Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 56 of 56

Thread: How much intervention is too much?

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Victor Grey; 10-29-2012 at 06:05 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaAvenger View Post
    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.
    [P]eople of

    [A]merica

    [U]nited for

    [L]iberty



    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    god damn vipers, all of them.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaneEnochs View Post
    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.

  5. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Grey View Post
    "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.

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thequietkid10 View Post
    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.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  7. #36

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Acala; 10-30-2012 at 10:22 AM.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  8. #37

    Default

    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).
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    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.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Pericles; 10-30-2012 at 11:07 AM.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    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?
    Last edited by NIU Students for Liberty; 10-30-2012 at 11:12 AM.

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    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.
    Civil war was too strong a word. Clearly Switzerland was a land torn by a religious divide. That was my point. Not a country ready to unify and fight an invasion. Indeed, half the people welcomed the invasion.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    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).
    Germany's systematic takeover of small nations before WW2 also comes to mind.

    I have talked to many Republicans personally, not just over the internet, and they truly believe in such a situation Ron Paul would refuse to strike preemptively. That isn't to say those particular countries would have been able to, but that's beside the point.

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaAvenger View Post
    Germany's systematic takeover of small nations before WW2 also comes to mind.

    I have talked to many Republicans personally, not just over the internet, and they truly believe in such a situation Ron Paul would refuse to strike preemptively. That isn't to say those particular countries would have been able to, but that's beside the point.
    That perception killed any chance Ron had of getting the nomination.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  15. #44

    Default

    Norway's neutrality didn't work out very well for them. And they were as unified and cohesive as the Swizz.

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaAvenger View Post
    Germany's systematic takeover of small nations before WW2 also comes to mind.

    I have talked to many Republicans personally, not just over the internet, and they truly believe in such a situation Ron Paul would refuse to strike preemptively. That isn't to say those particular countries would have been able to, but that's beside the point.
    Sometimes maps has to be re-written. Countries come and go. Countries fall and rise.


  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaAvenger View Post
    Germany's systematic takeover of small nations before WW2 also comes to mind.

    I have talked to many Republicans personally, not just over the internet, and they truly believe in such a situation Ron Paul would refuse to strike preemptively. That isn't to say those particular countries would have been able to, but that's beside the point.
    No, it really isn't beside the point. To suggest that Poland would have been okay if it had just made a pre-emptive strike against Germany and then our ally the USSR is idiotic.

    The point is that skulking about, engaging in deciet and treachery, and invading other countries because you find something threatening about them does NOT make you more secure and will NOT stave off an invasion.

    To the military industrial complex, every tin horn dictator in the world is the next Hitler and a gullible public swallows it whole because they cling to a false idea of what this country stands for in the world today.

    But instead of dwelling on events in Europe long before I was even born, let's get up to date. Let's get real.

    I am 55 years old. During my lifetime, US foreign policy has been pedal to the metal interventionism. We have spied on, meddled with, overthrown, invaded, and crushed countless other countries in the name of our own security. We have spent trillions of dollars, destroyed millions of lives, and turned world opinion of the US from "relatively good chap" to "brutal thug". That policy has helped to bankrupt us, make Americans unsafe to travel the world, and curtailed our freedom at home. All of that is a pretty hefty price to pay. Let's see what we got for it.

    Can any of you interventionists cite a single example in my lifetime, over half a century, where covert activites, pre-emptive strikes, or any other kind of intervention in the affairs of other nations has protected the USA from a credible threat of invasion or even serious attack?

    The defenders of our foreign aggression will undoubtedly say that THEIR intervention won't be like that. Somehow THEIR intervention will only be for good causes and not to enrich military contractors and steal other people's resources. To which I cry bullshit. Government is incapable of wielding unrestrained power without inevitable corruption. As soon as you say that foreign adventurism must be decided on a case by case basis, you are toast because the combination of fear, hatred, and nationalistic rhetoric will sway the people every time. And if that doesn't do it, a staged "event" will.

    The only hope is a bright line in the sand that we NEVER cross and tight restraints on funding.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    That perception killed any chance Ron had of getting the nomination.
    If they hadn't used that they would have ginned up another lie. Just like they do to create the impression that some other country is a threat to us.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    Can any of you interventionists cite a single example in my lifetime, over half a century, where covert activites, pre-emptive strikes, or any other kind of intervention in the affairs of other nations has protected the USA from a credible threat of invasion or even serious attack?
    I generally agree with you, but the quoted part is the problem a good intelligence service has. Your success remains hidden, while your failures are public knowledge.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    I generally agree with you, but the quoted part is the problem a good intelligence service has. Your success remains hidden, while your failures are public knowledge.
    You wouldn't trust the government to manage the economy so how can military intelligence make sense (yes, I'm paraphrasing Dave Mustaine)? What did the government do with its intelligence that learned of a Japanese military threat leading up to the bombing of Pearl Harbor? It ignored those warnings but then it forced Japanese-American citizens from their homes into internment camps when the Pentagon suggested that spies may be lurking within. But hey, better to be safe than sorry.

