I'm a Libby Lib who is starting to feel markedly different when it comes to foreign policy

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Marley23

Here’s the general problem: if you want the U.S. to be a force for good in the world and stand up for human rights, it probably shouldn’t just do those things when there’s something in it for the U.S. That’s not even enlightened self-interest, it’s regular self-interest, and you can draw a very direct line from ‘the U.S. should only get involved in international crises when there’s a damn good reason’ to ‘war for oil.’

You seem to agree with me that asking “what’s in it for us” should not be a criteria for helping other countries. My issue is that if we are going to claim righteousness at social injustice in the world, we should be far less discriminating.

There are several nations which last year were labeled Stage 7 - the Extermination stage - according to Genocide Watch. They include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Uganda, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Burma/Myanmar and Ethiopia. There were an additional dozen nations at Stage 6 and over two dozen at Stage 5.

We don’t help everyone. In fact, even with outcry to help people in places such as Darfur and Tibet, the United States has deemed those atrocities unfortunate and might have issued economic sanctions but little else.

Don’t those who make the claim that American lives are not any more precious than non-American lives realize that America makes those same choices when it decides that the life of someone in a country that happens to offer us more as a stable ally than someone in a country that might be perfectly nice but cannot help us as much or not at all?

Then you need to lobby Congress on education and food stamp or social program funding because there is just no connection between these things. This is one of the lamer false equivalences that we’re seeing in the Syria debate. Even if nothing happens with Syria, a lot of people in Congress will be opposed to providing these kinds of services. You’ll recall a couple of candidates from one party have proposed eliminating the Department of Education because they don’t think the federal government should be involved in education.

Thanks for clearing it up that these are two different issues. You are missing the forest for the trees, however.

My point, which I made using parallel examples (not perfectly analogous ones) is that our resources are not limitless. And without limitless resources, I personally would prefer we spend them domestically.

That’s unfortunate. It’s a big world, and it’s not going to get any simpler if the U.S. ignores it. It just means people will be more confused when problems in other countries affect them- and I’m not just talking about terrorist attacks.

So in order to not “ignore” something we have to spend money, send people there in consulates and embassies, help them in their warfare?

Who do you think is going to do anything about it?

Why should I care?

Ask somebody in Rwanda or Darfur about the U.S. getting involved in every international conflict.

Not sure why you find this as a potential “point” for your side when I consider it one for mine. We’re not helping everyone and we choose sides based solely on our own self-interests. I don’t even think that beats doing nothing because of the way it makes us look and the fact that our help is not always the best for other people.

I guess I would rather the US be seen as a little selfish but willing to provide humanitarian aid to deserving people/nations without needing to qualify it with a “what’s in it for us” than to be self-important and hypocritical.

[Shodan]

@Airk

I think he declined to make an assessment of whether the number was “significant” or not, and that you are putting words in his mouth.

No, I am not. If he believes the number to be insignificant, then he is complaining about something that is not significant, which makes no sense.

Even setting aside the significant/not significant argument, you are still making up the “because of foreign aid” clause from whole cloth.

No, I am not. He went on to say, under the same bullet

As much as I think it’s neat that we might send aid that will build a school in some third world country, I am disheartened that we are cutting education funding here.

That said, according the US census, 15% of Americans are below the poverty line. Even assuming only 1/3rd of THOSE people don’t always have enough to eat (seems absurd to me, but whatever), then we are still left with what I would consider a significant number.

Pulling a random percentage of 1/3 out of thin air is not a persuasive argument. Considering the prevalence of obesity amongst the poor, (cite, cite) I do not find the assertion that any significant portion of Americans go to bed hungry to be at all reasonable.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That doesn’t end the discussion. It begins it anew. We spend a tiny fraction of our budget on foreign aid - about $50 billion including military aid.

Some things that we spend less than that on include Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy, NASA, EPA, the NSF and disaster costs. (cite). I would like them to have more funding. I also would like for us to have more federal dollars for the many, many states that are having trouble funding basic things such as education.

