Trajan Octavian Titus

Well, the question here is whether or not that is the roll which we should fill as the only Republic with the military strength to kill tyrants in favor of Democratic nations.

Should we kill tyrants in the neo-liberalist Wilsonian principles of Wilson and FDR or should we remain with the isolationist principles of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton?

Kandahar

Well I'm not an isolationist persay, but we definitely need to move our foreign policy in that direction. There are simply too many tyrants in the world for us to be able to deal with them all, and it's not worth the military and economic resources to overthrow a random dictator like Saddam Hussein who isn't a threat to us.

Generally I'm against military action against other nations unless they have attacked us (or have attacked our allies in some cases), or pose an imminent threat to us.

With that said, I don't think we need to be isolationists a la Switzerland. It's perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, for our government to condemn the actions taken by tyrants, to hold open dialogues with rogue nations in an effort to achieve our foreign policy objectives, and to NOT remain neutral about all foreign affairs. In some cases, it may even be acceptable to send troops on humanitarian missions or as peacemakers, as long as they don't become occupiers or babysitters.

__________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

Trajan Octavian Titus

So then you not only decline the isolationist view but you feel that the U.S. should serve the will of tyrants when it is in the tyrants interests??

Kandahar

No, I think the United States should negotiate (or at least have a dialogue) when it is in the United States' interests.

I don't so much "decline the isolationist view" as I reject certain parts of it. I'm closer to isolationism than I am to neoconservatism, but to simply close off our diplomatic channels and pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist is silly and counterproductive.

GarzaUK

Well America has served tyrants in the past and visa versa.

__________________
They tried like hell. They called him an élitist, a radical, a socialist, a Marxist, a Muslim, an Arab, an appeaser, a danger to the republic, a threat to small children, a friend of terrorists, an enemy of Israel, a vote thief, a non-citizen, an anti-American, and a celebrity. ~ George Packer

Comrade Brian

Q: Was this thread supposed to mean that the US kills tyrants, or is a tyrant killer of people?

__________________
http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...rs/left.h1.gif

t125eagle

i think that when the tyrant is bad enough, certain steps should be taken. when a tryant kills his own people, someone should step in. i am not 100% sure the US should have to do it all the time. but who else would? lol. deomcracies are what the people should expect and/or want. in that way, and that way alone, they can express thier opinions and have undeniable rights that cannot be taken advantage of by thier government.

Saboteur

I would appreciate it if the current administration came clean and expressed the true rationale of it's current war, which in my opinion is imperialism fueled by capitalism.

If we need to hide that in the guise of being the police of the world that would be unnacceptible.

That's all.

__________________
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

Trajan Octavian Titus

non-interventioanalism is not the same as support, selling arms is not support you do realize that we sold weapons to both Britain and Germany (granted to Britain more so) during WW1 it's called pragmatism if we're not going to sell them the weapons someone else is that's just how the world works, it's the opinion of Jefferson that the U.S. should have free trade and honest friendship with all but entangling alliances with none.

Comrade Brian

Kind of reminds me of the US death penalty, killing its own citizens.