+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Nonintervention Is My First Concern, but I Have Nobody Represent Me

  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Member

    Question Nonintervention Is My First Concern, but I Have Nobody Represent Me

    Our country is accelerating toward an irrevocable war with Putin's Russia, but I don't want to cross the Rubicon with my eyes closed and mouth shut. I'm not a russophile, I'm not a fascist, I'm not even "anti-war"; what I am is frustrated with the media conglomerates' alarmist lies on behalf of the imperium in imperio. What was it? The June/July combined Intelligence report - citing no evidence, divulging no methods, and affirming that the ballots were unaffected - nevertheless declared Russia tampered in the elections. How? By contracting... internet trolls. By hiring hackers to muckrake against both the Clinton & Trump campaigns (because, you know, the "free" press try not to). After Crimea in 2014(?), the volume of Putin-Russian stories ballooned, well over what any rational human can calmly process. I could go on about the paranoia, suggestions to bomb Russia, etc. but you get where I'm coming from. While the public ratcheting for war tightens every week, yet no one is organizing a sane, Noninterventionist and nationwide front (https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/...ica-committee/). Is there any real, articulate resistance against more foreign meddling competing for ears out there?



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

    Default

    Trump is hardly a non-interventionist, but he is far less interventionist than the deep state he is battling.

    Mike Cernovich is a non-interventionist, he is one of the leaders of the 'new right'. Whether you like him or not, he is a good guy to follow, always coming out with some of the top scoops.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  4. #3

    Default

    Seems like i usually have nobody represent me also .

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Our country is accelerating toward an irrevocable war with Putin's Russia, but I don't want to cross the Rubicon with my eyes closed and mouth shut. I'm not a russophile, I'm not a fascist, I'm not even "anti-war"; what I am is frustrated with the media conglomerates' alarmist lies on behalf of the imperium in imperio. What was it? The June/July combined Intelligence report - citing no evidence, divulging no methods, and affirming that the ballots were unaffected - nevertheless declared Russia tampered in the elections. How? By contracting... internet trolls. By hiring hackers to muckrake against both the Clinton & Trump campaigns (because, you know, the "free" press try not to). After Crimea in 2014(?), the volume of Putin-Russian stories ballooned, well over what any rational human can calmly process. I could go on about the paranoia, suggestions to bomb Russia, etc. but you get where I'm coming from. While the public ratcheting for war tightens every week, yet no one is organizing a sane, Noninterventionist and nationwide front (https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/...ica-committee/). Is there any real, articulate resistance against more foreign meddling competing for ears out there?
    Join the club. There are many here who wish there were a more organized effort to avoid war, but alas, there is nothing but ourselves. Register an account and join the discussion. Welcome
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  6. #5

    Default

    Try Democratic Underground. They seem to be against war now.
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  7. #6
    Unregistered
    Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Try Democratic Underground. They seem to be against war now.
    I just looked, all I found on their forums were Trump sucks topics, with a few social issues sprinkled over. Looks like I'll need to start one on the weekends. Wish me luck.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Trump is hardly a non-interventionist, but he is far less interventionist than the deep state he is battling.
    I serves to point out that the notion of intervening, in the usual contemporary sense, is no longer clear. What would have in an age past unequivocally qualified as "intervention", might today clearly be seen as a defensive measure. Our technologies, coupled with our apparent determination to cleave to world-views that appear not to serve well in the context of said technologies, have complicated human relations immeasurably. What was once black and white is now washed-out grey.

    My normative ideals tell me to mind my own business. My practice of those ideals say the same. What has changed in time is the definition of "my business". Two hundred years ago, there was comparatively little one nation could foist upon another beyond things such as invading with troops. Today, the technological capabilities of men allow them to develop means for foisting devastation upon their neighbors without stepping a single boot across borders. Computer attacks, long range missiles, bioweapons, and so on down that list.

    Consider Iran or North Korea. If we accept that they are developing nuclear capabilities for the sake of, say, hurting America (just to be self-centered), then from the purely practical standpoint, traditional "non-interventionism" becomes by degrees with time more and more untenable if one's goal is not to be, say, blown to nuclear smithereens.

    For me, among the true practical problems today is telling when a positive action against a global neighbor is rightly defensive, vis--vis "intervention". The nature of the problem seems not so much one's ability to tell whether a threat is real, but whether those entrusted to make such determinations can be trusted for both capacity, as well as integrity. Consider our lovely little Gulf War, Part Deux. "Oh my GOD... weapons of mass destruction..." Well, that didn't turn out to be true. Is CIA inept? Doubtful, but that's irrelevant because it's either that or they were selling a very lousy bill of goods, which means they cannot be trusted. Then the question of how extensive the rot, arises.

