1. Post #41
    Gold Member
    rosthouse's Avatar
    November 2007
    6,615 Posts
    So that's basically what the Swiss are doing. Worked good for us so far.

  2. Post #42
    Gold Member
    snuwoods's Avatar
    February 2008
    1,603 Posts
    We don't need any amendments, we just need to follow what's been written in the Constitution already:
    ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
    The Congress shall have Power:

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
    Unfortunately we haven't declared a war since WWII, and so we can spend as much and hang around forever.

  3. Post #43
    Official worst poster 2011
    certified's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,521 Posts
    Costa Rica
    Iceland
    Switzerland
    Sweden
    All of those are nations which many military powers feel no need to invade/Isn't worth invading.

    Even Hitler didn't bother. No need for them to be involved in military intervention

    Edited:

    We don't need any amendments, we just need to follow what's been written in the Constitution already:


    Unfortunately we haven't declared a war since WWII, and so we can spend as much and hang around forever.
    US founding fathers couldn't predict the future.

    That document was great on paper and great in action back then.

    Nowadays because of how much the concept of warfare has advanced that makes the US a sitting duck.

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    11,902 Posts
    Because we would not be able to act without an actual action, not a simple "threat".
    the supreme court would probably be all dicky and work around it

  5. Post #45
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    All of those are nations which many military powers feel no need to invade/Isn't worth invading.

    Even Hitler didn't bother. No need for them to be involved in military intervention

    Edited:



    US founding fathers couldn't predict the future.

    That document was great on paper and great in action back then.

    Nowadays because of how much the concept of warfare has advanced that makes the US a sitting duck.
    did you call us a sitting duck? we are one of the strongest nations in the world. We are not sitting ducks.

  6. Post #46
    I WOTCH ANIEM
    Maximo13's Avatar
    October 2008
    8,051 Posts
    So that's basically what the Swiss are doing. Worked good for us so far.
    However, it does cause paranoia. I remember how all the newspapers were freaking out about Gaddaffi attacking us when his son was arrested.

  7. Post #47
    NeonpieDFTBA's Avatar
    January 2012
    939 Posts
    did you call us a sitting duck? we are one of the strongest nations in the world. We are not sitting ducks.
    He said those rules would make you a sitting duck.

  8. Post #48
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    He said those rules would make you a sitting duck.
    he said that constitution was outdated and made us sitting ducks. Anyways, how would non-interventionism make us sitting ducks? we still have nuclear warheads, only crazy men would attack us.

  9. Post #49

    August 2011
    772 Posts
    Because we would not be able to act without an actual action, not a simple "threat".

    Edited:



    Costa Rica
    Iceland
    Vatican City (just kidding)
    Iceland doesn't have a military force, they're actually protected by the U.S Army. We have bases and troops stationed there. Their air space is protected by Norway if I remember correctly as well.
    You're argument only has Costa Rica really going for it.

    Edited:

    he said that constitution was outdated and made us sitting ducks. Anyways, how would non-interventionism make us sitting ducks? we still have nuclear warheads, only crazy men would attack us.
    There are plenty of men and women crazy enough, they're called religious extremists, everyone hates them, even most Middle Eastern countries.

  10. Post #50
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Iceland doesn't have a military force, they're actually protected by the U.S Army. We have bases and troops stationed there. Their air space is protected by Norway if I remember correctly as well.
    You're argument only has Costa Rica really going for it.
    No, what he said still stands. If Iceland has no military, then it is definitively non-interventionist. Unless of course Iceland told the U.S. to invade another country for it. And did you forget the Swiss?

  11. Post #51

    January 2012
    36 Posts
    I couldn't possibly agree with this. Consider this - no matter what the politicians believe, they have no power. The military will always conduct operations, public or not. We will ALWAYS be involved in world affairs and imperialism is what boosted America to a great age, which will be an excuse by many to continue imperialism.

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    Regulas021's Avatar
    December 2005
    1,266 Posts
    I think it's truly short sighted to assume there will never be an imperative pre emptive strike situation for the rest of the future of humanity. Considering things like nuclear proliferation, the fact that instability exists, at all, anywhere, and the idea of rogue nations, the "first strike" against America could also be the last, and certainly the only one necessary to cripple us as a nation.

