Trump Threatens Venezuela With 'Military Option'

[goldenequity]

Trump Threatens Venezuela With Unspecified 'Military Option' (https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-08-11/trump-threatens-venezuela-with-military-option)
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-08-11/trump-threatens-venezuela-with-military-option

BEDMINSTER, N.J. (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday threatened military intervention in Venezuela, a surprise escalation in Washington's response to Venezuela's political crisis.

"The people are suffering and they are dying. We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary," Trump told reporters.

Previously, the Pentagon said the U.S. military was ready to support efforts to protect U.S. citizens and America's national interests, but that insinuations by Caracas of a planned U.S. invasion were "baseless."

Trump's suggestion of possible military action came in a week when he has repeatedly threatened a military response if North Korea threatens the United States or its allies.

Asked if U.S. forces would lead an operation in Venezuela, Trump declined to provide details. "We don't talk about it but a military operation - a military option - is certainly something that we could pursue," he said.

The president's comments conjured up memories of gunboat diplomacy in Latin America during the 20th century, when the United States regarded its "backyard" neighbors to the south as underlings who it could easily intimidate through conspicuous displays of military power.

The U.S. military has not directly intervened in the region since a 1994-1995 operation that aimed to remove from Haiti a military government installed after a 1991 coup.

Trump's comments could be an asset to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by boosting his credibility as a national defender.

"Maduro must be thrilled right now," said Mark Feierstein, who was a senior aide on Venezuela matters to former U.S. president Barack Obama. "It's hard to imagine a more damaging thing for Trump to say."

[goldenequity]

Nothing unites a country more than an external threat.
Maduro needs to send a thank you.

http://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/08/29/6360803493185263241013372644_Thank-You-Free-PNG-Image.png

[Swordsmyth]

Dump wants Venezuela to collapse, just like he wants the Saudis to collapse, he is pouring gas on the fire on purpose and on the cheap, I doubt he intends to send in the Marines.

[jkr]

BUTT, when the people of AMERICA ( you heard of it, your its "president") suffer and die and are robbed blind by ITS government...crickets

fugking crickets

this guy sux azz

[timosman]

Make sure to (re)watch "Wag the Dog (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885)" this weekend.:cool:

[r3volution 3.0]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/459711317100601344/ydR7CCNl.jpeghttps://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/459711317100601344/ydR7CCNl.jpeghttps://i.ytimg.com/vi/YnltFSl_DQ0/maxresdefault.jpg

[goldenequity]

AP
Peru President (former Wall Street investment banker) expels Venezuela ambassador (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_VENEZUELA_POLITICAL_CRISIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-08-11-00-04-30)

[goldenequity]

Trump refused phone call with Venezuelan president (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346282-trump-refused-phone-call-from-venezuelan-president)

[goldenequity]

Temer's soft coup 'Interim Presidency' expires next year.

Brazilian general elections are scheduled for October 2018,
and will elect the President and Vice President,
the National Congress, state Governors and Vice Governors
and state Legislative Assemblies.


Brazil’s Trump: right-wing firebrand Jair Bolsonaro declares presidential ambition. ‘Patriot’ lawmaker is anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-guns and pro-military.
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/americas/article/2106407/brazils-trump-right-wing-firebrand-jair-bolsonaro-declares


This the 'plan' for the Liberal/Social Eastern hemisphere masses. Time to mow the back yard.

[jmdrake]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-rule-military-option-venezuela/story?id=49167750

I know. I know. He's just doing this to show how non-interventionist he is. Good lawd!

[timosman]

Who will be producing this war?

[charrob]

Just a repeat of the same pattern/blueprint the U.S. uses in countries all over the world whose governments refuse to be U.S. puppets:


First there's U.S. taxpayer funded "NGO's" like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) who organize the protests and fund the opposition.
If above doesn't work to overthrow government, then the U.S. military/CIA arms and trains "rebels".
If above doesn't work to overthrow government, then the U.S. military does the job.


The only reason step 3, above, didn't occur in Syria is because Russia got involved. But this U.S. interventionist crap has occurred in most countries on this planet and none of it has been for the "defense" of the citizens of this country (in fact it harms our security by making enemies all over the world). Step 1 above is more recent as this used to be the job of the CIA; now these NGO's (ie. NED, IRI, USAID, PNAC, Soro's Open Society, etc.) are now the front groups for the CIA who have taken over step 1.

Many here hate Venezuela's government because of its leftest policies. I would argue that I don't care what happens in other countries as long as my U.S. taxpayer dollars are not going to intervene in other countries internal affairs. I believe in the self-determination of other countries where only the people of those countries come up with a system that is right for them. Like it or not, Maduro was democratically elected. In Venezuela my U.S. taxpayer dollars have definitely intervened, and are definitely intervening, in their internal affairs which is wrong.

From July 25, 2017 article in the UK's Independent: (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-venezuela-crisis-government-mike-pompeo-helping-install-new-remarks-a7859771.html)




The head of the CIA [Mike Pompeo] has suggested the agency is working to change the elected government of Venezuela and is collaborating with two countries in the region [Mexico and Colombia] to do so. In one of the clearest clues yet about Washington’s latest meddling in the politics of Latin America, CIA director Mike Pompeo said he was “hopeful that there can be a transition in Venezuela and we the CIA are doing its best to understand the dynamic there".


