What is a vital U.S. Interest?

[The Rabbi]

The libs here, and their fellow travelling narco-libertarians, maintain that Ukraine is not a vital US interest and we need to stay away.
So what is a vital U.S. interest? Philippines? Cuba? Hawaii? California? At what point is action of any kind a necessity?

I'm not an anarchist or a liberal, so you missed some of us. I actually doubt many libertarians at all are with you on this one. I do like how you consider people who want no government and ubiquitous government as "fellow traveling" though...

I dont see the word "anarchist" in my post.
I dont know what position is "with me" on this one. I am asking what a vital US interest is, such that we should be prepared to go to war over it.
Liberals decry US power and have blamed the US for, e.g. Soviet-era expansionism. Narco-libertarians take the same line, blaming the US for e.g. the 9/11 attack. So they travel the same path, making them fellow travellers.

 

[kaz]

so you think we should police the entire world? get involved in every civil war and border dispute? make enemies instead of trading partners? force others to accept our way of life---or else?

How about the lesson of viet nam? 58,000 dead americans and billions of dollars---exactly how did that serve the national interest of the USA?

How about answering the question, Conrad?

I did, now answer mine--------how did viet nam serve the national interests of the USA?

The way it was fought, it didn't. We should have fought it to win it. But Communism was taking over the world country by country and it was better to fight them in Vietnam than in Mexico.

 

[The Rabbi]

I answered your original question in post #14. But let me expand. Our national interest is when the physical land of the USA or its possessions or allies is threatened, when US citizens abroad are threatened, or when our financial, infrastructure, or security systems are threatened.

We have no national interest in trying to prevent the people of crimea from deciding their own fate.

Post #14 was not an answer. But anyway.
Would Russia taking over other countries in E.Europe constitute a threat? Recall that, what is it, Lithuania and Estonia? are NATO members, thus technically allies.

Yes, it would constitute a threat. How does equating countries that are actively engaged in joint defense through NATO and ones that are not make sense? Are we to defend every country in the world because, well, the NEXT one could be an ally!?!?!

The next one could be an ally. Ukraine was not technically an ally, although we did sign an agreement guaranteeing their territorial integrity. But it is a short jump from Ukraine to Estonia. Both of them were part of the Soviet Union and both declared independence at about the same time. An act that was illegal according to the isolationists here btw.

 

[The Rabbi]

How about answering the question, Conrad?

I did, now answer mine--------how did viet nam serve the national interests of the USA?

The way it was fought, it didn't. We should have fought it to win it. But Communism was taking over the world country by country and it was better to fight them in Vietnam than in Mexico.

It was terribly mishandled from the beginning. The French wanted to re-establish their colony after WW2. The US policy was self determination. Then we sort of backed the French anyway when Uncle Ho turned out to be a commie. Then we took over when the French got their asses handed to them at Dien Bien Phu. Then we agreed to a vote. Then we underwrote South Vietnam when the vote didnt go the way we wanted. Then we propped up that corrupt regime. Then we decided to wage a kinder gentler war rather than risk war with China, which may or may not have been a possibility. Then we decided to get the hell out no matter what.

 

[kaz]

The libs here, and their fellow travelling narco-libertarians, maintain that Ukraine is not a vital US interest and we need to stay away.
So what is a vital U.S. interest? Philippines? Cuba? Hawaii? California? At what point is action of any kind a necessity?

I'm not an anarchist or a liberal, so you missed some of us. I actually doubt many libertarians at all are with you on this one. I do like how you consider people who want no government and ubiquitous government as "fellow traveling" though...

I dont see the word "anarchist" in my post.
I dont know what position is "with me" on this one. I am asking what a vital US interest is, such that we should be prepared to go to war over it.
Liberals decry US power and have blamed the US for, e.g. Soviet-era expansionism. Narco-libertarians take the same line, blaming the US for e.g. the 9/11 attack. So they travel the same path, making them fellow travellers.

I thought by "narco" you meant anarcho, what does is a narco libertarian then? Google didn't help.

Defense of the United States is the only valid reason to go to war. Defending our land and our people. It is in our defensive interest to belong to NATO, which is why the Russians attacking them is defending our country.

 

[kaz]

Post #14 was not an answer. But anyway.
Would Russia taking over other countries in E.Europe constitute a threat? Recall that, what is it, Lithuania and Estonia? are NATO members, thus technically allies.

Yes, it would constitute a threat. How does equating countries that are actively engaged in joint defense through NATO and ones that are not make sense? Are we to defend every country in the world because, well, the NEXT one could be an ally!?!?!

The next one could be an ally. Ukraine was not technically an ally, although we did sign an agreement guaranteeing their territorial integrity. But it is a short jump from Ukraine to Estonia. Both of them were part of the Soviet Union and both declared independence at about the same time. An act that was illegal according to the isolationists here btw.

