Thanks for your composure and excellent performance in this debate. The pro side mentioning the Khmer Rouge as an example of what happens when America "steps back" was an incredible and (I think) representative error of that team - it's like they forget all the American intervention that happened before the new opportunity to intervene.
Gawd, the supremacy, hubris, and righteousness is thick. Who the hell do they think the US is? By what right do we have to rule others? With what evidence is China attacking Taiwan? What military bases? They’re waiting and watching us collapse so the polite respectful people can work together.
would love to see an argument against the idea that any country has the right or the mandate to “police” the entire world … especially when it is not welcomed and supposedly done in the name of democracy
Exactly. Bari Weiss focused the debate on whether we should rule the world or someone else should which assumes that a global ruling country is moral or required
First of all, I want to point out you and Matt are the cutest.
Bret Stephens made the point over and over that the US policing the world makes US citizens safer. We and our children can sleep easier at night knowing we have the upper hand. So what the debate really boiled down to (for me) is does our comfort and convenience outweigh everyone else’s? Brett and Jaime say yes — too bad if bad things happen over there (Iraq, Libya, Vietnam) as long as we get what we want. Okinawa has wanted us out for decades and we won’t leave. Maybe the premise should have been : do we have the right to police the world? Particularly when this done for our benefit?
Lee, you guys were excellent. I had resisted watching because I can't stand Bari Weiss and her propaganda outlet, but I caved. We'll done. No surprise her audience was stacked with interventionists.
Also, just wanted to point out the shocking lack of awareness on their part around the term "genocide". They mentioned preventing genocide over a dozen times and don't seem to realize the US is a party to the genocide being committed right now by their favorite country.
We haven’t helped anyone with “intervention.” Brutally killing millions and installing murderous dictators who favor our economic policies hasn’t worked, while this nation has nothing left to fight for, and no one capable or willing to fight. Bari is a supremacist monster thinly veiled by her free speech pose, that’s for her but not for you.
The "should we" debate has become largely irrelevant to anyone who is paying attention to recent events. More appropriate would be a "can we" debate. Our buddies both in Israel and Ukraine are scraping the bottom of their respective barrels. Having scrapped most of our industrial capacity we no longer have the ability to sustain prolonged military conflict anywhere. As astute military commentators have pointed out the days of war as shock and awe are over. War as an industrial business is back.
The usual dorks, who would never pick up a gun, pushing for war. Not to mention the U.S. has $36 Trillion in debt. The warhawks need to live out their fantasy of U.S. inperialism so they can compensate by living vicariously through the U.S. military. Lastly, Congress must authorize war. There are Constitutional issues.
The oposing side kept asking, if we don't police who is going to do it? In the summation, you should have said our policing is what caused all the problems that you want more policing to solve. The answer is not to police at all.
Lee,
Thanks for your composure and excellent performance in this debate. The pro side mentioning the Khmer Rouge as an example of what happens when America "steps back" was an incredible and (I think) representative error of that team - it's like they forget all the American intervention that happened before the new opportunity to intervene.
Gawd, the supremacy, hubris, and righteousness is thick. Who the hell do they think the US is? By what right do we have to rule others? With what evidence is China attacking Taiwan? What military bases? They’re waiting and watching us collapse so the polite respectful people can work together.
Not to mention the US official policy is still 'One China' - watch-what-I-say-not-what-I-do.
"police the world".
America polices the world like England used to police India.
would love to see an argument against the idea that any country has the right or the mandate to “police” the entire world … especially when it is not welcomed and supposedly done in the name of democracy
This was exactly my problem with the whole premise of this debate. Who are we to decide if we get to "police" the world?
Exactly. Bari Weiss focused the debate on whether we should rule the world or someone else should which assumes that a global ruling country is moral or required
First of all, I want to point out you and Matt are the cutest.
Bret Stephens made the point over and over that the US policing the world makes US citizens safer. We and our children can sleep easier at night knowing we have the upper hand. So what the debate really boiled down to (for me) is does our comfort and convenience outweigh everyone else’s? Brett and Jaime say yes — too bad if bad things happen over there (Iraq, Libya, Vietnam) as long as we get what we want. Okinawa has wanted us out for decades and we won’t leave. Maybe the premise should have been : do we have the right to police the world? Particularly when this done for our benefit?
Agreed! (Beside the cuteness) The Brett/Jaime perspective looks as US-centric as our superiorist interventionist policies.
Thank you for pointing this out. "Police the world" really means "maintain US hegemony".
Lee made the right argument. The world would function best in a multilateral arrangement, with cooperation between nations for mutual benefit.
Lee, you guys were excellent. I had resisted watching because I can't stand Bari Weiss and her propaganda outlet, but I caved. We'll done. No surprise her audience was stacked with interventionists.
Also, just wanted to point out the shocking lack of awareness on their part around the term "genocide". They mentioned preventing genocide over a dozen times and don't seem to realize the US is a party to the genocide being committed right now by their favorite country.
This one is super easy - NO.
Lee Fang, I think Weiss herself cinched the debate for you and Matt with her stated format of 'civil discourse' not policing, not censoring. 100%
We haven’t helped anyone with “intervention.” Brutally killing millions and installing murderous dictators who favor our economic policies hasn’t worked, while this nation has nothing left to fight for, and no one capable or willing to fight. Bari is a supremacist monster thinly veiled by her free speech pose, that’s for her but not for you.
The "should we" debate has become largely irrelevant to anyone who is paying attention to recent events. More appropriate would be a "can we" debate. Our buddies both in Israel and Ukraine are scraping the bottom of their respective barrels. Having scrapped most of our industrial capacity we no longer have the ability to sustain prolonged military conflict anywhere. As astute military commentators have pointed out the days of war as shock and awe are over. War as an industrial business is back.
The usual dorks, who would never pick up a gun, pushing for war. Not to mention the U.S. has $36 Trillion in debt. The warhawks need to live out their fantasy of U.S. inperialism so they can compensate by living vicariously through the U.S. military. Lastly, Congress must authorize war. There are Constitutional issues.
The oposing side kept asking, if we don't police who is going to do it? In the summation, you should have said our policing is what caused all the problems that you want more policing to solve. The answer is not to police at all.
800 US bases in the world. How many outside of Iran?? Who is ACTUALLY a threat?
ZOG.
Five star debate! Congratulations.
Anarchy is self-government without violent repression. Bombing people into “democracy” when we don’t have it here is futile and evil..
And cost sans benefit - what a waste (for capitalists, really?).
This article has been sitting on top of my "to read" pile for a while. I'm so glad I finally got to it...
Thanks for articulating this position so beautifully. Many of us share it.