MIKE POMPEO: Any time you have a country of—as large and with the economic capacity of a country like Venezuela, America has a deep interest in making sure that it is stable and as democratic as possible. And so, we’re working hard to do that. I’m always careful when we talk about South and Central America and the CIA. There’s a lot of stories. So, I want to be careful with what I say. But, suffice to say, we—we are very hopeful that there can be a transition in Venezuela."




Here's an interview with Lee Fang from the Intercept discussing the "Atlas Network": (https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/11/lee_fang_on_how_a_little)




From FOIA documents, we see that, going back to the late '90s, just after Hugo Chávez came to power, the State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy, started providing large amounts of [U.S. taxpayer] money to the Atlas think tank network in Venezuela to orchestrate protest movements, to criticize his government, to try to delegitimize his government. In fact, when there was the kind of brief 2002 coup, that brought Hugo Chávez from power for not a very long period, but there was an attempt, and we see from these documents that the Atlas think tanks sprung into actions to try to legitimize the new coup government. There was the Carmona Decree, this kind of document that said from business leaders in Venezuela, saying, "Hugo Chávez has gone, and we’d like to move on and have a new government." We see from this cache of documents that they are working hand in glove with the U.S. government, that these libertarian leaders, that had been trained in the United States and funded by the Atlas Network and from the [U.S. taxpayers] U.S. government, were part of a larger strategy to bring down the Chávez government.

Now, we don’t know exactly what’s going on now, but we know from the diplomatic cables from Chelsea Manning that after that period, there were repeated attempts to orchestrate large anti-government protests, to channel anger at the Chávez government and to hope for a similar situation where the opposition would be strong enough to bring the government down. So, I think it’s very likely that a similar strategy is playing out right now with the crisis in Venezuela. And indeed, we see the CEDICE and other [U.S. taxpayer funded] Atlas-backed think tanks in Venezuela promoting the opposition.

The National Endowment for Democracy, this [U.S. taxpayer funded] government-chartered foundation that’s an arm of American soft power abroad, that provides extensive financing to the Atlas Network think tanks all over the world, including in Venezuela and other places, after Trump was elected president, an Atlas Network economist and fellow, Judy Shelton, was elevated to be the chairperson of the National Endowment for Democracy. So now you have many Atlas Network think tank leaders or fellow travelers in senior positions in the administration, but also an Atlas Network employee helping to manage the U.S. foreign policy arm that’s financing the Atlas Network all across the world. […] The Atlas Network is not only managing the protests on the street and the policy proposals, but they’re also introducing the Breitbart-style commentary and media figures in countries like Brazil.

The most surprising part of this [research] was finding out about the extensive U.S. government financing for this network, especially given their antigovernment rhetoric. I went to Buenos Aires, I went to New York, Las Vegas and Honduras, to speak to different Atlas Network leaders. But I also went to the Hoover Institute archives at Stanford University and went into the personal papers of Antony Fisher, the original founder of the first of these style think tanks, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and the original founder of the Atlas Network. And the [U.S. taxpayer] U.S. government financing comes from the very beginnings of this group. The Atlas Network was originally technically founded in 1981. As early as 1982, I found letters from Antony Fisher writing to Reagan administration officials asking for government money.

[juleswin]

Economic sanction, CIA destabilization must not be working fast enough. I guess it is time the nation killers bring out the big gun. Good luck to the Venezuelan patriots, may they kill as many american backed spooks that come their way

[r3volution 3.0]

I'd be all for removing the communist government in Venezuela...

...except that the government we'd install in its place would not be a dramatic improvement, if any at all.

I'm afraid nature will have to take its course down there. With luck they'll end up with a Pinochet type dictatorship.

...without it, permanent revolution.

[acptulsa]

Economic sanction, CIA destabilization must not be working fast enough. I guess it is time the nation killers bring out the big gun. Good luck to the Venezuelan patriots, may they kill as many american backed spooks that come their way

What are they going to call it? VANTIFA? VISIS?

[juleswin]

I'd be all for removing the communist government in Venezuela...

...except that the government we'd install in its place would not be a dramatic improvement, if any at all.

I'm afraid nature will have to take its course down there. With luck they'll end up with a Pinochet type dictatorship.

...without it, permanent revolution.

This post makes so sense at all especially seeing as the US installed Pinochet and not some nature taking its course. The hope is that they squash the so called revolution and the US doesn't funnel money and weapons into the country to keep the crisis going and they find a way to solve their OWN problems without Uncle Sam interference in any way shape or form. Pinochet type leaders included

Also, I have to mention that most of the people protesting on the street are not capitalist, these people are most likely protesting because their welfare money was cut. Lastly, people talk about the Venezuelan govt seizing private property and such as sign of them being very communist. Well, the truth is that all govts resort to taking private property when they are in a war. The people of South American know too well about how CIA uses ownership of vital private property to destabilize nations and they are merely trying to stay alive.

[juleswin]

What are they going to call it? VANTIFA? VISIS?

Capitalist, democracy, freedom fighters. The set of Kurdish goons in Syria are called the Syrian Democratic force when they are not eve Syrians or care for democracy but whatever name that would makes people to have a hardon for the Kurds or the new sets of Venezuelan freedom fighters would be used.

[acptulsa]

Capitalist, democracy, freedom fighters. The set of Kurdish goons in Syria are called the Syrian Democratic force when they are not eve Syrians or care for democracy but whatever name that would makes people to have a hardon for the Kurds or the new sets of Venezuelan freedom fighters would be used.

