Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 211

Thread: Top Bolivian coup plotters were School of the Americas grads,served as attachés

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So the first party to actually initiate hostilities is necessarily in the wrong?

    Why?
    Does the idea of non-intervention mean nothing to you? Anyway, I don't think you've thought through your North Korea example as well as you think. We intervened in Korea. There is no telling what Korea would be like if we hadn't. It's not just because North Korea is communist. Vietnam and China are communists. But neither nation is on a permanent war footing the way North Korea is which is the result of our stalemating them. South Korea doesn't have to pay for its own defense.


    Can you give me an example of anything a state (or PDA, if you're an ancap) might do which doesn't involve risk of error?
    Can you think of any war that you are on principal against?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Intervention, it's like communism, it just hasn't been done right yet.
    +rep!
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  4. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Does the idea of non-intervention mean nothing to you? Anyway, I don't think you've thought through your North Korea example as well as you think. We intervened in Korea. There is no telling what Korea would be like if we hadn't. It's not just because North Korea is communist. Vietnam and China are communists. But neither nation is on a permanent war footing the way North Korea is which is the result of our stalemating them. South Korea doesn't have to pay for its own defense.
    War is just if and only if it results in a net reduction in the incidence of aggression (i.e. if it "works").

    That's my principle, and it's a rather unquestionable one from a libertarian perspective.

    Can you think of any war that you are on principal against?
    I don't know what you mean by "in principle against."

    Here is a short and non-exhaustive list of wars which, for not satisfying the above principle, I was or would have been against:

    -Afghan War
    -Iraq War II
    -Libyan War
    -Iraq War I
    -Vietnam War
    -Great War
    -War of Northern Aggression
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  5. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    War is just if and only if it results in a net reduction in the incidence of aggression (i.e. if it "works").

    That's my principle, and it's a rather unquestionable one from a libertarian perspective.



    I don't know what you mean by "in principle against."

    Here is a short and non-exhaustive list of wars which, for not satisfying the above principle, I was or would have been against:

    -Afghan War
    -Iraq War II
    -Libyan War
    -Iraq War I
    -Vietnam War
    -Great War
    -War of Northern Aggression
    You should add the Korean war because it hasn't "worked." It didn't result in a net reduction in the incidence of aggression. And using your argument the "War of Northern Aggression" actually "worked." The South became industrialized as a result of that war, both from having to quit depending on slave labor for agriculture and from the "carpetbaggers" coming south and bringing knowledge of northern industry. By contrast, the Korean war has kept North Korea and the United States in a state of permanent militarization which actually hurts both countries economically while benefiting South Korea. It's not as obvious from the U.S. point of view because our nation and economy is so much bigger than North Korea.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #185
    The intervention that still has me pissed off is Libya. Qaddafi was fighting the central banks and working to help make Africa sovereign. Clinton and Obama went in and not only killed Qaddafi by torture and then stole the treasure he had gained for Africa. I am very ashamed that my tax dollars contributed to that.

  8. #186
    It looks like gas and indium are more important motives for the Bolivian coup, than Lithium.


    The two largest sources of indium in the world are in Canada (Mount Pleasant) and Bolivia (Malku Khota). Canada could potentially produce 38.5 tons of indium per year, while Bolivia’s mines could produce 80 tons per year (more than double the Canadian potential).
    Canada’s South American Silver Corporation (now TriMetals Mining) had signed a concession to explore and eventually mine Malku Khota for which work began in 2003.
    In 2011, a report for the Canadian mining company showed that the Malku Khota mine would produce substantial amounts of silver, indium, lead, zinc, copper, and gallium.

    In 2005, after Evo Morales and the Movement for Socialism (MAS) won their first presidential election in Bolivia, he first nationalised the gas and oil companies.
    In July 2012, Morales’ government nationalised the Malku Khota property of South American Silver Company.
    South American Silver took the Bolivian government to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. In November 2018, the Court awarded TriMetals $27.7 million from Bolivia (rather than the $385.7 million it had demanded).