  21. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    I generally agree with you, but the quoted part is the problem a good intelligence service has. Your success remains hidden, while your failures are public knowledge.
    Oh, please. Our government reports everything it does that can possibly be construed as a success - it even reports foiling the plots it planned. The only thing it keeps secret is the treachery, corruption, and failures - which is almost everything the intelligence community does.

    Government cannot be trusted with the power to act secretly except in times of war.

    Edit: perhaps the greatest US intelligence achievement during the Cold War era was the placement of a spy at the very highest levels of the Soviet military. He informed the US government from very early on that Soviet ICBM technology was far behind US technology. And what did our government do with this information? Hid it and instead told the American public that there was a "missile gap", that we were falling behind, and that we needed to accelerate defense spending. And THAT is how your government uses the fruits of its intelligence.

    Never forget that the number one priority of American foreign policy is to enrich the same people as are enriched by our domestic policy. The more secret the activity the more blatantly NOT in the public interest it will be. Always.
    Last edited by Acala; 10-31-2012 at 12:41 PM.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  22. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaneEnochs View Post
    Spies are great for things such as understanding the military might of another country, which is always important when it comes to defense. It's also good to be able to have a heads-up on an impending attack.

    I know the argument of "if you leave everyone alone, they will leave you alone", but honestly that's bullshit. Iran hasn't done jack to anyone and they have the dogs of war breathing on their neck.

    And how would Iran spying on its enemies prevent the lust for war against it?

  23. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    And how would Iran spying on its enemies prevent the lust for war against it?
    It doesn't. The point is they would know about an impending attack, as we would.
    [P]eople of

    [A]merica

    [U]nited for

    [L]iberty



    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    god damn vipers, all of them.

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    Oh, please. Our government reports everything it does that can possibly be construed as a success - it even reports foiling the plots it planned. The only thing it keeps secret is the treachery, corruption, and failures - which is almost everything the intelligence community does.

    Government cannot be trusted with the power to act secretly except in times of war.

    Edit: perhaps the greatest US intelligence achievement during the Cold War era was the placement of a spy at the very highest levels of the Soviet military. He informed the US government from very early on that Soviet ICBM technology was far behind US technology. And what did our government do with this information? Hid it and instead told the American public that there was a "missile gap", that we were falling behind, and that we needed to accelerate defense spending. And THAT is how your government uses the fruits of its intelligence.

    Never forget that the number one priority of American foreign policy is to enrich the same people as are enriched by our domestic policy. The more secret the activity the more blatantly NOT in the public interest it will be. Always.
    At no time have I claimed that the US has a good intelligence service, because it doesn't.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  25. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    At no time have I claimed that the US has a good intelligence service, because it doesn't.
    My point, in part, is that nobody does. Eventually they are all either utterly ineffective, sickeningly brutal, or corrupt. Or some combination of the three. Think about it - they are given tons of money, the most advanced weapons, a cloak of secrecy, protection against any kind of moral, legal, or financial accountability, a gloss of patriotism, and express instructions to lie as needed. The human being has yet to be minted that will not eventually sucumb to that heady mix of corrupting influence. Covert agencies are incredibly dangerous to liberty by their very nature. While the benefits may be worth the danger in times of real war (where the liberty of this country is at stake) it never is during times of peace.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  26. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    My point, in part, is that nobody does. Eventually they are all either utterly ineffective, sickeningly brutal, or corrupt. Or some combination of the three. Think about it - they are given tons of money, the most advanced weapons, a cloak of secrecy, protection against any kind of moral, legal, or financial accountability, a gloss of patriotism, and express instructions to lie as needed. The human being has yet to be minted that will not eventually sucumb to that heady mix of corrupting influence. Covert agencies are incredibly dangerous to liberty by their very nature. While the benefits may be worth the danger in times of real war (where the liberty of this country is at stake) it never is during times of peace.
    I forgot one other corrupting influence that, given recent events, seems obvious: the honey trap.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  27. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaneEnochs View Post
    So I'm a firm believer in the idea that we shouldn't attack countries unless they have threatened / attacked us, but I do think there is room for covert ops missions and intelligence gathering in other countries, and I believe I've heard Ron Paul speak to this. I'm sure other countries do it here. My question is this: how much intervention is too much? I think obviously using CIA agents to stage coups is too far, but what about other things?
    I agree, thing is these types of CIA, etc etc. should only be used as a defensive organization - not an offensive one for intervention.

    But they are secret government without any real oversight, so they do what they want. I don't like the idea of that one bit.
    "We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues]." Ron Paul

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •