA is attacked can we retaliate" is a little arbitrary because it assumes nations are some sort of morally interesting divider of people.
I think there should be some amendments to this amendment. First of all, we should still be able to lend troops to the U.N. Second, we should be able to send troops to help countries under attack. Now I'm not saying only are allies, I mean any country. War is war, we should always try and stop it, and help those who are victims.
So that's basically what the Swiss are doing. Worked good for us so far.
We don't need any amendments, we just need to follow what's been written in the Constitution already: [QUOTE]ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 The Congress shall have Power: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.... [/QUOTE] Unfortunately we haven't declared a war since WWII, and so we can spend as much and hang around forever.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34644520]Costa Rica Iceland Switzerland Sweden [/QUOTE] All of those are nations which many military powers feel no need to invade/Isn't worth invading. Even Hitler didn't bother. No need for them to be involved in military intervention [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=snuwoods;34650574]We don't need any amendments, we just need to follow what's been written in the Constitution already: Unfortunately we haven't declared a war since WWII, and so we can spend as much and hang around forever.[/QUOTE] US founding fathers couldn't predict the future. That document was great on paper and great in action back then. Nowadays because of how much the concept of warfare has advanced that makes the US a sitting duck.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34644520]Because we would not be able to act without an actual action, not a simple "threat". [/QUOTE] the supreme court would probably be all dicky and work around it
[QUOTE=certified;34650991]All of those are nations which many military powers feel no need to invade/Isn't worth invading. Even Hitler didn't bother. No need for them to be involved in military intervention [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] US founding fathers couldn't predict the future. That document was great on paper and great in action back then. Nowadays because of how much the concept of warfare has advanced that makes the US a sitting duck.[/QUOTE] did you call us a sitting duck? we are one of the strongest nations in the world. We are not sitting ducks.
[QUOTE=rosthouse;34650540]So that's basically what the Swiss are doing. Worked good for us so far.[/QUOTE] However, it does cause paranoia. I remember how all the newspapers were freaking out about Gaddaffi attacking us when his son was arrested.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34653373]did you call us a sitting duck? we are one of the strongest nations in the world. We are not sitting ducks.[/QUOTE] He said those rules would make you a sitting duck.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;34653967]He said those rules would make you a sitting duck.[/QUOTE] he said that constitution was outdated and made us sitting ducks. Anyways, how would non-interventionism make us sitting ducks? we still have nuclear warheads, only crazy men would attack us.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34644520]Because we would not be able to act without an actual action, not a simple "threat". [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] Costa Rica Iceland Vatican City (just kidding)[/QUOTE] Iceland doesn't have a military force, they're actually protected by the U.S Army. We have bases and troops stationed there. Their air space is protected by Norway if I remember correctly as well. You're argument only has Costa Rica really going for it. [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34655990]he said that constitution was outdated and made us sitting ducks. Anyways, how would non-interventionism make us sitting ducks? we still have nuclear warheads, only crazy men would attack us.[/QUOTE] There are plenty of men and women crazy enough, they're called religious extremists, everyone hates them, even most Middle Eastern countries.
[QUOTE=The one that is;34656056]Iceland doesn't have a military force, they're actually protected by the U.S Army. We have bases and troops stationed there. Their air space is protected by Norway if I remember correctly as well. You're argument only has Costa Rica really going for it.[/QUOTE] No, what he said still stands. If Iceland has no military, then it is definitively non-interventionist. Unless of course Iceland told the U.S. to invade another country for it. And did you forget the Swiss?
I couldn't possibly agree with this. Consider this - no matter what the politicians believe, they have no power. The military will always conduct operations, public or not. We will ALWAYS be involved in world affairs and imperialism is what boosted America to a great age, which will be an excuse by many to continue imperialism.
I think it's truly short sighted to assume there will never be an imperative pre emptive strike situation for the rest of the future of humanity. Considering things like nuclear proliferation, the fact that instability exists, at all, anywhere, and the idea of rogue nations, the "first strike" against America could also be the last, and certainly the only one necessary to cripple us as a nation. I think a much more suitable compromise would be one that demands the US have congressional approval for any military action, although I still think this isn't a good idea. I must be an outlier, but I believe US foreign policy is utterly integral to stability in many places in the world. If we wanted to change that, and maybe shift the burden onto someone else, that's a totally different discussion. I definitely think the world can't function smoothly without some sort of "international police force", be it the US, or someone else. There are hundreds of nations and no guarantee one of them won't find itself in a position to exploit the world. Be it nuclear arms, blockading a major shipping lane, financing international piracy, etc. It's such a wild card.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;34636134]This would have prevented the Iraq war, but they could still pull shit like Tonkin Gulf. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] Also, what if we're in a situation where we're 100% positive that there will be a huge loss of life, and all we'd have to do to stop it was bomb an air base or something?[/QUOTE] 9/11? e: read that wrong sorry im dumb
isolation, non-interventionism and not invading foreign soil are not in capital's interests. the growth of imperialism (globalization) begets the opening of new markets/industries abroad, for which war's a necessity. there's literally no point in discussing this.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34636052]We wouldn't be dragged into wars by others. The US itself would have to be attacked.[/QUOTE] This would more or less invalidate all your obligations from international treaties as well as undermine your obligations to the UN and a number of other bodies. On top of that it would limit american prevention campaigns as those would probably end up with alternative mission protocols from granting military aid to peacekeeping unit. However much I dislike american world police keeping, they really can't put forward a notion like that and have it be passed without ignoring world politics.
So basically the idea is self defense, but on a military scale? Hmm... not going to work. As a Democracy we don't go around starting wars, granted. But on the other hand we need a damn good reason to go to war. Whatever your views on the military are, the military has their own. Also the US follows more or less their own set of rules. The US follows the "guidelines" of the Geneva Convention, but the US never agreed to it. The US abides by the "guidelines" to keep everyone happy. As for NATO, well when 9/11 happened NATO conveniently vanished. The forces in the middle east are an act of retaliation. But most people tend to forget why the US is in the middle east. Understandably, the socialist government we have has their own goals a desires. As for the military, they follow the Commander and Chief's orders not those of Congress. However, the Commander and Chief must eventually answer to Congress as to why he is using the military for any given reason. So cutting to the bloody chase waiting for a strike on the US is basically what the US has been doing all along.
[QUOTE=Deathblow896;34691477]As for NATO, well when 9/11 happened NATO conveniently vanished. [/QUOTE] 9/11 was not an act of war against the US by a nation. It was terrorism. Thus NATO had no obligation to help you.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;34691889]9/11 was not an act of war against the US by a nation. It was terrorism. Thus NATO had no obligation to help you.[/QUOTE] And yet, NATO still ended up getting involved.
[QUOTE=DemonElite;34717292]And yet, NATO still ended up getting involved.[/QUOTE] Yes unfortunely, though it makes no sense for NATO to exist anymore. anywho, international law states that you should not attack unless attacked so... yes quit pushing people around, and DO NOT tell me that US invades country X and pressures country Z for the purpose of peace keaping and ''democracy''. I know that, like all countries do, they do not try to defend anything or free people from tyrany, only resources are important. Look at Portugal and Spain, until the 70s, dictatorships, but they were good ones becouse it kept the comunists banned. In the end yes, the US, such as all countries should have that written and followed, and that phrase should not be subject to randomness on interpertation, even though it leaves room for it
I don't agree that we should always be getting involved in other peoples' shit, but I don't think we should go totally isolationist. America is too strong and is too big a player on the world to just suddenly get out of it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.