    Heads of mining firms made disparaging comments about the nationalisation program.
    In July 2007, US Ambassador to Bolivia Philip Goldberg, in reply to a request to meet with Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera, said:
    Sadly, without dynamite in the streets, it is uncertain whether the Embassy or the international mining companies will be able to attain even this minimal goal.
    A Wall Street banker reportedly commented: “If Bolivia keeps on this path, these companies will make sure that Bolivian natural gas remains underground”, Bolivia might be embargoed; and Morales assassinated: https://www.salon.com/2019/11/22/the...-this_partner/
    (http://archive.is/jJNsE)


    Bolivia has the second-largest natural gas reserves in South America, after Venezuela.
    After signing a decree to nationalise the natural gas industry, on 1 May 2005, President Evo Morales took over installations by using military force. It were really the natural gas profits that boosted Bolivia’s economy more than anything else.

    The state-owned Brazilian Petrobrás was among the most affected by the nationalisation, as it controlled 14% of Bolivia's natural gas reserves.
    The 2 most significant foreign companies involved with the exploration of natural gas in Bolivia are Petrobrás from Brazil and the Spanish-Argentine company Repsol YPF. Others involved are Total from France, British Gas and British Petroleum as well as the US Exxon Mobil Corporation.

    Bolivia’s gas profits have dropped in time. In 2018, Bolivia’s gas exports fell by about 30%, while public debt soared to 51% of gross domestic product in 2017, from 36% in 2014.
    Bolivia has looked at opportunities to sell more gas to Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay but there isn’t much (extra) demand from those countries.

    Argentina has been increasing gas up sales to Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, while decreasing its gas imports. In October, Argentine former Energy Minister Javier Iguacel said that by 2020 the country won’t need Bolivian gas.
    Contracts with Bolivia’s biggest customers - Brazil and Argentina - are being renegotiated. Brazil now spends about $1.3 billion a year on Bolivian gas: https://en.mercopress.com/2019/04/23...s-in-argentina
    (http://archive.is/dMcUZ)


    The following story, confirms that gas is important for the newly installed Bolivian puppet regime, although it’s different than I would expect from a right wing government, supporting “free trade”...

    In 2015, Morales, passed legislation to open the country's national reserves to oil and gas exploration.
    In 2017, Bolivian state oil company YPFB formed 2 joint ventures with the Brazilian state company Petrobras to explore and develop the Astilleros and San Telmo Norte blocks, on Bolivia's border with Argentina. Petrobras would invest $676 million in the projects, of which it owns 60%, while YPFB would own 40%.

    After local protests, Bolivia's new puppet government ordered Petrobras to stop oil and gas exploration in this national reserve: https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/m...tional-reserve
    (http://archive.is/oqBeQ)
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page3

  9. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You should add the Korean war because it hasn't "worked." It didn't result in a net reduction in the incidence of aggression.
    You don't agree that S. Korea is vastly more free than N. Korea?

    And using your argument the "War of Northern Aggression" actually "worked." The South became industrialized as a result of that war, both from having to quit depending on slave labor for agriculture and from the "carpetbaggers" coming south and bringing knowledge of northern industry.
    The abolition of slavery would have happened soon enough; hastening it by a few years wasn't worth the cost of the war.

    By contrast, the Korean war has kept North Korea and the United States in a state of permanent militarization which actually hurts both countries economically while benefiting South Korea. It's not as obvious from the U.S. point of view because our nation and economy is so much bigger than North Korea.
    Geopolitically, things would have played out much the same way without the war.

    We'd just be talking about communist Korea, rather than communist North Korea.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  10. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    You don't agree that S. Korea is vastly more free than N. Korea?
    Straw man argument. North Korea would be vastly more industrialized if not for a Korean war that has not ended. You put up a picture of a lit up south Korea vs a darkened North Korea as if that proved anything. It didn't. China is arguably more industrialized than South Korea but much less free. So your pictograph was basically useless.

    The abolition of slavery would have happened soon enough; hastening it by a few years wasn't worth the cost of the war.
    The south thought slavery was worth preserving and that's why they seceded. But that my point wasn't about slavery. It was about industrialization. And losing the civil war led to the industrialization of the South. Since you used the industrialization of South Korea as "proof" you should be happy with the outcome of the U.S. Civil War.