    Personally, I am not in any way inclined to lend credence to the notion that these apparent failures are the result of mistakes, accidents, ineptitude, etc. The methods of waging war are well known and that which we see today fits the patterns perfectly. Modern warfare is become more about keeping people off their mental balance more than it is about bombs and bullets.

    As for Trump, how much of an "interventionist" he is, vis--vis a proper CIC acting to defend the interests of America, remains to be seen. The fact that he is being attacked with such apparent fury indicates to me one of two things: he is either a true pariah in Theire view, or everything we are witnessing is political theater. I cannot dismiss the latter, but I certainly cannot assume it, either. However, if we assume the latter is not the real case, then perhaps we can at least content ourselves a bit at the possibility that the current American president is actually on "our" side.

    "The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty - and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."
    -- H.L. Mencken

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I serves to point out that the notion of intervening, in the usual contemporary sense, is no longer clear. What would have in an age past unequivocally qualified as "intervention", might today clearly be seen as a defensive measure. Our technologies, coupled with our apparent determination to cleave to world-views that appear not to serve well in the context of said technologies, have complicated human relations immeasurably. What was once black and white is now washed-out grey.

    My normative ideals tell me to mind my own business. My practice of those ideals say the same. What has changed in time is the definition of "my business". Two hundred years ago, there was comparatively little one nation could foist upon another beyond things such as invading with troops. Today, the technological capabilities of men allow them to develop means for foisting devastation upon their neighbors without stepping a single boot across borders. Computer attacks, long range missiles, bioweapons, and so on down that list.

    Consider Iran or North Korea. If we accept that they are developing nuclear capabilities for the sake of, say, hurting America (just to be self-centered), then from the purely practical standpoint, traditional "non-interventionism" becomes by degrees with time more and more untenable if one's goal is not to be, say, blown to nuclear smithereens.

    For me, among the true practical problems today is telling when a positive action against a global neighbor is rightly defensive, vis--vis "intervention". The nature of the problem seems not so much one's ability to tell whether a threat is real, but whether those entrusted to make such determinations can be trusted for both capacity, as well as integrity. Consider our lovely little Gulf War, Part Deux. "Oh my GOD... weapons of mass destruction..." Well, that didn't turn out to be true. Is CIA inept? Doubtful, but that's irrelevant because it's either that or they were selling a very lousy bill of goods, which means they cannot be trusted. Then the question of how extensive the rot, arises.

    Personally, I am not in any way inclined to lend credence to the notion that these apparent failures are the result of mistakes, accidents, ineptitude, etc. The methods of waging war are well known and that which we see today fits the patterns perfectly. Modern warfare is become more about keeping people off their mental balance more than it is about bombs and bullets.

    As for Trump, how much of an "interventionist" he is, vis--vis a proper CIC acting to defend the interests of America, remains to be seen. The fact that he is being attacked with such apparent fury indicates to me one of two things: he is either a true pariah in Theire view, or everything we are witnessing is political theater. I cannot dismiss the latter, but I certainly cannot assume it, either. However, if we assume the latter is not the real case, then perhaps we can at least content ourselves a bit at the possibility that the current American president is actually on "our" side.
    Hmmm... I'd caution you that this is the path of neoconnery, but I'm not sure it would make a difference. You're not really against intervention - you just want them to do it the right way? Well, that's what they ALL say.

    The problem, of course, is that our government can't even get our own affairs right. And even if they were to somehow intervene in a manner of which you approved, there'd be a new administration in a couple of years to do the exact opposite. In other words, you can NEVER intervene smoothly. Unfortunately, pre-crime doesn't work. And those that try it, just put a larger target on themselves. Blowback.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  10. #9

    Default

    Have you looked into the Federal Reserve? You get taught that it's a harmless entity that tries to control the supply of our money to prevent recessions and make the ones it can't prevent less destructive, but always seems to fail at that, as the worst recessions the nation has ever seen have all happened since it took over. In reality it's a collection of the world's richest banks who were given the ability to make money the old fashioned way--they get to print it. They have 'managed' the money supply in such a way that the dollar is worth a nickel--a person with a nickel in 1913 could buy just as much as a person with a dollar today, and a person with a dollar back then could buy as much as a person with twenty bucks today. The middle class is gone because the dollar buys less every day, but your boss won't give you a raise every day.

