How much intervention is too much?

[Victor Grey]

Some would say we gave them reason. I'm not a history expert on WW2, but I think we hit Japan with economic sanctions trying to stop their expansion in the East.

"Some would say." Now that is the focal point there.
Some are wrong.


States aren't individual people, but quite frankly I reject the entire realm of argument, that we provoked the japanese to attack us in any justifiable measure, in ww2.
Key word justifiable.

Not selling people shit, is not a viable justification for retaliatory violence. You cannot walk into a store, be refused service, and blow the store-owner's head off as a response.

Again states aren't individuals, nevertheless the general principle remains the same. If the mongolians in asia (anyone) in some hazy, collectivized way (a nation) refuse to sell to U.S. citizens some random good, we as another hazy, collectivized group represented also as a state, can't attack them in response.

In particular, I find this notion deplorable considering that the goods in question toward the ww2 japanese are to be used primarily. in the effort to occupy, enslave, and kill other people.


I have right not to sell a firearm I own to anyone if I thought they were going to use it to unjustly hurt somebody.

I take personal offense to these "some people," these japanese imperialist apologists for whatever reason (maybe they like anime? date japanese ladies? who cares the reason their logic and ethics are weak)

because afaiks, in principle by saying that, they are also roughly saying hypothetically, that me not selling my personal firearm to Jack the Ripper, is somehow a moral justification for violence against me. That pisses me off.

Closing, I do discern between "some people" and those merely stating that the sanctions were probably the main reasoning for the attack. That is neither here or there to me.

[ShaneEnochs]

No, it isn't what we have now.

If there is a nation threatening you, by either their actions or words or both, and the national security would be better off striking first, I have no problem with that.

Of course all diplomatic options should be exhausted first, though.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Of course all diplomatic options should be exhausted first, though.

Of course. And I would also mention I would want to put as few lives in danger, on both sides. Total war is evil.

[thequietkid10]

"Some would say." Now that is the focal point there.
Some are wrong.


States aren't individual people, but quite frankly I reject the entire realm of argument, that we provoked the japanese to attack us in any justifiable measure, in ww2.
Key word justifiable.

Not selling people shit, is not a viable justification for retaliatory violence. You cannot walk into a store, be refused service, and blow the store-owner's head off as a response.

Again states aren't individuals, nevertheless the general principle remains the same. If the mongolians in asia (anyone) in some hazy, collectivized way (a nation) refuse to sell to U.S. citizens some random good, we as another hazy, collectivized group represented also as a state, can't attack them in response.

In particular, I find this notion deplorable considering that the goods in question toward the ww2 japanese are to be used primarily. in the effort to occupy, enslave, and kill other people.


I have right not to sell a firearm I own to anyone if I thought they were going to use it to unjustly hurt somebody.

I take personal offense to these "some people," these japanese imperialist apologists for whatever reason (maybe they like anime? date japanese ladies? who cares the reason their logic and ethics are weak)

because afaiks, in principle by saying that, they are also roughly saying hypothetically, that me not selling my personal firearm to Jack the Ripper, is somehow a moral justification for violence against me. That pisses me off.

Closing, I do discern between "some people" and those merely stating that the sanctions were probably the main reasoning for the attack. That is neither here or there to me.

To me I take different interpretation to the "Some people would say" statement. It's not about defending the Japanese as much as it is about the limits of "blowback." Because if you can't cite the US action which lead to Pearl Harbor then you by extension admit that even if the US is on it's best behavior, doesn't guaranteed no one will take at us. Then you have a problem. Because then either you only attack your enemies in retaliation, or you have some intelligence apparatus that can warn you in advance of enemy attacks and allow you cut them off before you do.

[Pericles]

To me I take different interpretation to the "Some people would say" statement. It's not about defending the Japanese as much as it is about the limits of "blowback." Because if you can't cite the US action which lead to Pearl Harbor then you by extension admit that even if the US is on it's best behavior, doesn't guaranteed no one will take at us. Then you have a problem. Because then either you only attack your enemies in retaliation, or you have some intelligence apparatus that can warn you in advance of enemy attacks and allow you cut them off before you do.

To amplify this point:

Should a mugger decide to rob me, presumably I have the justification to prevent the robbery. Somewhere along the sequence of a guy lookat me, approaches me, makes a hand movement, draws a pistol, points pistol at me, demands money, watch, girlfriend, etc., shoots me - I am justified in taking action to prevent the crime.

At the nation level, it is no different.