    Geopolitically, things would have played out much the same way without the war.

    We'd just be talking about communist Korea, rather than communist North Korea.
    And we might be trading and having tourism with communist Korea the same way as we are with communist China and communist Vietnam. So what's your point?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  11. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Straw man argument. North Korea would be vastly more industrialized if not for a Korean war that has not ended. You put up a picture of a lit up south Korea vs a darkened North Korea as if that proved anything. It didn't. China is arguably more industrialized than South Korea but much less free. So your pictograph was basically useless.
    That would be the official Communist line; the reality is that the DPRK's poverty is caused by its domestic economic policies.

    ...which, needless to say, are a bit different than S. Korea's.

    The south thought slavery was worth preserving and that's why they seceded. But that my point wasn't about slavery. It was about industrialization. And losing the civil war led to the industrialization of the South. Since you used the industrialization of South Korea as "proof" you should be happy with the outcome of the U.S. Civil War.
    Again, the (early) abolition of slavery was obviously beneficial, but not worth the cost IMO.

    And we might be trading and having tourism with communist Korea the same way as we are with communist China and communist Vietnam. So what's your point?
    Why aren't we doing that with communist N. Korea?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  12. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That would be the official Communist line; the reality is that the DPRK's poverty is caused by its domestic economic policies.

    ...which, needless to say, are a bit different than S. Korea's.
    Question: Why has North Korea's domestic economic policies not evolved like China and Vietnam's?

    Answer: The ongoing Korean war. It's easy to justify austerity when you can say there's a war going on.

    Again, the (early) abolition of slavery was obviously beneficial, but not worth the cost IMO.
    That's your opinion. But again, I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about industrialization. Straw man argument.

    Why aren't we doing that with communist N. Korea?
    Because there is still a war going on against N. Korea. (Duh!)
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  13. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    That's your opinion. But again, I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about industrialization. Straw man argument.
    I assumed you were referring to the economic gains made possible by the abolition of slavery.

    If not, then I have no idea what industrialization you're talking about.

    Blowing up people and property doesn't generate economic growth.

    As for Korea, you're confusing the war itself and the post-war policies (e.g. sanctions).

    It would have been perfectly possible to establish friendly relations following the war.

    You won't find me defending the sanctions regime.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  14. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I assumed you were referring to the economic gains made possible by the abolition of slavery.
    I said early on that it wasn't just the end of slavery but also the "carpetbagging" from the North that caused the industrialization of the South. The very "yanks" the southerners detested so much brought in industry. I'm not sure how you missed that.

    If not, then I have no idea what industrialization you're talking about.

    Blowing up people and property doesn't generate economic growth.
    You seem to think it does. That's what sparked the entire conversation. You claim that South Korea is a testament to "good" interventionism. Now you're arguing against your own position. Fascinating.

    As for Korea, you're confusing the war itself and the post-war policies (e.g. sanctions).
    I'm not confusing anything. You made an untenable argument based on a stupid photo that doesn't really prove anything.

    It would have been perfectly possible to establish friendly relations following the war.
    The war never ended. And it would have been perfectly possible to establish friendly relations without a war. We were able to establish friendly relations with Vietnam because the war ended with our being defeated. We could have also established friendly relations had we won. But a war that ends in a stalemate almost always leads to "unfriendly" relations because each side still thinks it can "win" if it's just a little bit "tougher."

    You won't find me defending the sanctions regime.
    Why are you defending interventionism?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I said early on that it wasn't just the end of slavery but also the "carpetbagging" from the North that caused the industrialization of the South. The very "yanks" the southerners detested so much brought in industry. I'm not sure how you missed that.
    I ignored that because it didn't make any sense (people were already free to travel around and invest before the war).

    You seem to think it does. That's what sparked the entire conversation. You claim that South Korea is a testament to "good" interventionism. Now you're arguing against your own position. Fascinating.
    No, you're either confused or deliberately misrepresenting my position.

    War itself is always destructive.

    A just war is one in which there's some benefit on the other end which outweighs that destruction.