    I think a much more suitable compromise would be one that demands the US have congressional approval for any military action, although I still think this isn't a good idea.

    I must be an outlier, but I believe US foreign policy is utterly integral to stability in many places in the world. If we wanted to change that, and maybe shift the burden onto someone else, that's a totally different discussion. I definitely think the world can't function smoothly without some sort of "international police force", be it the US, or someone else. There are hundreds of nations and no guarantee one of them won't find itself in a position to exploit the world. Be it nuclear arms, blockading a major shipping lane, financing international piracy, etc. It's such a wild card.

  13. Post #53
    Phobin's Avatar
    January 2009
    50 Posts
    This would have prevented the Iraq war, but they could still pull shit like Tonkin Gulf.

    Edited:

    Also, what if we're in a situation where we're 100% positive that there will be a huge loss of life, and all we'd have to do to stop it was bomb an air base or something?
    9/11?

    e:
    read that wrong sorry im dumb

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    Karlos's Avatar
    May 2005
    1,858 Posts
    isolation, non-interventionism and not invading foreign soil are not in capital's interests. the growth of imperialism (globalization) begets the opening of new markets/industries abroad, for which war's a necessity. there's literally no point in discussing this.

  15. Post #55
    Gold Member
    wraithcat's Avatar
    December 2007
    12,794 Posts
    We wouldn't be dragged into wars by others. The US itself would have to be attacked.
    This would more or less invalidate all your obligations from international treaties as well as undermine your obligations to the UN and a number of other bodies.

    On top of that it would limit american prevention campaigns as those would probably end up with alternative mission protocols from granting military aid to peacekeeping unit.

    However much I dislike american world police keeping, they really can't put forward a notion like that and have it be passed without ignoring world politics.

  16. Post #56
    Deathblow896's Avatar
    February 2008
    6 Posts
    So basically the idea is self defense, but on a military scale? Hmm... not going to work. As a Democracy we don't go around starting wars, granted. But on the other hand we need a damn good reason to go to war. Whatever your views on the military are, the military has their own. Also the US follows more or less their own set of rules. The US follows the "guidelines" of the Geneva Convention, but the US never agreed to it. The US abides by the "guidelines" to keep everyone happy. As for NATO, well when 9/11 happened NATO conveniently vanished. The forces in the middle east are an act of retaliation. But most people tend to forget why the US is in the middle east. Understandably, the socialist government we have has their own goals a desires. As for the military, they follow the Commander and Chief's orders not those of Congress. However, the Commander and Chief must eventually answer to Congress as to why he is using the military for any given reason. So cutting to the bloody chase waiting for a strike on the US is basically what the US has been doing all along.

  17. Post #57
    NeonpieDFTBA's Avatar
    January 2012
    939 Posts
    As for NATO, well when 9/11 happened NATO conveniently vanished.
    9/11 was not an act of war against the US by a nation. It was terrorism. Thus NATO had no obligation to help you.

  18. Post #58
    DemonElite's Avatar
    July 2011
    362 Posts
    9/11 was not an act of war against the US by a nation. It was terrorism. Thus NATO had no obligation to help you.
    And yet, NATO still ended up getting involved.

  19. Post #59

    January 2012
    4 Posts
    And yet, NATO still ended up getting involved.

    Yes unfortunely, though it makes no sense for NATO to exist anymore.
    anywho, international law states that you should not attack unless attacked so... yes quit pushing people around, and DO NOT tell me that US invades country X and pressures country Z for the purpose of peace keaping and ''democracy''. I know that, like all countries do, they do not try to defend anything or free people from tyrany, only resources are important. Look at Portugal and Spain, until the 70s, dictatorships, but they were good ones becouse it kept the comunists banned.

    In the end yes, the US, such as all countries should have that written and followed, and that phrase should not be subject to randomness on interpertation, even though it leaves room for it

  20. Post #60
    crackberry's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,424 Posts
    I don't agree that we should always be getting involved in other peoples' shit, but I don't think we should go totally isolationist. America is too strong and is too big a player on the world to just suddenly get out of it.

