The Non-Interventionists Caucus (Federalists)

[NeverAgain]

Kind of ironic to have a background picture of the crumbling remains of Aleppo, with all the connotations of what "non-intervention's" consequences are.

[NeverAgain]

Kind of ironic to have a background picture of the crumbling remains of Aleppo, with all the connotations of what "non-intervention's" consequences are.

Actually, us sending troops in would've escalated the fighting throughout Syria by a very large proportion I'd imagine. I'm surprised you know which cities you are bombing though, good job!

I mean, arguing for sending troops in, and trying to broker a diplomatic solution to the two sides are very different...

[NeverAgain]

Kind of ironic to have a background picture of the crumbling remains of Aleppo, with all the connotations of what "non-intervention's" consequences are.

Actually, us sending troops in would've escalated the fighting throughout Syria by a very large proportion I'd imagine. I'm surprised you know which cities you are bombing though, good job!

I mean, arguing for sending troops in, and trying to broker a diplomatic solution to the two sides are very different...

Like I said, up for debate in IRC. But like, I have no problem with diplomatic solutions and that is what we should strive for. This caucus intends to stop those who wish to bring about change through war, not through peace.

I think that's a bit broad... I think almost everyone desires peace. The issue stems over whether we should stay an active participant in global affairs, as the world's last remaining superpower... I am entirely open to a debate, but when you assert the idea that you would "prevent those that engage in" this opposing view from reaching public office, it worries me. As a citizen in a fair and free republican democracy, arguing for issues is what must be the goal, not discouraging others for their beliefs.

[NeverAgain]

Kind of ironic to have a background picture of the crumbling remains of Aleppo, with all the connotations of what "non-intervention's" consequences are.

Actually, us sending troops in would've escalated the fighting throughout Syria by a very large proportion I'd imagine. I'm surprised you know which cities you are bombing though, good job!

I mean, arguing for sending troops in, and trying to broker a diplomatic solution to the two sides are very different...

Like I said, up for debate in IRC. But like, I have no problem with diplomatic solutions and that is what we should strive for. This caucus intends to stop those who wish to bring about change through war, not through peace.

I think that's a bit broad... I think almost everyone desires peace. The issue stems over whether we should stay an active participant in global affairs, as the world's last remaining superpower... I am entirely open to a debate, but when you assert the idea that you would "prevent those that engage in" this opposing view from reaching public office, it worries me. As a citizen in a fair and free republican democracy, arguing for issues is what must be the goal, not discouraging others for their beliefs.

If you want to carry out your beliefs by the use of military force, you do not deserve to be anywhere near office.

Again, this doesn't mean anything as it is too broad? Should we not end genocide (my belief is we should), like that of Rwanda or Kosovo, without military protection of assets like food and protection of citizens? I mean, this is my belief, which goes under your circumstances? Should I be barred from political office?