So why bother having defensive pacts if we're just going to defend everyone because the next one could be an ally?

 

[bendog]

I'm not an anarchist or a liberal, so you missed some of us. I actually doubt many libertarians at all are with you on this one. I do like how you consider people who want no government and ubiquitous government as "fellow traveling" though...

I dont see the word "anarchist" in my post.
I dont know what position is "with me" on this one. I am asking what a vital US interest is, such that we should be prepared to go to war over it.
Liberals decry US power and have blamed the US for, e.g. Soviet-era expansionism. Narco-libertarians take the same line, blaming the US for e.g. the 9/11 attack. So they travel the same path, making them fellow travellers.

I thought by "narco" you meant anarcho, what does is a narco libertarian then? Google didn't help.

Defense of the United States is the only valid reason to go to war. Defending our land and our people. It is in our defensive interest to belong to NATO, which is why the Russians attacking them is defending our country.

Our justification in the Revolutionary War was not tied to defense of land. Our justification in 1812 was free trade, Our justification in the Spanish American war was the Monroe Doctrine. I don't doubt your sincerity, but your view of the constitution is not borne out by history.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, it would constitute a threat. How does equating countries that are actively engaged in joint defense through NATO and ones that are not make sense? Are we to defend every country in the world because, well, the NEXT one could be an ally!?!?!

The next one could be an ally. Ukraine was not technically an ally, although we did sign an agreement guaranteeing their territorial integrity. But it is a short jump from Ukraine to Estonia. Both of them were part of the Soviet Union and both declared independence at about the same time. An act that was illegal according to the isolationists here btw.

So why bother having defensive pacts if we're just going to defend everyone because the next one could be an ally?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy detected.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not an anarchist or a liberal, so you missed some of us. I actually doubt many libertarians at all are with you on this one. I do like how you consider people who want no government and ubiquitous government as "fellow traveling" though...

I dont see the word "anarchist" in my post.
I dont know what position is "with me" on this one. I am asking what a vital US interest is, such that we should be prepared to go to war over it.
Liberals decry US power and have blamed the US for, e.g. Soviet-era expansionism. Narco-libertarians take the same line, blaming the US for e.g. the 9/11 attack. So they travel the same path, making them fellow travellers.

I thought by "narco" you meant anarcho, what does is a narco libertarian then? Google didn't help.

Defense of the United States is the only valid reason to go to war. Defending our land and our people. It is in our defensive interest to belong to NATO, which is why the Russians attacking them is defending our country.

A narco libertarian is like a narco-terrorist. In more ways than one.
Anyway, in a modern society when someone can get from one continent to another in hours, when what happens in Afghanistan can affect what happens in NY in days, when money, business, resources are shared across the world, almost everything becomes defense of the US. That doesnt mean we take part in every event. But it means the old "retreat behind the oceans" strategy is just outmoded.

 

[bluesman]

The libs here, and their fellow travelling narco-libertarians, maintain that Ukraine is not a vital US interest and we need to stay away.
So what is a vital U.S. interest? Philippines? Cuba? Hawaii? California? At what point is action of any kind a necessity?

It is funny that the Op is based on nothing more than creating and then attacking a strawman. That is a typical right wing tactic.

It is easy to take pot shots without actually stating an opinion. Why not say what you think instead? Do you think was should send military forces in and go to war with Russia? She we just bluff and then back down later and lose credibility?

Unless you can be specific in naming your specific proposed solution or coarse of action, then you have no foothold when it comes to attacking even the liberal strawman.

 

[The Rabbi]

The libs here, and their fellow travelling narco-libertarians, maintain that Ukraine is not a vital US interest and we need to stay away.
So what is a vital U.S. interest? Philippines? Cuba? Hawaii? California? At what point is action of any kind a necessity?

It is funny that the Op is based on nothing more than creating and then attacking a strawman. That is a typical right wing tactic.

It is easy to take pot shots without actually stating an opinion. Why not say what you think instead? Do you think was should send military forces in and go to war with Russia? She we just bluff and then back down later and lose credibility?

Unless you can be specific in naming your specific proposed solution or coarse of action, then you have no foothold when it comes to attacking even the liberal strawman.

What strawman would that be? You don't know what you're talking about? I havent taken a position. I am asking as a matter of discussion what defines vital interest. Lot of posts on Ukraine declaring it isn't a vital interest. SO I want to know what IS a vital interest.
You are a lo-lo suspect.

 

[kaz]

I dont see the word "anarchist" in my post.
I dont know what position is "with me" on this one. I am asking what a vital US interest is, such that we should be prepared to go to war over it.
Liberals decry US power and have blamed the US for, e.g. Soviet-era expansionism. Narco-libertarians take the same line, blaming the US for e.g. the 9/11 attack. So they travel the same path, making them fellow travellers.

I thought by "narco" you meant anarcho, what does is a narco libertarian then? Google didn't help.