    I'm not confusing anything. You made an untenable argument based on a stupid photo that doesn't really prove anything.
    It wasn't intended to prove anything; it was intended to illustrate an obvious fact: namely, that N. Korea is much less free than S. Korea.

    The war never ended. And it would have been perfectly possible to establish friendly relations without a war. We were able to establish friendly relations with Vietnam because the war ended with our being defeated. We could have also established friendly relations had we won. But a war that ends in a stalemate almost always leads to "unfriendly" relations because each side still thinks it can "win" if it's just a little bit "tougher."
    That's right, but then the relations would have been with a communist Korea rather than a communist North Korea.

    That's an inferior outcome (because it means more people living under communism).

    Why are you defending interventionism?
    Because I value liberty (contra, for instance, the alleged collective rights of the "nation" to oppress itself, paraphrasing SS)
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  17. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I ignored that because it didn't make any sense (people were already free to travel around and invest before the war).
    They weren't necessarily welcome. Adversity sometimes brings humility and a willingness to change. FFS the South wasn't willing to diversify outside of cotton until the boll weevil! They even have a statue in honor of the boll weevil for that very reason!

    No, you're either confused or deliberately misrepresenting my position.

    War itself is always destructive.

    A just war is one in which there's some benefit on the other end which outweighs that destruction.
    That is a stupid definition for a "just war" in that you can't evaluate it until the war is over. But even using that as a definition, you can't declare the Korean war a "just war" just because part of Korea turned out "better."


    It wasn't intended to prove anything; it was intended to illustrate an obvious fact: namely, that N. Korea is much less free than S. Korea.
    That's not obvious from the picture. Using your "proof" China may be more free than South Korea. (Of course it isn't. Just making a point that your "picture proof" is rather shallow).

    That's right, but then the relations would have been with a communist Korea rather than a communist North Korea.

    That's an inferior outcome (because it means more people living under communism).
    More people would have likely been living under a Vietnam version of communism which is more free than the North Korean version.

    Because I value liberty (contra, for instance, the alleged collective rights of the "nation" to oppress itself, paraphrasing SS)
    So than any intervention that might "spread freedom and democracy" is justified in your book. Got it.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  18. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    They weren't necessarily welcome. Adversity sometimes brings humility and a willingness to change. FFS the South wasn't willing to diversify outside of cotton until the boll weevil! They even have a statue in honor of the boll weevil for that very reason!
    Color me skeptical about that fuzzy, psychological explanation for economic growth.

    That is a stupid definition for a "just war" in that you can't evaluate it until the war is over.
    We never know with certainty whether any action will turn out to have been worth its costs.

    We can only make reasonable predictions.

    But even using that as a definition, you can't declare the Korean war a "just war" just because part of Korea turned out "better."
    It was just because the costs (money, lives lost) were less than the benefits (tens of millions of fewer lives lived, or lost, under communism).