    The dollar is also required to buy oil. Country X is not allowed to buy oil from Country Y with their own currency, or Country Y's currency, or gold, or any thing else. They have to buy dollars first, then use the dollars to buy the oil. This is what the term petrodollar means. It allows the Federal Reserve to print more dollars without the value of the dollar not just going down, but plummeting, because it creates additional demand for the dollar. Countries buy oil with the petrodollar for a simple reaon. Iraq sold oil for gold in the late nineties, and suddenly we were being told they had yellowcake uranium. Selling oil for something other than dollars is fatal.

    Not exactly what eighteen year olds are told by all those recruiters, eh? But it's a fact.

    The Fed is tied to the age-old Rothschild family. Official central banks are their family business, and have been for centuries. In the year of 2000 the seven countries without a Rothschild owned or controlled Central Bank were Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned or controlled by the Rothschild Family are Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Do those names sound familiar? Have you heard Lindsay Graham calling for you to join the army and go kick their asses on Sunday mornings?

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Trump is hardly a non-interventionist, but he is far less interventionist than the deep state he is battling.

    Mike Cernovich is a non-interventionist, he is one of the leaders of the 'new right'. Whether you like him or not, he is a good guy to follow, always coming out with some of the top scoops.
    This guest is clearly a reasonable person who is more interested in evidence and demonstrable facts than in your favorite goofy assed echo chambers. Give it a rest before your orange god embarrasses you further by going to Venezuela.

    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    Join the club. There are many here who wish there were a more organized effort to avoid war, but alas, there is nothing but ourselves. Register an account and join the discussion. Welcome
    Yes, thank you for thinking and for speaking up. We'll never have all the Sunday Morning Propaganda Outlets the warmongers have, but people can still spread the knowledge around. It might be a quixotic fight, but it's a righteous one.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 08-18-2017 at 07:36 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Inflation goes to sellers, not to the Fed. If inflation is two percent, the person you buy something from is charging you two percent more. He gets that money- not the Fed.
    The seller has to pay more 'dollars' to cover his expenses, and his expenses 'went up' because the dollar is worth less than it was yesterday, but it's the seller who raised the price--and the poor, beleaguered Fed and the banks that own it didn't get richer devaluing the 'dollar' by printing more of them?

  11. #10

    Default

    Afghanistan is a different story, but not very different. The mountainous terrain is so difficult for a military to deal with, that numerous attempts to conquer it by large, technically advanced nations have failed, and often bankrupted the country that tried. The most recent was the Soviet Union. But if you want to export natural gas from the Caucuses, you need a pipeline across Afghanistan. It's also the most perfect climate in all the world for growing poppies, and the CIA does love to supply the world with opioids.

    Nation building? Spreading democracy? Just telling people what we're really fighting for will eventually go a long way toward ending this madness. Expect people to be unhappy you told them the truth. Expect them to appear to reject what you say. But it's like planting a seed. At first you think you didn't do any good at all. But later you often find that the truth did take root after all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Inflation goes to sellers, not to the Fed. If inflation is two percent, the person you buy something from is charging you two percent more. He gets that money- not the Fed.
    The seller has to pay more 'dollars' to cover his expenses, and his expenses 'went up' because the dollar is worth less than it was yesterday, but it's the seller who raised the price--and the poor, beleaguered Fed and the banks that own it didn't get richer devaluing the 'dollar' by printing more of them?

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Hmmm... I'd caution you that this is the path of neoconnery,
    It can become that, yes, but it is not necessarily so. The truth is the truth. That so-called "neocons" pervert it, either by design or though ineptitude, does not alter the facts. What you point out further underscores the need to be smart, as well as to have good personal integrity. The fact that these qualities are so rare, speaks no optimistic word for the future.

    but I'm not sure it would make a difference. You're not really against intervention - you just want them to do it the right way? Well, that's what they ALL say.
    It makes all the difference in the world. Firstly, if you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I pretty clearly posited that the lines between "intervention" and proper defensive action have become very blurred in some cases. If I'm walking the street at 3 AM and a man begins fiddling to draw a firearm, all else equal I am well justified in taking measures to forestall with a preemptive strike. It is no different between nations; if I have truthful intelligence that NK is about to launch a nuke at me, I reserve every right to strike first. Yes, this carries its own risks and potentially problematic consequences, but them's the breaks. It is sometimes a $#@!ty, risk-laden world and we often run the chance of getting something terribly wrong. This is one of the results to be expected in a world where people refuse or otherwise fail to mind their own. In a Golden Rule world, things are very different, but none of us live there, even if we practice as if we did.