  21. Post #61
    Zambies!'s Avatar
    August 2009
    8,225 Posts
    The Iceland argument is very stupid because Iceland's strategic position is guarded by some of the most powerful Western nations. Even if Iceland had the power to mobilize 50% of its population, it still would barely have 100,000 men and women under arms.

  22. Post #62
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,004 Posts
    I don't agree that we should always be getting involved in other peoples' shit, but I don't think we should go totally isolationist. America is too strong and is too big a player on the world to just suddenly get out of it.
    It's not isolationist, it's "don't fuck with us and we don't fuck with you"... -ist.

  23. Post #63
    rivershark's Avatar
    February 2010
    1,243 Posts
    This idea would not work, because there's not a fine line defining "defensive", it's a big grey area. For example, what if North Korea started piling troops up against our border with Mexico? Not attacking. just moving huge military forces into position...they're not attacking us, right? This kind of policy puts us at a distinct disadvantage because they can prepare and do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't attack us, and we would be unable to save ourselves.

  24. Post #64
    Mon
    Mon's Avatar
    April 2011
    4,102 Posts
    seems very up in the clouds and impractical
    especially for a nation with as much reach as america

  25. Post #65
    Dennab
    January 2012
    270 Posts
    Yeah this is a terrible idea. A REALLY REALLY terrible idea. How well did isolationism work out for us in WW2?
    non-intervention is not isolationism

    Edited:

    we still have nuclear warheads, only crazy men would attack us.
    does that mean nukes are the solution to our military problems? what the fuck are you even thinking bro.

  26. Post #66
    If life gives you melons, you may be dyslexic.
    Liem's Avatar
    November 2011
    7,068 Posts
    So if China decided to go berserk and level Canada and Mexico - we do nothing? Kay.
    I'm not sure I like the sound of that
    Awful Idea, Our Military isn't strong enough, we need the US for protection from attacks

  27. Post #67
    Gold Member
    Aredbomb's Avatar
    July 2009
    3,686 Posts
    It wouldn't work unless you kept the people in charge of national security on an extremely short leash, which you shouldn't expect any government official to do. They always find a reason for why we're supposedly fighting in defense. The last time anyone fully admitted to fighting a war for the sole purpose of acquiring land was way back in the days of Manifest Destiny. Saying we can't attack first won't help much either, warmongers don't need an event as clear as Pearl Harbor to say someone has attacked us. They've been finding things to label as attacks against America since before it was even a country.

    Not to mention this would do nothing about diplomatic bullying.

  28. Post #68
    Destroyer25's Avatar
    February 2012
    11 Posts
    Isolation, whether it be political, economic, or military has been proven to be horrible. America's people decided long ago that they wanted their country to have the most powerful military in the world, and that decision cannot be easily reversed now. I think it's hilarious though, that one would propose that USA either has to choose an extreme. USA doesn't have to be the world police, nor do they have to become totally isolated, there's a middle ground. USA still needs to be able to go kick some country's ass when they threaten global stability. But they shouldn't just invade countries that don't need invading.

  29. Post #69
    DERAILER OF THREADS DESTROYER OF IDIOTS
    Emperor Scorpious II's Avatar
    February 2009
    24,943 Posts
    This idea would not work, because there's not a fine line defining "defensive", it's a big grey area. For example, what if North Korea started piling troops up against our border with Mexico? Not attacking. just moving huge military forces into position...they're not attacking us, right? This kind of policy puts us at a distinct disadvantage because they can prepare and do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't attack us, and we would be unable to save ourselves.
    It's not like would completely ignore a bunch of Korean soldiers at our southern border. We would pile up our soldiers their too to defend - but not attack until we are attacked.

  30. Post #70
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,004 Posts
    Isolation, whether it be political, economic, or military has been proven to be horrible. America's people decided long ago that they wanted their country to have the most powerful military in the world, and that decision cannot be easily reversed now. I think it's hilarious though, that one would propose that USA either has to choose an extreme. USA doesn't have to be the world police, nor do they have to become totally isolated, there's a middle ground. USA still needs to be able to go kick some country's ass when they threaten global stability. But they shouldn't just invade countries that don't need invading.
    ITT: People being retarded about the difference between non-interventionism and isolation.

