Isolationism is the way to go

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by BentBow

The gulf of Tonkin was a reason to attack Korea?

A false Flag, is reason to attack another nation and kill innocent people?

The gulf of Tonkin was Provoked, not carried out by the US Government
And that was Vietnam.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by tinman01

according to you. I tend to agree completely. That said the UN is what we are currently stuck with.

I'm sorry... Who cares? We don't need it for anything.

We can conduct our own foreign policy, negotiate our own treaties, act in our own best interests... The UN isn't helpful to us, so I see no need of funding it, or even giving it the time of day.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Grenada and Korea were valid interventions?Whatever could have been the goal with either, or how were we at threat?

Grenada had a number of us citizens in peril.

Perhaps you'd be more enlightened to read up IN DETAIL about what it was and what we did.

The defense of Korea from the communists was definitely an act of humanitarianism. If you don't believe that, just look at the almost incomprehensible suffering of the North Koreans, compared to the relative peace and affluence of the South Koreans.

This splitting should never have occurred. ALL of Korea should have been free. Instead, it got turned into a "police action" and the reasons needed to make it legitimate were forgotten.

We did not seek victory, we did not act for the best of humankind, and we forgot the moral implications of failure, and the NK people have suffered ever since.

Again, I still don't know why or how you're having such a hard time comprehending any of this. "

I offered a very straightforward moral, military, and practical set of tests, and if all of them are met, then not only SHOULD we be involved, it's the ONLY things we should be involved with.

And, just because we should, doesn't mean we always can.

[crestliner]

Originally Posted by FreedomForMorsi

The only smart thing the U.S. can do at this point is to just stay out of business that isn't ours. We have enough problems here on the home front, so we should be focusing on those. Sure, what is happening with Syria is horrible, but it isn't our fight. And it is very evident that sometimes, when we try to help a country, we end up making things worse for both sides.

Thoughts?

Does this logic also apply to the third world country on our southern border?

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Sure, when we as a nation have a real and important national interest in the situation, when there is a strong moral case we should be involved, when the outcome is not in doubt, and when it serves the interests of the people affected by it. And, if it means military action - that we can and do totally prevail - total victory.

As you can see, after all those tests, intervention isn't going to be something done often. Reagan in Grenada was one. Korea was a failure. It started with a clear reason and moral imperative. It devolved into "monkeying around".

I know you mean well but government cannot be moral. It gets what it wants by using force and coercion. Do I need to go through the long list of examples where our government has involved itself and made laws that were immoral?

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Who decides? In our country, foreign policy is delegated to the president.

The UN does at times. Unfortunately.