[Marley23]

@Shodan

Pulling a random percentage of 1/3 out of thin air is not a persuasive argument. Considering the prevalence of obesity amongst the poor, (cite, cite) I do not find the assertion that any significant portion of Americans go to bed hungry to be at all reasonable.

From your first cite:

In 2010, 15.1% of Americans lived in poverty based upon family income census data. […] How is poverty linked to obesity? It has been suggested that individuals who live in impoverished regions have poor access to fresh food. Poverty-dense areas are oftentimes called “food deserts,” implying diminished access to fresh food (7). However, 43% of households with incomes below the poverty line ($21,756) are food insecure (uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, sufficient food) (7). Accordingly, 14% of U.S. counties have more than 1 in 5 individuals use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The county-wide utility of the program, as expected, correlates with county-wide poverty rates (r = 0.81) (7). Thus, in many poverty-dense regions, people are in hunger and unable to access affordable healthy food, even when funds avail. The double-edged sword of hunger and poor availability of healthy food is, however, unlikely to be the only reason as to why obesity tracks with poverty.

If you’re getting ready to argue that a lot of these people must have plenty of food because they’re obese, please don’t bother. That only shows the food they do have access to is unhealthy.

[Shodan]

@Marley23

If you’re getting ready to argue that a lot of these people must have plenty of food because they’re obese, please don’t bother.

That is exactly what it means. By definition, if you are obese, you are not going to bed hungry. The word “hungry” does not mean “eating too much unhealthy food”.

Words have definite meanings, whether you like it or not.

Regards,
Shodan

[SirGalahad]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Oh FFS, we’re really bogging this down with this? :rolleyes:

Since that seems important to people here, this should hopefully end the discussion:

The entire population of Syria is 22.4 Million.

So I believe it is fair to say that it is not an insignificant number. Certainly, it makes this exchange: pretty silly.

Americans do go to bed hungry. It is undeniable that the higher ends of poverty in this country do not compare to that of third world countries, however I thought it was ridiculous when Fox News made a big deal about the Heritage Foundation report that poor people had it so good here (as did Stephen Colbert) and I think it’s ridiculous to claim that “there aren’t” “Americans who go to bed hungry.”

I doubt many Americans go to bed hungry, but I know plenty of them go to bed ignorant for lack of an effective education, and far too many go to bed starved for culture because the Arts are insufficiently funded.

[Marley23]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

You seem to agree with me that asking “what’s in it for us” should not be a criteria for helping other countries.

It shouldn’t be the only criterion. You do have to prioritize in some way because there will always be other things that will demand your attention and the U.S. doesn’t have unlimited resources.

I’m concerned that this is about to get confusing because you said in the OP that American lives shouldn’t be put on the line unless there’s a national security reason, but you also said the U.S. seemed to make decisions on human rights issues based on whether or not oil was involved. (As far as I know there is no oil in Bosnia or Burma.)

There are several nations which last year were labeled Stage 7 - the Extermination stage - according to Genocide Watch. They include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Uganda, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Burma/Myanmar and Ethiopia.

And these are countries with a very wide variety of different problems and levels of American involvement ranging from “a lot” to “none.”

My point, which I made using parallel examples (not perfectly analogous ones) is that our resources are not limitless. And without limitless resources, I personally would prefer we spend them domestically.

They are not limitless, no. But that’s not how those decisions get made. And prioritizing one thing over another is different from saying “why do we have to spend money on this at all?”

So in order to not “ignore” something we have to spend money, send people there in consulates and embassies, help them in their warfare?

So your view is that the U.S. can engage with the rest of the world and stay involved in complex global issues that affect billions of people via, I don’t know, Facebook? 'Cause that’s free. (The computers are also free because MAGIC.) In the grand scheme of things sending diplomats to other countries is not a major expense, nor is it a huge risk. And yes, things like trade agreements can also be good for the U.S. It’s not just a money pit. Getting involved in a war is a complicated decision, but that’s not the form most of this stuff takes.

Why should I care?

