The Most Non-Interventionist Potential 2020 Candidate

[jmsstnyng]

Who, out of the potential contenders, would have the strongest case to be the peace/non-interventionist candidate?

[Famous Mortimer]

O'Malley

[Senator Spark]

Bernie Sanders

[Mr. Morden]

Amash

[Pericles]

America and the world can't afford non-interventionism. America needs to be involved in the world for its own interests and the world's and stand up for freedom and democracy, Obama was too dovish a President(though at least better than Bush). Hillary Clinton's foreign policy was ideal, what America and the world need is smart power and responsible use of America's power.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Among Dems, Murphy or Sanders.

Among Reps, Amash obviously.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

Bernie is not exactly the biggest dove, everyone.

O'Malley probably fits the mold.

[Dr. MB]

America and the world can't afford non-interventionism. America needs to be involved in the world for its own interests and the world's and stand up for freedom and democracy, Obama was too dovish a President(though at least better than Bush). Hillary Clinton's foreign policy was ideal, what America and the world need is smart power and responsible use of America's power.

No.

Through the years America has been too involved in overthrowing democratically elected Latin American governments and installing their own pro-CIA military dictators; the overthrow of Saddam and Gaddafi did more harm than good. Non-interventionism is ideal; it hurts America more than helps to be militarily involved in foreign affairs.

[publicunofficial]

America and the world can't afford non-interventionism. America needs to be involved in the world for its own interests and the world's and stand up for freedom and democracy, Obama was too dovish a President(though at least better than Bush). Hillary Clinton's foreign policy was ideal, what America and the world need is smart power and responsible use of America's power.

Please name a US intervention in a foreign country since 1970 that was a success that greatly improved the situation in that country.

Hard mode: You can't say Kosovo

[Shadows]

America and the world can't afford non-interventionism. America needs to be involved in the world for its own interests and the world's and stand up for freedom and democracy, Obama was too dovish a President(though at least better than Bush). Hillary Clinton's foreign policy was ideal, what America and the world need is smart power and responsible use of America's power.

Please name a US intervention in a foreign country since 1970 that was a success that greatly improved the situation in that country.

Hard mode: You can't say Kosovo

I am sure that millions of deaths caused in Iran & Iran/Chile earlier were vitally required. Why do you want a secular democratic educated man like Mossadegh or Salvador Allende when you can install a puppet corrupt brutal murdering dictator like the Shah or Pinochet.Massacring Libya or the Iraq war wasn't enough.

Why the f*** do most countries hate the US for imperialism & consider it the biggest threat? This is just sad. If Hillary's brutal warmongering foreign policy was apt...... I guess millions dying won't matter but what about the soldiers - They came broken in body & spirit, children losing their dad, mothers losing their son, veterans coming home disabled & committing suicide.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

America and the world can't afford non-interventionism. America needs to be involved in the world for its own interests and the world's and stand up for freedom and democracy, Obama was too dovish a President(though at least better than Bush). Hillary Clinton's foreign policy was ideal, what America and the world need is smart power and responsible use of America's power.

Please name a US intervention in a foreign country since 1970 that was a success that greatly improved the situation in that country.

Hard mode: You can't say Kosovo

Heck, you'd be hard pressed to name a successful intervention since 1945.

[OSR stands with Israel]

America and the world can't afford non-interventionism. America needs to be involved in the world for its own interests and the world's and stand up for freedom and democracy, Obama was too dovish a President(though at least better than Bush). Hillary Clinton's foreign policy was ideal, what America and the world need is smart power and responsible use of America's power.

Please name a US intervention in a foreign country since 1970 that was a success that greatly improved the situation in that country.

Hard mode: You can't say Kosovo

Grenada , Panama ,  Kuwait ,

[OSR stands with Israel]

America and the world can't afford non-interventionism. America needs to be involved in the world for its own interests and the world's and stand up for freedom and democracy, Obama was too dovish a President(though at least better than Bush). Hillary Clinton's foreign policy was ideal, what America and the world need is smart power and responsible use of America's power.

Please name a US intervention in a foreign country since 1970 that was a success that greatly improved the situation in that country.

Hard mode: You can't say Kosovo

Heck, you'd be hard pressed to name a successful intervention since 1945.

Korea

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

^ Right now is probably not the best time to say that Korea was a successful US intervention. Although relative to other adventures, it was probably less bad.

[SATW]

^ Right now is probably not the best time to say that Korea was a successful US intervention. Although relative to other adventures, it was probably less bad.

What? so it would've been better to let the South fall to the North? Nonsense.

American intervention was justified in Korea.