  31. Post #71
    Gold Member
    Simski's Avatar
    February 2007
    13,220 Posts
    I know a lot of people would want this, but the real question is... why would America want it?
    It's something that would restrict America's power over the world... and although a big part of the world would prefer this to prevent them from fucking shit up, I doubt America ever wants this because it would restrict their ability to fuck shit up.

    In short, it's like letting a kid choose whether he wants to eat his vegetables or if he doesn't want to eat his vegetables.
    America doesn't like eating his vegetables, and he won't choose to eat the vegetables.

  32. Post #72
    Gold Member
    Broseph_'s Avatar
    June 2009
    2,012 Posts
    We wouldn't be dragged into wars by others. The US itself would have to be attacked.
    Article VI, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution would create a conflict with that notion.

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member
    Broseph_'s Avatar
    June 2009
    2,012 Posts
    Because we would not be able to act without an actual action, not a simple "threat".

    Edited:



    Costa Rica
    Iceland
    Vatican City (just kidding)
    Iceland is a US protectorate

  34. Post #74
    Gold Member
    kaine123's Avatar
    February 2010
    9,433 Posts
    We still need to be able to aid allies in times of war.

  35. Post #75
    DERAILER OF THREADS DESTROYER OF IDIOTS
    Emperor Scorpious II's Avatar
    February 2009
    24,943 Posts
    Iceland is a US protectorate
    If I remember correctly, Iceland had us leave our military base there.

    Besides, who the hell is going to invade Iceland? They don't need anyone's protection.

    Edited:

    We still need to be able to aid allies in times of war.
    I'd rather not go to war with Argentina because we're obligated to "help" the UK if the Falkans heat up.

  36. Post #76
    Gold Member
    smurfy's Avatar
    October 2007
    21,602 Posts
    Congress would have to approve unanimously
    If this was the case, the US would not even have been able to retaliate after Pearl Harbour because one Congresswoman voted against the declaration of war

  37. Post #77
    WhatTheKlent's Avatar
    December 2008
    802 Posts
    I know a lot of people would want this, but the real question is... why would America want it?
    It's something that would restrict America's power over the world... and although a big part of the world would prefer this to prevent them from fucking shit up, I doubt America ever wants this because it would restrict their ability to fuck shit up.
    That may be true of the government but I'm sure the people who elect many of those in the government do not approve of sending U.S citizens to die halfway across the world, let alone any empathy for the people in foreign countries dying as a result.

    The war in Iraq would have had very little support in the beginning if the populace weren't fed bullshit about WMDs and supposed links to Al Qaeda.
    If the citizens make it clear they don't approve then the government either has to bullshit them or they risk being perceived as non-democratic leaders.

    If this was the case, the US would not even have been able to retaliate after Pearl Harbour because one Congresswoman voted against the declaration of war
    I think he meant the Amendment would have to be passed unanimously,
    besides that was an aggressive attack on U.S forces in U.S territory, and would qualify as defense.

  38. Post #78
    Gold Member
    smurfy's Avatar
    October 2007
    21,602 Posts
    I think he meant the Amendment would have to be passed unanimously,
    besides that was an aggressive attack on U.S forces in U.S territory, and would qualify as defense.
    I interpreted it as "even in the case of defence/retaliation (except the initial defence when actually being attacked), Congress would have to approve any military action unanimously" but I guess that wouldn't make much sense

  39. Post #79
    Gold Member
    kaine123's Avatar
    February 2010
    9,433 Posts
    If I remember correctly, Iceland had us leave our military base there.

    Besides, who the hell is going to invade Iceland? They don't need anyone's protection.

    Edited:



    I'd rather not go to war with Argentina because we're obligated to "help" the UK if the Falkans heat up.
    Not exactly what I meant, I mean if say North Korea or Iran declares war on some miscellaneous country.

  40. Post #80
    NeonpieDFTBA's Avatar
    January 2012
    939 Posts
    If I remember correctly, Iceland had us leave our military base there.

    Besides, who the hell is going to invade Iceland? They don't need anyone's protection.

    Edited:



    I'd rather not go to war with Argentina because we're obligated to "help" the UK if the Falkans heat up.
    The US has dragged the UK into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so why should it not help the UK in a direct attack on its own territory.