You're out of date. That's old school CIA tactics from the era when the U.S. population were still buying the 'spreading democracy!' bull$#!+. Now the CIA prefers controlled opposition they can send in, then send the military in after with a hearty, 'The bad guys are there and we have to go eradicate them!'

Move the controlled op out, destroy the town because the controlled op 'bad guys' were there yesterday, and holler, 'Mission Accomplished!'

Look at how they told the protestors in Charlotteville yesterday to take a specific route to the park, told Antifa to sit on that very route, shoved the protestors into Antifa, turned a blind eye while Antifa started the violence, and then spent the whole morning today blaming the violence on the protestors. You'll get the idea.

[r3volution 3.0]

This post makes so sense at all especially seeing as the US installed Pinochet and not some nature taking its course.

The US didn't install Pinochet; the coup d'etat was very much a natural development of Chilean politics.

And even if the US had installed him, it wouldn't follow that foreign intervention is required to produce a Pinochet type reaction.


Also, I have to mention that most of the people protesting on the street are not capitalist, these people are most likely protesting because their welfare money was cut.

Indeed, which is why "restoring democracy" (as the US et al are demanding) is not the cure for Venezuela's illness.


Lastly, people talk about the Venezuelan govt seizing private property and such as sign of them being very communist. Well, the truth is that all govts resort to taking private property when they are in a war. The people of South American know too well about how CIA uses ownership of vital private property to destabilize nations and they are merely trying to stay alive.

Venezuela's problems are a result of its government's own socialistic economic policies, not the CIA or any other outside force.

[charrob]

I'd be all for removing the communist government in Venezuela...

...except that the government we'd install in its place would not be a dramatic improvement, if any at all.


So if the government "we" would install was an improvement in your eyes, you would be for using force against a country that is no threat to us at all?

How very Ron-Paul-Libertarian of you. :rolleyes:




I'm afraid nature will have to take its course down there. With luck they'll end up with a Pinochet type dictatorship.

...without it, permanent revolution.

Of course there will be continued violence... our CIA head has admitted they are pushing hard for regime change and the U.S. taxpayer has been paying for the protests and opposition since Chavez got elected -- even bringing the protest leaders to the U.S. to "train them". Like it or not Maduro was democratically elected. As was Salvador Allende. After Pinochet took over his military junta (trained and armed by the U.S. government) dissolved the Congress of Chile, suspended the Constitution, and began a persecution of alleged dissidents, in which thousands of Allende's supporters were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. This is what you are for?

[timosman]

So if the government "we" would install was an improvement in your eyes, you would be for using force against a country that is no threat to us at all?

How very Ron-Paul-Libertarian of you. :rolleyes:





Of course there will be continued violence... our CIA head has admitted they are pushing hard for regime change and the U.S. taxpayer has been paying for the protests and opposition since Chavez got elected -- even bringing the protest leaders to the U.S. to "train them". Like it or not Maduro was democratically elected. As was Salvador Allende. After Pinochet took over his military junta (trained and armed by the U.S. government) dissolved the Congress of Chile, suspended the Constitution, and began a persecution of alleged dissidents, in which thousands of Allende's supporters were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. This is what you are for?

rev3.0: I am here to stir shit, not to discuss. What baffles me is goyim still fall for this crap.;)

[enhanced_deficit]

Trump should remove any remnants of alt-Neocons from his advisors team. "Art of the deal bluffs" don't exactly translate to "art of the war bluffs", he seems to be overdoing it and his threats could start to look empty if he kept overdoing it banking on fear of his "unpredictability" alone and threatening to fire generals when results don't turn out as he expected.

[juleswin]

The US didn't install Pinochet; the coup d'etat was very much a natural development of Chilean politics.

And even if the US had installed him, it wouldn't follow that foreign intervention is required to produce a Pinochet type reaction.



Indeed, which is why "restoring democracy" (as the US et al are demanding) is not the cure for Venezuela's illness.



Venezuela's problems are a result of its government's own socialistic economic policies, not the CIA or any other outside force.

US didn't install Pinochet, I am sure that is why they immediately stopped their regime change policy once he got in power and they in fact embraced him. Ronald Reagan even removed sanction that was put on the previous admin. Sorry but if you think the CIA were behind the many strikes in the country that led to destabilization of the govt, then I don't really know what to tell you.

[juleswin]

So if the government "we" would install was an improvement in your eyes, you would be for using force against a country that is no threat to us at all?

How very Ron-Paul-Libertarian of you. :rolleyes:





Of course there will be continued violence... our CIA head has admitted they are pushing hard for regime change and the U.S. taxpayer has been paying for the protests and opposition since Chavez got elected -- even bringing the protest leaders to the U.S. to "train them". Like it or not Maduro was democratically elected. As was Salvador Allende. After Pinochet took over his military junta (trained and armed by the U.S. government) dissolved the Congress of Chile, suspended the Constitution, and began a persecution of alleged dissidents, in which thousands of Allende's supporters were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. This is what you are for?

Well said.

[r3volution 3.0]

So if the government "we" would install was an improvement in your eyes, you would be for using force against a country that is no threat to us at all?

That's correct.

The liberal goal is the minimization of aggression.