    So than any intervention that might "spread freedom and democracy" is justified in your book. Got it.
    Just freedom
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 12-24-2019 at 09:50 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  19. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Color me skeptical about that fuzzy, psychological explanation for economic growth.
    I'm just as skeptical of your belief that Korea as a whole wouldn't be more economically viable in the aggregate if we hadn't intervened. Key word is "as a whole." How many fewer North Koreans wouldn't have died if Korea as a whole had evolved more in line with what happened in Vietnam and China? Also I am skeptical of the claim you and others make that slavery would have ended "in a few years" in the South. Slavery is still practiced clandestinely in the U.S. today so people clearly still find it economically viable. Basically your whole argument falls on nothing but speculation. It's the worst just war theory ever. China is arguably more economically viable today than it was prior to the communist Chinese revolution. That doesn't mean the communist revolution was good for China. And using your "just war theory" someone could have speculated that the Iraq war was justified based on the idea that it might make the lives of the people better to get rid of a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein. Libya might have been better by getting rid of the dictator Ghaddafi. Syria might be better by getting rid of the dictator Assad. Or we could just mind our own business unless we are attacked (which the North actually was attacked by the south). The constitution actually gave the U.S. Federal government the right to "put down insurrections." It did not give the U.S. Federal government the right to draft young men (a form of slavery) and send them halfway around the world in the name of making sure someone else's life would be "more free." And speaking of the draft, the South was the first in the civil war to institute one. And they ultimately allowed slave owners to be except from the draft based on how many slaves they owned. That would be like the U.S. fighting another oil war and excepting oil executives and their sons from the draft. They also taxed poor whites to pay for the war effort that didn't benefit them.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  20. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I'm just as skeptical of your belief that Korea as a whole wouldn't be more economically viable in the aggregate if we hadn't intervened. Key word is "as a whole." How many fewer North Koreans wouldn't have died if Korea as a whole had evolved more in line with what happened in Vietnam and China? Also I am skeptical of the claim you and others make that slavery would have ended "in a few years" in the South. Slavery is still practiced clandestinely in the U.S. today so people clearly still find it economically viable. Basically your whole argument falls on nothing but speculation. It's the worst just war theory ever. China is arguably more economically viable today than it was prior to the communist Chinese revolution. That doesn't mean the communist revolution was good for China. And using your "just war theory" someone could have speculated that the Iraq war was justified based on the idea that it might make the lives of the people better to get rid of a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein. Libya might have been better by getting rid of the dictator Ghaddafi. Syria might be better by getting rid of the dictator Assad. Or we could just mind our own business unless we are attacked (which the North actually was attacked by the south). The constitution actually gave the U.S. Federal government the right to "put down insurrections." It did not give the U.S. Federal government the right to draft young men (a form of slavery) and send them halfway around the world in the name of making sure someone else's life would be "more free." And speaking of the draft, the South was the first in the civil war to institute one. And they ultimately allowed slave owners to be except from the draft based on how many slaves they owned. That would be like the U.S. fighting another oil war and excepting oil executives and their sons from the draft. They also taxed poor whites to pay for the war effort that didn't benefit them.
    It could be that no conceivable intervention would ever be worthwhile (even though every existing state is the result of intervention).

    Another view would be that you have a weird and irrational opposition to it.

    Anyway, as to Korea, keep in mind that there was going to be a war anyway; the US got involved in that war, mind you, but didn't start it.

    The communists butchered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the southerners - nothing to do with the US.

    Familiar with Cambodia?

    I agreed with MacArthur; they should have pressed on, annihilated the Korean communists, invaded China, and ended it right there.

    In Berlin, the Prussian officer corps (many of whom tried to kill Hitler), wanted to join the US Army and go east and finish bolshevism.

    ...lost opportunities.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  21. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    It could be that no conceivable intervention would ever be worthwhile (even though every existing state is the result of intervention).

    Another view would be that you have a weird and irrational opposition to it.

    Anyway, as to Korea, keep in mind that there was going to be a war anyway; the US got involved in that war, mind you, but didn't start it.

    The communists butchered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the southerners - nothing to do with the US.

    Familiar with Cambodia?

    I agreed with MacArthur; they should have pressed on, annihilated the Korean communists, invaded China, and ended it right there.

    In Berlin, the Prussian officer corps (many of whom tried to kill Hitler), wanted to join the US Army and go east and finish bolshevism.

    ...lost opportunities.
    You do realize this is the Ron Paul Forums don't you? Intervention is one of the things that brought (most of) us here, and not to support it.
    "The Patriarch"

  22. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    You do realize this is the Ron Paul Forums don't you? Intervention is one of the things that brought (most of) us here, and not to support it.
    Ron explained how recent US interventions were catastrophes, and they were.

    Simple people took this to mean that all war is inherently evil; grown ups understand that, sometimes, one has to fight.

    The average person is not terribly clever.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  23. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Ron explained how recent US interventions were catastrophes, and they were.

    Simple people took this to mean that all war is inherently evil; grown ups understand that, sometimes, one has to fight.

    The average person is not terribly clever.
    So which wars(of aggression) in your estimation do you think are not inherently evil. I am talking about wars of aggression because I don't think anyone is against defensive wars.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    So which wars(of aggression) in your estimation do you think are not inherently evil. I am talking about wars of aggression because I don't think anyone is against defensive wars.
    Some people are against wars, no matter what (I'm a terrible warpig, evidently).

    The communists invaded from the north, in Korea; apparently any resistance is evil.

    They killed hundreds of thousands, but I guess they had the "right" to do so, because muh nationalism...

    And America or anyone else who tried to intervene is just awful...

    ...ok

  26. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Some people are against wars, no matter what (I'm a terrible warpig, evidently).

    The communists invaded from the north, in Korea; apparently any resistance is evil.

    They killed hundreds of thousands, but I guess they had the "right" to do so, because muh nationalism...

    And America or anyone else who tried to intervene is just awful...

    ...ok
    I really don't know the detail about the Korean war but yea, I am against wars of aggression and support any group of people's desire to repel foreign invasion. Btw, just because someone called for help doesn't mean one should send troops in response.

    So is it just Korea?
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  27. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    I really don't know the detail about the Korean war but yea, I am against wars of aggression and support any group of people's desire to repel foreign invasion. Btw, just because someone called for help doesn't mean one should send troops in response.

    So is it just Korea?
    Then you ought to have opposed the North Korean Communist invasion of the south.

    They killed a huge number of Korean civilians.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 12-27-2019 at 11:42 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  28. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Ron explained how recent US interventions were catastrophes, and they were.

    Simple people took this to mean that all war is inherently evil; grown ups understand that, sometimes, one has to fight.

    The average person is not terribly clever.
    Simple people? Lol, ok Mr. Kissinger.
    "The Patriarch"

  29. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    It could be that no conceivable intervention would ever be worthwhile (even though every existing state is the result of intervention).

    Another view would be that you have a weird and irrational opposition to it.

    Anyway, as to Korea, keep in mind that there was going to be a war anyway; the US got involved in that war, mind you, but didn't start it.

    The communists butchered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the southerners - nothing to do with the US.

    Familiar with Cambodia?

    I agreed with MacArthur; they should have pressed on, annihilated the Korean communists, invaded China, and ended it right there.

    In Berlin, the Prussian officer corps (many of whom tried to kill Hitler), wanted to join the US Army and go east and finish bolshevism.

    ...lost opportunities.
    I am familiar with Cambodia but it appears you are not. The net result of the Nixon intervention in Cambodia was an increase in the power of the Khmer Rogue! After the Khmer Rogue took power, Diplomatic cables from back in 1978 show that the United States actively supported the Khmer Rogue in order to "stabilize" the country and weaken the Vietnamese.

    See: https://bennorton.com/wikileaks-us-khmer-rouge-support/

    It's ultimately the communist Vietnamese that drove the Khmer Rogue to power. Really are you trying to prove my point for me?

    Also I'm not against all interventions. I support what you wrongly call the "Northern War Of Aggression." The South actually fired fired. It actually fell under the "suppress insurrection" clause of the U.S. constitution. (Not sure what clause of the Constitution you put Nixon's bombing an invasion of Cambodia or the Korean War for that matter....but anyway). And there is no real debating that the aftermath was overall positive. I'm not just talking about the end of slavery. The South, which had been economically disadvantaged and had little to know industry, grew to become an economic and industrial powerhouse. I am from Birmingham Alabama. The "magic" that gave it the name "Magic City" only happened in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War!

    Really, this isn't hard to decipher. Is there an actual United States interest as a nation at stake? Not "will some Americans somewhere be richer if we do this intervention" or even "Will some people somewhere possibly be 'more free' if we do this intervention?" But is there an actual vital United States national interest at stake? The War of 1812 involved the interests of the United States to not have our sailor subject to be impressed into the British Navy. The intervention against the Barbary Pirates involved the freedom of commerce on the high seas. You can make an argument on World War I from the fact that the Germans tried to get the Mexicans to invade the U.S. if war between the U.S. and Germany happened....but that's a stretch. Had we stayed neutral that possible compact between Mexico and Germany never would have materialized and the Texas national guard and Rangers probably could have staved off Mexico by themselves.