[America Needs R'hllor]

^ Right now is probably not the best time to say that Korea was a successful US intervention. Although relative to other adventures, it was probably less bad.

What? so it would've been better to let the South fall to the North? Nonsense.

American intervention was justified in Korea.

In fact, we have right now a major economic player, a democracy and a very advanced nation in South Korea. Tens of millions of people were saved from the terrible fate of living under the communist North Korean regime.

[Famous Mortimer]

I've been noticing the tendency of people on the far left to say America lost the Korean War for at least the last 10 years. It's extremely strange and like objectively, obviously not true?

[TheLeftwardTide]

^ Right now is probably not the best time to say that Korea was a successful US intervention. Although relative to other adventures, it was probably less bad.

What? so it would've been better to let the South fall to the North? Nonsense.

American intervention was justified in Korea.

In fact, we have right now a major economic player, a democracy and a very advanced nation in South Korea. Tens of millions of people were saved from the terrible fate of living under the communist North Korean regime.

Your argument is flawed. This is a good video explaining what would likely happen if the North won the Korean war. The most likely outcome would be Korea ending up in a very similar situation to China, with the gradual liberalization of the markets occurring sometime between the early 70s and early 90s. Keep in mind that South Korea was also dirt poor up until the 1980s, going from one authoritarian regime to another, purging all communists in a very similar way to the communist purges. The point is, Far East as a whole will become a developed area in the near future, regardless of the timeline, it's just a matter of how many people are stuck in poverty for how long.

I do think that the Korean intervention was not only good, but necessary. That said, the war's outcome was definitely not ideal, and pretending like it was is just incorrect.

I've been noticing the tendency of people on the far left to say America lost the Korean War for at least the last 10 years. It's extremely strange and like objectively, obviously not true?

I agree, but using "like" as a filler word on a message board and ending your statements in a question mark unnecessarily is, like, annoying?

[OSR stands with Israel]

^ Right now is probably not the best time to say that Korea was a successful US intervention. Although relative to other adventures, it was probably less bad.

Are you kidding ,right now proves why intervening in Korea was right , as we stopped the south from falling to the north .

[Pericles]

The one area in which Donald Trump did better than Obama, the ONLY thing(and I hate Donald Trump) was his handling of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

[Shadows]

North Korea is terrible but South Korea largely had brutal military dictators for a large part who were corrupt & there was nothing called free market. They ran like a semi-communist state in general, setting production limits, quotas & government deciding which private player will go into which industry.

To say that South Korea ran as a capitalistic democratic country is wrong.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

It's a pretty big leap to take from "North Korea is bad and their regime is bad" to "any intervention was justified."

There are, of course, benefits (humanitarian, economic partnership, and strategic alliances with the South) and drawbacks (a hand in the creation of an oppressive, antagonistic regime with the 4th largest military in the world with no diplomatic relations, largely a result of intervention) to having intervened and the proper question to ask when drawing up a military option is will the region be unequivocally better off. Is the current option better than any possible combination of outcomes?

Sure, it's better today than if the North had defeated the South and had basically continued the same brutal regime regardless of intervention. But it becomes a much more complicated question if the North conquers the South, followed by the US exerts its wide array of soft power options on a nation not predisposed to hate us due to intervention. At that point, you weigh the marginal loss of freedom for citizens of the occupied South with the marginal increase of freedom for citizens of the North, with the loss of a vital trading and strategic partner, with the potential opening of a solidified, pseudo-communist Korea regime, with the potential for drastically lower levels of antagonism from a unified Korea. It's a much more difficult question to ask and it's precisely why I'm hesitant to declare the Korean intervention this unequivocal success.

It strikes me as short sighted at best to say, well we stopped the North so Mission Accomplished. The North is so aggressively antagonistic precisely because the United States intervened against them in the past and has done so repeatedly to other nations across the globe.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Except a communist government can never result in a more free society than South Korea has right now . the fact is the north had no right to invade the south and in reality if we stopped after taking the north's capital we would have had a feee and unified Korea today .


Also about no interventionism being successful since 1945,the Cold War was wildly successful and Eastern Europe is much more free now than it was 50 years ago .

[BlueDogDemocrat]

Bernie Sanders

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Except a communist government can never result in a more free society than South Korea has right now .

I never said any of that. My claim is that a counterfactual in which the US did not aid the South would potentially result in more freedom for citizens of the North, not South.

the fact is the north had no right to invade the south and in reality if we stopped after taking the north's capital we would have had a feee and unified Korea today .

The problem with an intervention-based foreign policy is that these sort of moral judgments on "the right to invade" ring hollow for residents and leaders of other countries.