If an intervention would serve to protect the rights of individuals in Venezuela, at reasonable cost, it would be justified.


Of course there will be continued violence... our CIA head has admitted they are pushing hard for regime change and the U.S. taxpayer has been paying for the protests and opposition since Chavez got elected -- even bringing the protest leaders to the U.S. to "train them". Like it or not Maduro was democratically elected.

QED


As was Salvador Allende. After Pinochet took over his military junta (trained and armed by the U.S. government) dissolved the Congress of Chile, suspended the Constitution, and began a persecution of alleged dissidents, in which thousands of Allende's supporters were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. This is what you are for?

It appears that you don't understand what was occurring in Chile prior to the coup d'etat.

...it wasn't sunshine and puppies.

Too much fellow traveler "news," perhaps...


US didn't install Pinochet, I am sure that is why they immediately stopped their regime change policy once he got in power and they in fact embraced him. Ronald Reagan even removed sanction that was put on the previous admin. Sorry but if you think the CIA were behind the many strikes in the country that led to destabilization of the govt, then I don't really know what to tell you.

Reread what you yourself wrote and then tell me how those actions caused the event which they followed.

[TheTexan]

"The people are suffering and they are dying. We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary,"

Yes, a military option should put an end to the suffering & dying

[TheTexan]

Why is this even news? We have a military option, for every country in the world...

Looking at you, ... Canada

[charrob]

So if the government "we" would install was an improvement in your eyes, you would be for using force against a country that is no threat to us at all?

How very Ron-Paul-Libertarian of you. :rolleyes:


That's correct.

The liberal goal is the minimization of aggression.

If an intervention would serve to protect the rights of individuals in Venezuela, at reasonable cost, it would be justified.




You do realize this is in complete opposition to everything Ron Paul believes in regarding U.S. foreign policy?

[r3volution 3.0]

You do realize this is in complete opposition to everything Ron Paul believes in regarding U.S. foreign policy?

To the extent that Ron Paul opposes interventions which would genuinely benefit individuals in the concerned countries, he's mistaken.

[acptulsa]

To the extent that Ron Paul opposes interventions which would genuinely benefit individuals in the concerned countries, he's mistaken.

And how do you arrange for this United States government, or the U.N. for that matter, to do what's best for the people if Venezuela? How do we come up with enough bribe money for Washington and New York to ensure their first loyalties are not to the usual suspects, specifically the Federal Reserve, printer of the Petrodollar, and the Rothschilds, owners of the central banks which rob 99% of the world's population?

What charrob is saying to you, and what Ron Paul says to you, is our cure is invariably worse than their disease. What part of that hard-learned lesson is escaping some of us?

Let them work it out. We are too blind to lead them out of their darkness.

[r3volution 3.0]

And how do you arrange for this United States government, or the U.N. for that matter, to do what's best for the people if Venezuela?

I wouldn't, as I said:


I'd be all for removing the communist government in Venezuela...

...except that the government we'd install in its place would not be a dramatic improvement, if any at all.

...


What charrob is saying to you, and what Ron Paul says to you, is our cure is invariably worse than their disease.

That is the part which isn't true.


We are too blind to lead them out of their darkness.

That's quite right.

[acptulsa]

That is the part which isn't true.

Hm. Well. I can't name many exceptions to the rule. We maybe batted .300 after World War II, maybe. But we haven't done the thing right even once in my lifetime. So I'm afraid I, too, must stand with Ron Paul on this one.

[charrob]

To the extent that Ron Paul opposes interventions which would genuinely benefit individuals in the concerned countries, he's mistaken.


I've followed Ron Paul for years now. He has a daily show in which the central tenet of that show is that foreign intervention is wrong under all circumstances except for true defensive purposes. It's the very subject that gets him fired up the most and of which will be the subject of an entire September Conference he's holding in D.C. Lew Rockwell recently stated that being opposed to intervention and war against other nations (except for defensive purposes) is the most important, central tenet, of being a libertarian. Certainly the framers of our Constitution would be opposed to this.

So I take it you do not consider yourself a libertarian then?


Here's from an article (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/august/14/attack-venezuela-trump-cant-be-serious/)written by Ron Paul today and posted at the Ron Paul Institute:




Attack Venezuela? Trump Can't be Serious!
Written by: Ron Paul
Monday August 14, 2017

For many years the United States government, through the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, and US government funded NGOs, have been trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government. They almost succeeded in 2002, when then-president Hugo Chavez was briefly driven from office. Washington has spent millions trying to manipulate Venezuela’s elections and overturn the results. US policy is to create unrest and then use that unrest as a pretext for US intervention.

[Trump’s] threats of military action against a Venezuela that neither threatens nor could threaten the United States suggests a shocking lack of judgment. […] Congress should make it clear […] that absent a Venezuelan attack on the United States, President Trump would be committing a serious crime in ignoring the Constitution were he to follow through with his threats. Maybe they should call it the “We’re Not The World’s Policeman” act.

[r3volution 3.0]

Hm. Well. I can't name many exceptions to the rule. We maybe batted .300 after World War II, maybe. But we haven't done the thing right even once in my lifetime. So I'm afraid I, too, must stand with Ron Paul on this one.

Are you willing to take the (silly) position that every intervention must always necessarily be unjustified?

If not, QED.