So about that “I’m a liberal” thing…

Not sure why you find this as a potential “point” for your side when I consider it one for mine.

Because I was talking to someone else about something else. MsWhatsit said she’s tired of the view that the U.S. needs to get involved in every international conflict, and I was pointing out that it doesn’t. That’s not just untrue, it is ludicrously wrong. How many active conflicts are there in Africa right now? There’s little American (or Western) involvement there in general because of the previously-discussed “what’s in it for us?” issue.

[septimus]

@Jonathan_Chance

Instead of blowing up some HQ someplace, better to smack some official residence. Make it personal for Assad. Let it be seen as trying to punish the person who used WMD rather than the country.

+1. I’ve thought this myself.

We think someone is evil and want to make sure he knows how we feel? Destroy one of his pretty palaces! Yes, innocents may die, but the same is true with usual targeting.

[Marley23]

@Shodan

That is exactly what it means. By definition, if you are obese, you are not going to bed hungry. The word “hungry” does not mean “eating too much unhealthy food”.

I note that the point about a lot of people living in poverty (and a lot of them not having enough food) was immediately lost. So I am going to quote this again:

In 2010, 15.1% of Americans lived in poverty based upon family income census data. […] 43% of households with incomes below the poverty line ($21,756) are food insecure (uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, sufficient food).

That sounds like a substantial number of people who either don’t have enough food or who have enough food this week but might not next week.

The obesity thing is tangential to the point that was being made, but if you want to hang your hat on the idea that people people who are malnourished aren’t really hungry, go to it and good luck.

[Shodan]

Well, there’s glory for you.

Regards,
Shodan

[RTFirefly]

@Marley23

I note that the point about a lot of people living in poverty (and a lot of them not having enough food) was immediately lost. So I am going to quote this again:

That sounds like a substantial number of people who either don’t have enough food or who have enough food this week but might not next week.

It sure is. The U.S. currently has over 316 million people, so that means roughly 20.5 million U.S. residents are in this situation.

For perspective, that’s not much less than the combined population of Greece and Portugal, roughly 21.4 million, or (more to the point, maybe) the population of Syria, which is about 21.9 million.

@Marley23

I don’t disagree with that. I was responding to the comment that the U.S. gets involved in every international conflict or every international conflict that involves chemical weapons. It doesn’t.

Ah, I see. Sorry for misreading you.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@septimus

+1. I’ve thought this myself.

We think someone is evil and want to make sure he knows how we feel? Destroy one of his pretty palaces! Yes, innocents may die, but the same is true with usual targeting.

If you target a military asset and innocents are killed, that’s one thing. If you target a civilian installation and they are killed, you are a dick.

[LibrarySpy]

A significant portion of Americans go hungry each night.
We spend money on foreign aid.
Reducing the amount of foreign aid will not reduce the amount of people who go hungry in the US.

Reducing the amount of foreign aid may or may not increase the number of people who go hungry worldwide.

Reducing military spending, not just by withdrawing troops overseas, but by shrinking the military, closing bases, cutting back on R&D, ending pork and graft, would help us maintain a more balanced budget, without reducing our footprint worldwide.

Like any good Lib, I agree with John_Stamos’_Left_Ear and Der Trihs that we (especially the CIA) are galactic fuckups on the world stage.

[CannyDan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If you target a military asset and innocents are killed, that’s one thing. If you target a civilian installation and they are killed, you are a dick.

I think you’re pretty much a dick either way. At least, everybody except your closest allies will see things that way. Some leeway can be expected, given the inherent uncertainty of explodie thingies, if your targeting of a military asset is in furtherance of a declared war. I don’t see that as applicable to Syria and “pretty palaces”.

Didn’t Ambrose Bierce say that allies are two countries with hands so deeply inserted into each others’ pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third? So yeah, your closest allies might overlook your dickitude. Other people, not so much.

[Learjeff]

I’m more of a libby conservative. Or perhaps a conny liberal. You decide.