    I am, in fact, against intervention in the current sense of the word. But what yesterday might have clearly stood as intervention, today may well qualify as a defensive measure.

    The problem, of course, is that our government can't even get our own affairs right.
    Sadly, you are 99.9% correct. Theye seem to never get the tax collection thing wrong. Amazing, that.

    And even if they were to somehow intervene in a manner of which you approved, there'd be a new administration in a couple of years to do the exact opposite.
    Well, yes... that is why MYOB is the best policy - and yet which nation does so? Not many. And even if all but one did, that is enough to cause very serious problems. This least-common-demominator-wins aspect of human reality sucks. It takes only a handful of jackasses to plumb the depths, and the rest of the world gets dragged along. Here we see yet another reason why the relatively ancient generations behaved as they did - why punishments were "draconian". Make the risks so great, the consequences so unbearably hideous, that all but the most demented among us choose the way of peaceful coexistence. I've been advocating this for 25 years - make crimes against the public trust by any government agent or other instrument thereof so unspeakably horrible that nobody would dare foist. But it must be so much more than that; every citizen should be empowered to prevent such crimes against themselves, their neighbors, and the public at large. If every cop out there, or taxman, or mayor, city council member, dog-catcher, what-have-you, trembled in fear for their very lives at the thought of committing a crime against those in whose trust they act, the world would change for the better literally from one minute to the next. After the first few hundreds defensive slayings in a very short interval by Johnny Q. against agents of the state, the rest would begin to toe a very different line.

    Don't hold your breath for it.

    In other words, you can NEVER intervene smoothly.
    Not sure it is categorically the case, but even so who says it must be smooth? War is hell, or should be, and so much so that people should clamor to avoid it, resorting to the sword only after it becomes clear there is no other way. But once again, we choose otherwise... especially in a nation with an all-volunteer force where the couch-potato armchair quarterbacks are free to quiver their slovenly fatselves in their Lay-Z-Boyz and get all gushy in the pants as they scream for someone to go out there and start the killing. Imagine what a different reality it would be, were those who call for war the first sent to fight. Crickets would become the new rage.

    Unfortunately, pre-crime doesn't work.
    Now now... What I described has absolutely ZERO relationship with the notion of "pre-crime". The two issues could not be more different.

    And those that try it, just put a larger target on themselves. Blowback.
    That can happen regardless of how wrongly or rightly one may have acted. It could be inferred from your apparent position that you feel we should sit idly by and wait for the hammer to fall. I could not in good conscience agree with that view. By the same token, I cannot agree with the ham-fisted ways in which we have adopted our sometimes idiotic foreign policies. OTOH, we DO live in a world where some people actually do want to hurt us, and not necessarily because we have done wrong. Take the Wahhabi: they are lunatics bent on taking over the world at the very least, if not ushering in the time of the twelfth imam. They are raving mad. Would you suggest we sit idly by as they endeavor to wreak destruction upon the earth in their belief that Allah commands them? If all they were doing is raiding each other and butt-$#@!ing pigs and camels, I'd have no problem with them, content to leave them alone in their third-world $#@! hole. Alas, for whatever reason they are not content to screw the livestock and beat their wives and I am in no mood whatsoever to have some pig-jockey standing over me as I pray to Mecca five times daily.

    This is what I mean when I say that things are not as simple as once they were. You can bank on the fact that even were American foreign policy perfect by our yardstick, there would remain those seeking to hurt and destroy us. This is what people do. It is part of the human formula and there is nothing much to do about it. Even two thousand years of the Christian ethic has failed to bring about the changes in men's hearts it ostensibly set out to affect. The only things going to stop our current spiral into species-death is either to die off or become something other than human. Not sure I hold out much hope for our posterity; I mean, what basis is there for hope in a world where the ultra-cool is so hopelessly awash in the raging torrents of human evil?

    "The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty - and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."
    -- H.L. Mencken

+ Reply to Thread





Similar Threads

  1. Should ISIS be an exception to nonintervention?
    By Feeding the Abscess in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 225
    Last Post: 08-04-2017, 04:53 PM
  2. Opportunities for Peace and Nonintervention by Ron Paul
    By Truth Warrior in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-06-2009, 05:50 PM
  3. IA paper: Paul preaches nonintervention, less government
    By Bradley in DC in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-10-2007, 07:03 AM
  4. Paul preaches nonintervention, less government
    By Bradley in DC in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2007, 07:59 AM

Posting Permissions

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