The function of an effective intelligence service, and covert action capability is to take that preventive action at the point at which a credible threat is identified and the sequence of events that will result in some form of violence is under way. The problem is that it is hard to promulgate a rule set that ensures only actions proper to be taken happen, because it depends on human judgment, which is fallable.

[Acala]

I'm going to jump back in here, but not to say anything further along the lines I have already touched upon. Suffice it to say that without a bright line as to what is and is not an attack, you will always end up in a debate about it and the result will be what we have now - a policy that consists of fabricating threats to justify a global empire that is very profitable to some and a huge detriment to the rest of us. But what I wanted to add is the following:

Among individual human beings, there is a kind of power that flows from strength of character. Honesty, integrity, and courageous committment to principles creates a kind of protective aura around a person. Because he is without guile or hidden agendas, he disarms potential foes. And he undermines their bravado and aggression because his open strength of character somehow acts as a mirror reflecting back to his potential attackers their own weaknesses. They become embarassed of their own lack of character and awed by the spectacle of what a human being can be. The man of integrity has a kind of invulnerability "for in him rhinoceroses can find no place to thrust their horn, tigers no place to use their claws, and weapons no place to pierce."

Ron Paul is this kind of man. It will take decades to know the full scope of what he has done, but it is clear HOW he did it. He did it simply by being a man of integrity. Honest, open, peaceful, unyielding. Ron Paul built this movement purely from strength of character. Strength of character moves people without force. It brings out the good in people and drives away evil.

I think this is also true of nations. A nation that acts with integrity - honest, peaceful, unyielding in committment to principles - will raise the spirit of its own people and put the other nations of the world in awe. It is difficult to find examples from among the wretched nations of the world, but Switzerland during WWII is pretty good. It maintained its neutrality even when surrounded on every side by the greatest clash of arms in world history. Why? In part BECAUSE it remained committed to neutrality. In part because of the spirit of the people. Any potential invader knew without a doubt that it would not conquer Switzerland until the last man was dead with his empty rifle in his hands. To be both neutral AND unyielding in principle is the strongest defense a nation can have. But just as it takes enormous courage for an individual man to live with integrity and unyielding committment to principles, it takes enormous courage for a nation to mind its own borders and its own business.

[Pericles]

I would point out that Switzerland's neutrality did not stop Napoleon from moving through, or the Peasasnt Wars starting in 1499 from spilling over into Switzerland (the William Tell story is from this period).

[Acala]

I would point out that Switzerland's neutrality did not stop Napoleon from moving through, or the Peasasnt Wars starting in 1499 from spilling over into Switzerland (the William Tell story is from this period).

The Swiss were not neutral when Napolean marched in. In fact, they had very tight, entangling alliances with France. Furthermore, they were no nation of integrity at the time, having been racked internally by religious factions fighting for control for decades. in short, it was ripe for the picking for the very reason that it lacked integrity. Nothing sets up a country for invasion as well as a civil war.

[Pericles]

The Swiss were not neutral when Napolean marched in. In fact, they had very tight, entangling alliances with France. Furthermore, they were no nation of integrity at the time, having been racked internally by religious factions fighting for control for decades. in short, it was ripe for the picking for the very reason that it lacked integrity. Nothing sets up a country for invasion as well as a civil war.

Swiss independence and neutrality was recognized by the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) which ended the 30 Years War, and the mayor of Basel was one of the main negotiators, so he made sure that Swiss neutrality was in the treaty.

BTW, Switzerland's civil war was in 1848, and resulted in the current Swiss constitution.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

To amplify this point:

Should a mugger decide to rob me, presumably I have the justification to prevent the robbery. Somewhere along the sequence of a guy lookat me, approaches me, makes a hand movement, draws a pistol, points pistol at me, demands money, watch, girlfriend, etc., shoots me - I am justified in taking action to prevent the crime.

At the nation level, it is no different.

The function of an effective intelligence service, and covert action capability is to take that preventive action at the point at which a credible threat is identified and the sequence of events that will result in some form of violence is under way. The problem is that it is hard to promulgate a rule set that ensures only actions proper to be taken happen, because it depends on human judgment, which is fallable.

Actually, it is a bit different. A mugger (an individual) is committing aggression only towards you (an individual). And to paraphrase Rothbard, people tend to think of the mugger in this scenario as the "bad guy" without knowing the context behind the mugging. Did the mugger commit aggression first or are they trying to reclaim an item that was originally theirs' but was taken away from them by the supposed victim?

And who is threatening the entire United States?