[nikcers]

Hm. Well. I can't name many exceptions to the rule. We maybe batted .300 after World War II, maybe. But we haven't done the thing right even once in my lifetime. So I'm afraid I, too, must stand with Ron Paul on this one.
There's always exceptions to any rule, even the Ron Paul rule. Ron Paul is right most the time, but sometimes he is right even after we are all dead.

[r3volution 3.0]

I've followed Ron Paul for years now. He has a daily show in which the central tenet of that show is that foreign intervention is wrong under all circumstances except for true defensive purposes. It's the very subject that gets him fired up the most and of which will be the subject of an entire September Conference he's holding in D.C. Lew Rockwell recently stated that being opposed to intervention and war against other nations (except for defensive purposes) is the most important, central tenet, of being a libertarian. Certainly the framers of our Constitution would be opposed to this.

I'm aware.


So I take it you do not consider yourself a libertarian then?

A person who opposes intervention if/when it would protect the property rights of individuals is not a libertarian.

Ron gets a pass, as I suspect he hasn't thought about the matter at a theoretical level.

...focusing rather on the decidedly counterproductive interventions of the last few decades, and not unreasonably so.

Lew Rockwell is garbage and should stop talking, about anything

[acptulsa]

Are you willing to take the (silly) position that every intervention must always necessarily be unjustified?

If not, QED.

Justified? How elastic is that term? 'That is a Hitler who will come after us if we don't nip him in the bud' has sold a lot if idiots on a lot of evil.

Like the cop who was recently bitten by a cat, forced into going to the hospital, and killed by their malpractice, I pray that Venezuela may be spared from our alleged best intentions and our alleged foresight and wisdom.


There's always exceptions to any rule, even the Ron Paul rule. Ron Paul is right most the time, but sometimes he is right even after we are all dead that's the time he will be best known by.

Ah, but many of Ron Paul's wisdom comes from his willingness to learn from history. We know he's right the same way he does--we can examine the same experiential evidence.

[nikcers]

Ah, but many of Ron Paul's wisdom comes from his willingness to learn from history. We know he's right the same way he does--we can examine the same experiential evidence.
Yeah, I have had some people argue that Ron Paul supports intervention and isn't non intervention because he voted to go after the people who caused 9/11. I would argue that Ron Paul would say we still haven't gone after the people who really caused 9/11.

[r3volution 3.0]

Ah, but many of Ron Paul's wisdom comes from his willingness to learn from history. We know he's right the same way he does--we can examine the same experiential evidence.

Ah, I see...

...any thoughts on the French involvement in the American revolutionary war?

[acptulsa]

Ah, I see...

...any thoughts on the French involvement in the American revolutionary war?

It did a better job of achieving their objectives than the French and Indian Wars.

Back to the subject at hand, which as I recall was American intervention--I realize politics is not physics, but if a physicist had made an experiment as often as we have made that experiment, and it had come out the same way as often, the physicist would consider that proof that American intervention does far more for the Fed and the Rothschilds than for the 'beneficiary of our largesse'.

[charrob]

A person who opposes intervention if/when it would protect the property rights of individuals is not a libertarian.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe what's right for us is not necessarily right for other cultures of people around the world. We can be an example to others by being the best market economy we can. Beyond that, it seems immoral to me to force another nation to live the way we think they should live. I may be absolutely sure that it's best for everyone in my community to paint the walls inside their houses purple; but it would be completely wrong of me to bring in the U.S. military to paint their walls purple despite several of them completely objecting to it. The use of force, except in true defense, seems wrong.

[r3volution 3.0]

It did a better job of achieving their objectives than the French and Indian Wars.

Back to the subject at hand, which as I recall was American intervention....

Whoa there bud, no, that wasn't the subject.

The subject was whether or not intervention is ever justifiable under any circumstances (e.g. those that existed in 1776-).

So, French intervention to assist the colonists, justified or not?

[acptulsa]

So, French intervention to assist the colonists, justified or not?

Depends. Would our continued presence in the British Empire have made it emboldened enough to conquer France, and strong enough to succeed?

What? That's not your thinking behind the question you asked? I assure you that's what France was thinking when they did the thing you're asking about.

[r3volution 3.0]

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe what's right for us is not necessarily right for other cultures of people around the world.

I believe that murder, rape, and theft are crimes regardless of the side of the imaginary line on which they occur.

So, yes, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


Beyond that, it seems immoral to me to force another nation to live the way we think they should live.

I believe all nations should be forced, at gunpoint, if necessary, to not murder, rape, or steal, etc.

The term for someone such as myself is "libertarian."

[r3volution 3.0]

I'll summarize my point thusly:

General Charles Napier, India, 1851


Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs

[acptulsa]

I'll summarize my point thusly:

General Charles Napier, India, 1851

And shall I counter that long dead, arrogant colonial conqueror by quoting Ghandi?

For while there may have been some positive outcomes to be seen if one focuses his historical microscope in just the right spot, an overview quickly reveals that the Brits robbed the Indians blind.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Whoa there bud, no, that wasn't the subject.

The subject was whether or not intervention is ever justifiable under any circumstances (e.g. those that existed in 1776-).

So, French intervention to assist the colonists, justified or not?

I would say NOT when it is done so by a government. Because of its tendency to make poor decisions and its anti-market forces (it can draw money without market participants agreeing with its need to) BANNING government from interventionism I contend will save more property rights than it forfeits 'saving' by allowing interventionism.

