Quote:
Originally Posted by Unionist
These things are by definition unknowable but it seems to me a very tenuous statement. The first world war happened for particular reasons, not least of which was Germany's growing power and belligerence. If the war had not happened in 1914 it may have started later, perhaps at a time when Germany's power had become even greater, and its consequences may have been very grave for ourselves. As tito suggests, Germany was not exactly free of the ideas that helped shape Nazism either. You cannot simply read back into past events and say it would all have been fine if we had not acted. History is very complex, as you say, and a range of possible outcomes might be happened.
Your suggestion that intervention causes the problems is not supported by history. Should we not have intervened against Napoleon, for example? It seems to me that Great Britain's role in the Napoleonic Wars was entirely justified and did a lot of good for us as well as the rest of Europe. Of course, a Napoleonic Empire might have evolved into a benign freedom-loving Utopia but we cannot know that.
Your principle of non-intervention is actually a signal to any aggressor that we will not take action against them until they invade, by which time it may be too late. To take decisive action at a time when we still have the upper hand is far preferable to waiting for our adversaries to gather strength. In fact, decisive action may also act as a deterrent to any would-be aggressor.
If we take the Cold War period, it is clear that the Soviet Union sought to expand its power and influence around the world and many of the conflicts at that time were really proxy wars between the superpowers. Had we (or the US) stood aside, the Soviet Union would have gathered strength and any half-intelligent dictator in the third world would quickly have sided with the Soviets.
Apart from the practical question of the effects of non-intervention, I might also question the morality of a position that says you are happy to stand aside and leave tyrannies to their own devices. Genocidal regimes need to be stopped wherever possible in my view.
|
Well firstly all those problems were caused by interventionism. The Soviets and Nazis loved to interfere. The problem with the above however are more to do with large state than anything else, a dictator in a small state means little to us across the world, it means alot in a large one.
Quote:
|
My position is that I oppose totalitarianism whether it comes from my own country or elsewhere. Ideally I want to persuade my government to oppose totalitarianism too, and if it doesn't then I am in opposition to my government. That is a logical and consistent position. Your position seems to be that you want to live in a free society but you will do nothing to promote freedom elsewhere; indeed, you consider it to be none of your business. The truth is that it will become your business when the aggressors you have so casually ignored show up at the front door. Freedom is not something that just exists in isolation from the outside world; those who dismiss the need for intervention on principle are a danger to the cause of freedom itself.
|
Your position is rather inconsistent however because through interventionism against totalitarianism you rather strengthen authoritarianism within your country and the globe itself. Your strengthen the state and its imperiousness.