Of course we fight wars over oil. The US has an economy that’s very strongly dependent on cheap oil. (Google “energy intensity”.) Price of oil goes up, people lose jobs, people complain about the high price of gas. Price of oil goes down, jobs increase, people complain a lot less about the high price of gas.

That said, I think it was insane for us to invade Iraq. I was against it at the beginning, though once we started, I believed we needed to see it through. Not sure what the latter means, other than some kind of exit without complete disgrace and failure to meet any goals. Did we achieve that? Debate for another thread. I sure don’t know! I wonder whether it’s improved the oil supply, and I doubt it.

I doubt that it would improve quality of life significantly in the US if we diverted all foreign aid to domestic aid of some kind. It’s very difficult to hand out money in ways that don’t develop a dependency on the handouts. (Meanwhile, I do think that we need to invest in education as the biggest payoff for future generations. However, I question whether the way the US federal goverment invests in education is the best way in terms of results. I’d rather see the feds do research into what works and provide resources that could be used by all school systems.)

Regarding Syria, either we take our commitment to ban WMD seriously or we do not. I do, and so I think we should punish the Assad regime, using the minimum cost / maximum hurt method, and a limited one. Our record at regime change is pretty bad, so I think we should stay out of that game.

Those who think we shouldn’t punish Assad for using chem weaps (unless they don’t feel we have sufficient evidence to enculpate Assad) can’t be taking the commitment to ban WMD very seriously, or else they’re so unrealistic that they think unilateral disarmament is the best approach.

[Magiver]

@Marley23

The obesity thing is tangential to the point that was being made, but if you want to hang your hat on the idea that people people who are malnourished aren’t really hungry, go to it and good luck.

speaking of tangents…

[HurricaneDitka]

@Der_Trihs

a Tea Party attitude of “we shouldn’t do anything to help because foreigners are all subhumans who deserve to die”.

I’m guessing you’ve never been to a Tea Party rally, have you? If you had, you’d probably find that very few hold the “foreigners are all subhumans who deserve to die” opinion.

@BobLibDem

we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. It isn’t foreign aid that keeps the American underclass in perpetual poverty.

I don’t think the military spending claim is accurate, but I’d be open to seeing a cite that shows it to be the case. Last i heard it was something like ‘more than the next 15 countries combined’. Admittedly, that’s still a lot.

As for the second part, the American underclass’s version of poverty is pretty good living compared with much of the rest of the world’s poor.

@Marley23

It’s been a while since anybody used chemical weapons precisely because the ban on them is taken pretty seriously. (Of course the U.S. did not intervene the last time it happened either because they were being used by then-ally Iraq against Iran.) That’s something that can change if countries stop caring about that ban, and that would be good for precisely nobody.

It’s not a “ban”. It’s a treaty that most of us signed. Syria never signed it. I don’t understand why all the advocates of “international law” think they should be held responsible for an agreement they never agreed to. Is “international law” just whatever the fuck the American president at the time says it is?

[Marley23]

@HurricaneDitka

It’s not a “ban”. It’s a treaty that most of us signed.

Follicular division.

Syria never signed it.

As a matter of fact Syria did sign the 1925 Geneva Protocol that bans these kinds of weapons. That treaty applies to international war, so I gather there is disagreement on whether it applies to this civil war. There may be newer treaties they haven’t signed. But then again last week Syria denied it had any chemical weapons at all, and now it admits it has them and is willing to place them under international control, which would seem to preclude Assad using them again. That’d be evidence of the international community taking this seriously.

[Magiver]

@Marley23

Follicular division.

As a matter of fact Syria did sign the 1925 Geneva Protocol that bans these kinds of weapons. That treaty applies to international war, so I gather there is disagreement on whether it applies to this civil war. There may be newer treaties they haven’t signed. But then again last week Syria denied it had any chemical weapons at all, and now it admits it has them and is willing to place them under international control, which would seem to preclude Assad using them again. That’d be evidence of the international community taking this seriously.

Syria didn’t exist as a republic in 1925.

[Marley23]

@Magiver

Syria didn’t exist as a republic in 1925.

I believe they signed it in 1968.