[r3volution 3.0]

And shall I counter that long dead, arrogant colonial conqueror by quoting Ghandi?

Because you oppose the punishment of men who murder their wives by burning them alive..?

[r3volution 3.0]

I would say NOT when it is done so by a government. Because of its tendency to make poor decisions and its anti-market forces (it can draw money without market participants agreeing with its need to) BANNING government from interventionism I contend will save more property rights than it forfeits 'saving' by allowing interventionism.

Discussing this subject with anarchists is like debating the merits of the sirloin with a vegan.

[acptulsa]

Because you oppose the punishment of men who murder their wives by burning them alive..?

Gee, I don't know. If you opposed that, would you quote Ghandi?


Discussing this subject with anarchists is like debating the merits of the sirloin with a vegan.

No. Speaking as neither fish nor fowl, I can assure you that discussing this subject with anarchists is like debating the merits of a cut of wooly mammoth with a vegan. Both sides are speaking strictly hypothetically, because the animal in question has never actually been seen by either party.

[charrob]

I believe that murder, rape, and theft are crimes regardless of the side of the imaginary line on which they occur.

So, yes, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

So we should be the world's policeman? There's always going to be murder, rape, and theft going on in the world. We cannot control the endless murder, rape, and theft going on in our own country let alone police the whole world. And it shouldn't be the U.S. Government's job to do it. If private citizens want to get together and fund different countries, that's all well and good. I believe the U.S. Government should focus on the core Constitutional duties and leave the rest for private citizens to decide.


I believe all nations should be forced, at gunpoint, if necessary, to not murder, rape, or steal, etc.

The term for someone such as myself is "libertarian".

...or "foreign interventionist"?

[P3ter_Griffin]

Discussing this subject with anarchists is like debating the merits of the sirloin with a vegan.

lol. The thing is though I didn't even bring up the means for the warfare. It is my argument that if you have a constitutional republic or constitutional monarch the constitution should not give the government the power of intervening into foreign affairs (eta: and thus is never justifiable). But I was just tossing that in there anyways, continue on. ;)

[acptulsa]

...or "foreign interventionist"?

Correct answer. Libertarians believe governments exist solely to serve their own people.


'To reduce war taxes is to give every home a better chance... Of all services which the Congress can render to the country I have no hesitation in declaring this one to be paramount.'--Calvin Coolidge


'A display of reason rather than a threat of force should be the determining factor in the intercourse among nations.'--Calvin Coolidge


'Unfortunately the Federal Government has strayed far afield from its legitimate business. It has trespassed upon fields where there should be no trespass. If we could confine our Federal expenditures to the legitimate obligations and functions of the Federal Government, a material reduction would be apparent. But far more important than this would be its effect upon the fabric of our constitutional form of government, which tends to be gradually weakened and undermined by this encroachment.'—Calvin Coolidge


'Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business.'--Calvin Coolidge

Now there's a libertarian.

[nikcers]

lol. The thing is though I didn't even bring up the means for the warfare. It is my argument that if you have a constitutional republic or constitutional monarch the constitution should not give the government the power of intervening into foreign affairs (eta: and thus is never justifiable). But I was just tossing that in there anyways, continue on. ;)
Yeah but because we don't fund the government properly our interventions are never justifiable. The monetization of debt makes it impossible to have a conservative argument against intervention. The total destruction of our wealth, our economy, the dollar, is hard to put a dollar amount on, when they keep fooking monetizing the debt. It makes arguments sound fictitious because at a certain point you are just yelling the money is fake. No wars over the dollar are justified, not even one with North Korea, no matter how many good people their regime is killing.

[r3volution 3.0]

Gee, I don't know. If you opposed that, would you quote Ghandi?

I don't what that's supposed to mean. Murder is a crime, even when it occurs across an imaginary line (shockingly unlibertarian claim, of course...), and its not injust to punish murderers. AND, you never answered my question about French involvement in the American war of independence. The law of non-contradiction insists on either "yes" or "no," as to whether it was justified.

[acptulsa]

I don't what that's supposed to mean. Murder is a crime, even when it occurs across an imaginary line (shockingly unlibertarian claim, of course...), and its not injust to punish murderers. AND, you never answered my question about French involvement in the American war of independence. The law of non-contradiction insists on either "yes" or "no," as to whether it was justified.

Like a good sophist, you're pretending that I'm not discussing this with you in good faith. But I am, and my points are valid. You're just dissatisfied because you wanted answers you could sink your sophist teeth into, and my honest answers are not affording you that luxury.

I have right and reason to pause and examine whether the crimes the British committed against India outweigh the crimes they prevented within India. Indeed, such questions are at the very heart of the arguments I am making. I have the right to examine a question by the specific standards of the French government which made the decision--and admit that I don't know if the fears which led to their decision were justified or not. And I have a right to consider these examples of intellectual honesty more important than your desire to cut your little sophist teeth.

[r3volution 3.0]

I have right and reason to pause and examine whether the crimes the British committed against India outweigh the crimes they prevented within India.

No, you aren't allowed to weigh anything. According to you, anything the British did was 100% unjustified regardless of its effects, simply because it was intervention, which is always bad, regardless of any other considerations. That is what you're arguing. Now, if you want to take the alternative, sane, position that it's a matter of balancing costs and benefits, then you agree with me.


