It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


On the matter of non-interventionism

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:29 AM
I have been in one fight in my entire life. I was 12 and it was a fight with a friend over something stupid. It lasted about 5 minutes and we both looked like idiots.

So how have I gone 25 years since then without a single fight? Am I scary? Nope. Am I a coward? Hardly.

I stand strongly for what I believe in, but I stay out of other people's business. My friends and family are my priorities. I take care of them as best I can and will rise to their defense. When I am faced with a confrontation, I listen and talk my way out of it. Key word there.. listen.

Most importantly, I do not put myself into the middle of something that has nothing at all to do with me. This is not isolationism, I am not a hermit. This is non-interventionism. I am well liked and respected among my friends and colleagues. I offer help if I see I could be of help, but I never force my help onto people. And I will gladly help if I can when I am sincerely asked for help.

This principle works just as well on the international level. Roosevelt espoused this with the "speak softly and carry a big stick". Now, some may say that he was a bit of a hypocrite, given his administration's involvement in the Panamanian Revolt; however, the message is sound.

If you stand strong on your beliefs and stay out of other people's business (unless invited), then you will generally not be attacked. If you are attacked, defeat your opponent quickly and then move on.

People get riled up sometimes. There are plenty of things happening in distant lands that really bother me. However, the biggest test of our resolve is not what we are willing to fight against happily but what we are willing to fight for even when it hurts. Sometimes the right thing to do is NOT the most popular or even the one that provides immediate gratification.

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:52 AM
Wasn't this exact post made a few days ago? Or am I suffering Deja vu?

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:59 AM

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Wasn't this exact post made a few days ago? Or am I suffering Deja vu?

yeah, I posted it in a thread somewhere. Didn't remember that till after I posted this thread and at that point was too late.. figured it doesn't hurt anything having out there.

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:00 AM
Having been in a few more fights than most, I agree with you 100%.
Fighting never solved anything, it sometimes made matters worse, and it seemed...
There was always an instigator.

Put that in perspective today's international views...
It fits like a glove.

The only reason people support fighting and "interventionism" is because of television.
Maybe I should say media generally, but I blame propaganda in general, also. Instigators?
Or maybe the crowd who cheers, "Fight! fight! Fight!"
Had these supporters never watched this crap spewed from the TV, things may be different now.

The fights (wars) today are always instigated from people with tons of wealth.
They are the people who fund both sides to accomplish their goals.
They don't get involved with any physical action at all, just monetary gains.

Thank God this information is readily accessible today, because had it not been, we probably would've been well into WWIII. In my opinion, that would've been a terrible thing. But after finding out who really started WWI and WWII not to mention every single war including the Revolutionary War, I may think differently.

But we all know there are deeply rooted reasons these "elites" want war.
It's definitely not to benefit the people, or cure "terrorism".

Terrorism has been around for millenia.
It's called conflict.
More specifically, war.

Just because these "elites" put a spin on the word, in order to gain an audience, doesn't mean it's new.
Or genuine, for that matter.

It's just another way to convince civilians to give up liberties.
In order to be under more control.
So they can aquire more wealth.

Because we all know you can't take wealth with you when you die.
But you can leave it for future generations to keep the serfs in order.
And wealth = power.
In some diluted eyes.

edit on 20-1-2012 by havok because: Clarity

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:38 AM
You say you stay out of other's business and only help if it is requested.

What if the nature of that help request mandates interference with other's business? Let's say the people of a certain country ask for your help in getting rid of a certain someone who is violating their rights and abusing them, but removing that certain person will upset a bunch of other people who may attack you forcing you to defend yourself by counter-attacking to inhibit said opponent's ability to harm you?

What if someone else's business is bomb building, and left to their own devices they might get extremely good at bomb building and pose a significant threat to you and others at a later stage, possibly a threat that could cause many more to die than if you were to interfere with that business sooner rather than later and to neutralize it?

Where your analogy fails greatly is that you are just a regular guy and are under no obligation to make sure others do not come to harm. However, if you, for instance, had superpowers (or were a superpower?) you might then feel obligated to interfere in ways that might upset others, being the only person truly able to make a significant difference in the world, if you catch my drift.

new topics

top topics

log in