Defense of the United States is the only valid reason to go to war. Defending our land and our people. It is in our defensive interest to belong to NATO, which is why the Russians attacking them is defending our country.

Our justification in the Revolutionary War was not tied to defense of land. Our justification in 1812 was free trade, Our justification in the Spanish American war was the Monroe Doctrine. I don't doubt your sincerity, but your view of the constitution is not borne out by history.

Revolutionary war - First of all, that was before the Constitution, and second of all, what you said makes no sense, we were ruled by England, how was that not defending our country?

1812 - The British were taking American ships, impressing seamen, supporting Indians attacking us on the frontier, it was clearly defense.

Spanish American war was blatantly Unconstitutional, I already said that.

Spin aside, I argued what is legitimate, not what we have done. Those aren't the same questions.

 

[kaz]

The next one could be an ally. Ukraine was not technically an ally, although we did sign an agreement guaranteeing their territorial integrity. But it is a short jump from Ukraine to Estonia. Both of them were part of the Soviet Union and both declared independence at about the same time. An act that was illegal according to the isolationists here btw.

So why bother having defensive pacts if we're just going to defend everyone because the next one could be an ally?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy detected.

Yes, you frequently detect that direct responses to your point are absurd. Which is of course a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

 

[kaz]

A narco libertarian is like a narco-terrorist. In more ways than one.

What is one way they are the same?

 

[Redfish]

Where was your answer defining what a vital US interest is? All I saw was you putting words in my mouth. Either answer the question and start a dialogue or shut the fuck up and go post somewhere else.

I answered your original question in post #14. But let me expand. Our national interest is when the physical land of the USA or its possessions or allies is threatened, when US citizens abroad are threatened, or when our financial, infrastructure, or security systems are threatened.

We have no national interest in trying to prevent the people of crimea from deciding their own fate.

Post #14 was not an answer. But anyway.
Would Russia taking over other countries in E.Europe constitute a threat? Recall that, what is it, Lithuania and Estonia? are NATO members, thus technically allies.

it would be more of a threat to europe than to the US. But yes, we would have to assist europe if that happened.

 

[Redfish]

How about answering the question, Conrad?

I did, now answer mine--------how did viet nam serve the national interests of the USA?

The way it was fought, it didn't. We should have fought it to win it. But Communism was taking over the world country by country and it was better to fight them in Vietnam than in Mexico.

OMG, you too? communism did take over viet nam, after we lost 58,000 americans there. how is the current status of viet nam a threat to the USA?

 

[eflatminor]

So what is a vital U.S. interest?

Trade. Trade between businesses and individuals in the US and any other country is a vital US interest. Same is true between states. Trade should always be encouraged and left unencumbered, not regulated and embargoed. When people trade, they tend not to war. That is why try trade, not some particular piece of land or country, is always of vital interest to the US.

Stated differently, if the people of Russian heritage in Crimea want to be part of Russia, that's their right to strive to achieve that goal. I don't really care as long as we continue to trade with those people and everyone else on the planet.

 

[The Rabbi]

So why bother having defensive pacts if we're just going to defend everyone because the next one could be an ally?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy detected.

Yes, you frequently detect that direct responses to your point are absurd. Which is of course a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

You need to review what the reductio ad absurdum fallacy is. I have bolded the fallacy in red in your post to get you started.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nothing defines our way of life like our use of energy. Right now oil is the worlds most vital interest.

So you supported the first Gulf War and subsequent Iraqi War?

I supported energy independence before military intervention became necessary.

President Bush should never have let Saddam think we wouldn't protect Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pact with them. But then if he'd never have invaded Kuwait we'd never known about the secret Manhattan Project style nuclear bomb program he'd kept hidden from his American Sugar Dadd.....opps I mean benefactor, Ronnie Raygun. But then again if Ronnie hadn't supported Saddam and taken him off the Terrorist supporter list and allowed him access to all the duel use technology he could afford he'd never had that sophisticated a WMD program.

I disagreed with the Second Bush administration's justification for the invasion and occupation. Doesn't mean I don't understand how vital oil is in the world today.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing defines our way of life like our use of energy. Right now oil is the worlds most vital interest.

So you supported the first Gulf War and subsequent Iraqi War?

I supported energy independence before military intervention became necessary.

President Bush should never have let Saddam think we wouldn't protect Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pact with them. But then if he'd never have invaded Kuwait we'd never known about the secret Manhattan Project style nuclear bomb program he'd kept hidden from his American Sugar Dadd.....opps I mean benefactor, Ronnie Raygun. But then again if Ronnie hadn't supported Saddam and taken him off the Terrorist supporter list and allowed him access to all the duel use technology he could afford he'd never had that sophisticated a WMD program.

I disagreed with the Second Bush administration's justification for the invasion and occupation. Doesn't mean I don't understand how vital oil is in the world today.

Was that a yes or a no?