Non-interventionism is simply a recognition of the dangers of unintended consequence. Interventionism is bad policy if the cost of the intervention plus the risk of unintended consequences is greater than the risk of non-intervention. Likewise, Non-interventionism is bad policy if the reverse is true.

I think that sums up the subtlety of non-intervention beautifully…distinguishing between non-interventionism and isolationism by pointing out that non-interventionism is a pragmatic approach, not a ideological one. That’s why I did think Ron Paul was fairly sharp on his foreign policy, because most of the critics who try to label him an isolationist conveniently ignore the fact that he voted to intervene in Afghanistan. Of course, his vote ended up getting subverted because he completely misjudged Bush, but then just because he’s a crappy judge of character and competence doesn’t mean he’s not right on quite a few issues.

Well,yes, on that much you’re right.

That’s all I was ever trying to say. Hopefully we can arrive at this point a little quicker in the future.

At the same time, though, I think it’s incredibly naive and stupid to base American foreign policy on the idea that “we better not offend anybody.”

You’re right, that would be pretty stupid. Luckily, that’s not the basis of non-interventionism. There are many people offended by our decision not to intervene in Darfur and Burma. So be it.

Non-interventionism is simply a recognition of the dangers of unintended consequence. Interventionism is bad policy if the cost of the intervention plus the risk of unintended consequences is greater than the risk of non-intervention. Likewise, Non-interventionism is bad policy if the reverse is true.

Unfortunately we don’t have simulators powerful enough to figure out which is true, so we just have to agree to follow our own intuition.

Well,yes, on that much you’re right. And when Paul made that argument and Rudy Giuliani objected to it last year at one of the first GOP debates, I defended him (links available upon request).

At the same time, though, I think it’s incredibly naive and stupid to base American foreign policy on the idea that “we better not offend anybody.” (In that regard, you’re talking to a guy who was pissed off to high heaven when he found out that American servicewomen in Saudi Arabia were being forced to comply with that countries barabaric gender laws).

The radical Islamists are motivated by far more than what we may or may not have done to offend them. And if they didn’t have our presence in the Middle East to complain about, they’d be complaining about (as they do) the “corrupting influence” of Western culture.

if we quit sending troops abroad, other people and countries would quit wanting to kill us.

This statement could be taken two ways. It could be taken to mean that “some people and countries” or “all people and countries”. If Reynolds intended the latter, it was a blatant mischaracterization. If he intended the former, he’s pretty stupid for disagreeing with what is obviously true. I’m sure there is at least on person somewhere that hates us because of something we did to him, his family, his country, ethnicity, etc.

I still don’t think that Reynolds’ sentence was a mis characterization.

What I believe, based on what I’ve heard him say, is that he believes that most threats to the United States are little more than reactions our own allegedly bad actions. Therefore, he goes on to conclude, withdrawing our military to within our borders and closing every overseas military base, will eliminate those threats.

There, now was that so hard? You’ve spent the last two days defending someone who said “all” instead of “most”.

I simply can’t trust a person who believes stuff like that to make the right decisions.

That’s fine. I don’t care that you disagree. Just make sure you describe his position accurately.

OBL himself has stated the same motivations for 911 as the 911 Commission has stated. RP only pointed that out, and is supported by both the 911 Commission and the CIA. all you’re doing right now is false extrapolation.

Because, you know, what motivates a fascist Islamic mass murderer should be the only thing that we base our foreign policy on.

Yea, I don’t think so.

What I believe, based on what I’ve heard him say, is that he believes that most threats to the United States are little more than reactions our own allegedly bad actions. Therefore, he goes on to conclude, withdrawing our military to within our borders and closing every overseas military base, will eliminate those threats.

It’s a policy based on incredibly naive assumptions, and I simply can’t trust a person who believes stuff like that to make the right decisions.

If it’s demonstrably wrong, then demonstrate it.

I’ve heard Ron Paul say basically the same thing more than once.

I have already acknowledged that Paul has oversold non-interventionism; he engaged in the same kind of exaggerated rhetoric as virtually all politicians.

Having said that, I’ll repeat two questions that I still haven’t received direct answers to.

Separate the product from the sales pitch. Do any of you actually believe that he’s so stupid as to create a foreign policy dependent on the assumption that no one would want to kill us? If so, why didn’t he advocate the wholesale disbanding of the military?

The only thing he’s said about foreign policy differently from Paul that I’m aware of is his suggestion that it probably isn’t a good idea to set deadlines for withdrawing troops under the general principle that you don’t tell your enemies what you’re doing.

Makes sense to me.

If it’s demonstrably wrong, then demonstrate it.

I’ve heard Ron Paul say basically the same thing more than once.

Why would I disavow a comment that I agree with ?