Indeed, such questions are at the very heart of the arguments I am making. And I have the right to examine a question by the specific standards of the French government which made the decision--and admit that I don't know if the fears which led to their decision were justified or not. And I have a right to consider these examples of intellectual honesty more important than your desire to cut your little sophist teeth.

I.E. It doesn't suit your argument to say it was justified, so you won't, but you also won't say it was unjustified, because that's awkward.

[r3volution 3.0]

So we should be the world's policeman?

I said the US should not intervene in Venezuela.


There's always going to be murder, rape, and theft going on in the world. We cannot control the endless murder, rape, and theft going on in our own country let alone police the whole world. And it shouldn't be the U.S. Government's job to do it. If private citizens want to get together and fund different countries, that's all well and good. I believe the U.S. Government should focus on the core Constitutional duties and leave the rest for private citizens to decide.

The question isn't whether the US (or any other state) can help people by intervening, but whether, if they could, it would be justified.

Needless to say, it would be, unless you value nationalism over liberalism.

[r3volution 3.0]

lol. The thing is though I didn't even bring up the means for the warfare. It is my argument that if you have a constitutional republic or constitutional monarch the constitution should not give the government the power of intervening into foreign affairs (eta: and thus is never justifiable). But I was just tossing that in there anyways, continue on. ;)

It's odd to see minarchists, constitutionalists, etc trying to make some absolute argument against intervention.

The state is intervention (hence the absurdity of debating the issue with anarchists).

The minarchists, constitutionalists, etc are 100% in favor of "intervention," provided it occurs within some arbitrary lines in the dirt.

...people are funny. :)

[acptulsa]

If the Indian people thought being British colonists and suffering their widows to live was a net positive, then why do we know who Ghandi was? They were the ones who had to live their lives there, so who are we to tell them otherwise? And how is this history something we can honestly evaluate without considering the outcome? They weighed the costs and benefits, and it is the height of arrogance to deny that those were their costs and benefits to weigh!

You want to say I am judging intervention to be bad in theory. But your net benefits to intervention are what is theoretical. India is just one example of more than I can count that intervention is like owning a dog--great benefits may be anticipated at the outset, but few concretely appear. I don't judge intervention on theory, I judge it on its record. Which is abysmal.

You also want me to say this is black and white. I see a world full of shades of gray. The only proof we have that interventions are a guaranteed plus--like kicking Hitler's ass before Belgium was overrun--is to fail to intervene and regret it.

Yes, I believe governments should concern themselves solely with the health and welfare of their own people. This attitude prevents imperialism, prevents preventable wars (those not waged in self defense), serves well the only people the government can definitely affect, and prevents well intentioned screwups.

[Danke]

I said the US should not intervene in Venezuela.



The question isn't whether the US (or any other state) can help people by intervening, but whether, if they could, it would be justified.

Needless to say, it would be, unless you value nationalism over liberalism.


Should us taxpayers fund Israel?

[r3volution 3.0]

Should us taxpayers fund Israel?

No, as that clearly encourages, rather than suppresses, aggression.

[acptulsa]

It is human nature to, having intervened, attempt to carry away at least sufficient plunder to pay for the intervention. It is human nature. Any theory which fails to take that into account is akin to a theory about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It may be a pretty enough theory. But it will never be proven in practice.

[charrob]

I said the US should not intervene in Venezuela.

No, you said:




If an intervention would serve to protect the rights of individuals in Venezuela, at reasonable cost, it would be justified.





The question isn't whether the US (or any other state) can help people by intervening, but whether, if they could, it would be justified.

Needless to say, it would be, unless you value nationalism over liberalism.

Yes, I think the government should be small and constrained only to its Constitutional duties. There is nothing stopping private U.S. citizens from helping others around the world if they so choose. And if we didn't have to pay for these endless military interventions, private U.S. citizens would have more money in their pockets to help foreigners if they so choose.

But, if I were to try and put myself into a foreign interventionist's shoes, my biggest problem is with the word "help" from your sentence above. The majority of Latin Americans seem to like living under a socialist government. Daniel Ortega is still president of Nicaragua for ex. If the country of Venezuela had an election and overwhelmingly voted to allow the U.S. government to implement a market economy down there, that would be one thing. But if only, say, 30% of the people in Venezuela wanted that and 70% voted against it (which I suspect would happen), then imho it would be incredibly wrong to force our philosophy and structures onto their country. Who are we to say what is best for them and their culture?

And of course there would never be an election in Venezuela (or any country) to determine whether or not the people of that country would want our help. We would just force it on the majority even if the majority didn't want it.

[Swordsmyth]

No, you said:






Yes, I think the government should be small and constrained only to its Constitutional duties. There is nothing stopping private U.S. citizens from helping others around the world if they so choose. And if we didn't have to pay for these endless military interventions, private U.S. citizens would have more money in their pockets to help foreigners if they so choose.

But, if I were to try and put myself into a foreign interventionist's shoes, my biggest problem is with the word "help" from your sentence above. The majority of Latin Americans seem to like living under a socialist government. Daniel Ortega is still president of Nicaragua for ex. If the country of Venezuela had an election and overwhelmingly voted to allow the U.S. government to implement a market economy down there, that would be one thing. But if only, say, 30% of the people in Venezuela wanted that and 70% voted against it (which I suspect would happen), then imho it would be incredibly wrong to force our philosophy and structures onto their country. Who are we to say what is best for them and their culture?

And of course there would never be an election in Venezuela (or any country) to determine whether or not the people of that country would want our help. We would just force it on the majority even if the majority didn't want it.

I had this conversation with R3V, he won't listen.

[r3volution 3.0]

No, you said:

I'm not sure why you're saying "no" since what you quote exactly corresponds to what I wrote in my last post.


Who are we to say what is best for them and their culture?

Libertarians (as opposed to, for instance communists).


We would just force it on the majority even if the majority didn't want it.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/10/funny.gif

The opinion of the majority is of no consequence whatsoever.

This is again, shocking as you may find it, the liberal position.


I had this conversation with R3V, he won't listen.

To which of the above incoherent and/or illiberal arguments won't I listen?

[acptulsa]

To which of the above incoherent and/or illiberal arguments won't I listen?

The one that says, it's their country and sooner or later you have to leave it to them to make it work.

You can shove broccoli down a child's throat. You can. But if the child hates broccoli and hates you for forcing the broccoli on him, how are you going to prevent him from doing the bulimia trick and throwing the broccoli up on your shoes?

Are you going to super glue his lips together? Has your loving, righteous, oh-so-correct liberal arrogance done more harm than good yet?

[Swordsmyth]

To which of the above incoherent and/or illiberal arguments won't I listen?
That we don't have the right to intervene in other countries because what they do in their own territory is none of our business.
Don't you remember our debate on the subject? You didn't change your mind then so I assume you won't now.

[r3volution 3.0]

The one that says, it's their country and sooner or later you have to leave it to them to make it work.

Yes, that would be an example of an illiberal argument against intervention (or, the state at all, as I indicated earlier).

I forget, are you an anarcho-capitalist?

[acptulsa]

Yes, that would be an example of an illiberal argument against intervention (or, the state at all, as I indicated earlier).

I forget, are you an anarcho-capitalist?

I answered that in this thread before you asked it. I was subtle, but you'll have to make do--in my liberal compassion for you, I detected a wee bit of a reading comprehension challenge and this will be a good way to force you to exercise that muscle and make it stronger.

Why do you ask? Are you incapable of debating the merits of a thing with someone without knowing what box to stuff them into and what kind of label to stick on it?

In fact, you have all night to try to pick my arguments apart. Good night and good luck!

[r3volution 3.0]

That we don't have the right to intervene in other countries because what they do in their own territory is none of our business.
Don't you remember our debate on the subject? You didn't change your mind then so I assume you won't now.

As you mentioned, we covered this in the discussion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513514-For-a-New-Libertarian-Jeff-Deist-Mises-U-2017&p=6508636&viewfull=1#post6508636) in which I demonstrated that there is no liberal argument against intervention.

...i.e. the one in which you had to invoke the alleged collective ownership of the land by the people to sustain your argument.

[r3volution 3.0]

I answered that in this thread before you asked it. I was subtle, but you'll have to make do--in my liberal compassion for you, I detected a wee bit of a reading comprehension challenge...

Ooops, I stopped reading at that point.

[Swordsmyth]

As you mentioned, we covered this in the discussion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513514-For-a-New-Libertarian-Jeff-Deist-Mises-U-2017&p=6508636&viewfull=1#post6508636) in which I demonstrated that there is no liberal argument against intervention.

...i.e. the one in which you had to invoke the alleged collective ownership of the land by the people to sustain your argument.
Which is why I advised @charrob (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=25495) that it would be a waste of time to try to convince you, and why I am not going to restart that debate now.

To everybody else: you might find the debate at R3V's link interesting.

[r3volution 3.0]

Which is why I advised @charrob (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=25495) that it would be a waste of time to try to convince you, and why I am not going to restart that debate now.

It isn't a matter of convincing, it's a matter of logic, which is why, indeed, there's no need to do it again.

[acptulsa]

Ooops, I stopped reading at that point.

There, see? I saw a problem, I formulated a sound plan for intervention, I executed it, and look what happened.

Should have brought some super glue...

[timosman]

It isn't a matter of convincing, it's a matter of logic, which is why, indeed, there's no need to do it again.

You just proved Swordsmyth right.

[P3ter_Griffin]

It is human nature to, having intervened, attempt to carry away at least sufficient plunder to pay for the intervention. It is human nature. Any theory which fails to take that into account is akin to a theory about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It may be a pretty enough theory. But it will never be proven in practice.

How great a percent of purse-snatcher nabbers do you think go into the purse they just recovered from a thief and steal the funds to pay for the cup of coffee they had to drop to stop the thief? I'd say it is more likely that an individual who will require payment for intervening will not intervene unless they are contracted for the intervention.

[acptulsa]

How great a percent of purse-snatcher nabbers do you think go into the purse they just recovered from a thief and steal the funds to pay for the cup of coffee they had to drop to stop the thief? I'd say it is more likely that an individual who will require payment for intervening will not intervene unless they are contracted for the intervention.

How many purse snatcher nabbers are politicians who are taking bribes from arms makers and oilmen?

[P3ter_Griffin]

How many purse snatcher nabbers are politicians who are taking bribes from arms makers and oilmen?

But that does not make it human nature, rather the nature of some thieves.

[DamianTV]

How many purse snatcher nabbers are politicians who are taking bribes from arms makers and oilmen?

Snake Oil Salesmen? You mean literally David Rockefellers father?