    If there is an actual United States national interest at stake it should be openly debated in the U.S. House and Senate and a proper declaration of war be passed. Everything else is bollocks.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  30. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Ron explained how recent US interventions were catastrophes, and they were.

    Simple people took this to mean that all war is inherently evil; grown ups understand that, sometimes, one has to fight.

    The average person is not terribly clever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Simple people? Lol, ok Mr. Kissinger.
    Henry Kissinger was so "clever" that he went from supporting the bombing and invasion of Cambodia to working with the Khmer Rouge.

    https://gsp.yale.edu/case-studies/ca...ge-regime-1975

    Kissinger: “You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.”
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  31. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Then you ought to have opposed the North Korean Communist invasion of the south.

    They killed a huge number of Korean civilians.
    Also, lets not forget the Bobo league massacres. The South is just as murderous and the North, only difference is that we backed the south and the communists supported the North
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  32. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I am familiar with Cambodia but it appears you are not. The net result of the Nixon intervention in Cambodia was an increase in the power of the Khmer Rogue! After the Khmer Rogue took power, Diplomatic cables from back in 1978 show that the United States actively supported the Khmer Rogue in order to "stabilize" the country and weaken the Vietnamese.

    See: https://bennorton.com/wikileaks-us-khmer-rouge-support/
    I said nothing about US involvement in Cambodia.

    My point was that East Asians are perfectly capable of killing each other, by the millions.

    ...and, in Korea, they did just that, and would have with or without US involvement.

    All that US involvement did was end it sooner and isolate it geographically - which was worth doing.

    It's ultimately the communist Vietnamese that drove the Khmer Rogue to power. Really are you trying to prove my point for me?
    It's ultimately the "anti-colonialists" in both countries who were responsible...?

    Any attempt to blame the US (or French) for the Khmer Rouge is disgusting.

    Don't do that; you're better than that.

    Also I'm not against all interventions. I support what you wrongly call the "Northern War Of Aggression." The South actually fired fired. It actually fell under the "suppress insurrection" clause of the U.S. constitution. (Not sure what clause of the Constitution you put Nixon's bombing an invasion of Cambodia or the Korean War for that matter....but anyway). And there is no real debating that the aftermath was overall positive. I'm not just talking about the end of slavery. The South, which had been economically disadvantaged and had little to know industry, grew to become an economic and industrial powerhouse. I am from Birmingham Alabama. The "magic" that gave it the name "Magic City" only happened in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War!
    Another war that didn't need to happen.

    ...you know, for a peacenik, you like war a lot.

    Really, this isn't hard to decipher. Is there an actual United States interest as a nation at stake? Not "will some Americans somewhere be richer if we do this intervention" or even "Will some people somewhere possibly be 'more free' if we do this intervention?" But is there an actual vital United States national interest at stake? The War of 1812 involved the interests of the United States to not have our sailor subject to be impressed into the British Navy. The intervention against the Barbary Pirates involved the freedom of commerce on the high seas. You can make an argument on World War I from the fact that the Germans tried to get the Mexicans to invade the U.S. if war between the U.S. and Germany happened....but that's a stretch. Had we stayed neutral that possible compact between Mexico and Germany never would have materialized and the Texas national guard and Rangers probably could have staved off Mexico by themselves.
    There is no such thing as a nation; there are individual human beings.

    If there is an actual United States national interest at stake it should be openly debated in the U.S. House and Senate and a proper declaration of war be passed. Everything else is bollocks.
    ...national interest, lulz.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I said nothing about US involvement in Cambodia.

    My point was that East Asians are perfectly capable of killing each other, by the millions.

    ...and, in Korea, they did just that, and would have with or without US involvement.

    All that US involvement did was end it sooner and isolate it geographically - which was worth doing.



    It's ultimately the "anti-colonialists" in both countries who were responsible...?

    Any attempt to blame the US (or French) for the Khmer Rouge is disgusting.

    Don't do that; you're better than that.



    Another war that didn't need to happen.

    ...you know, for a peacenik, you like war a lot.



    There is no such thing as a nation; there are individual human beings.



    ...national interest, lulz.
    So, if there is no such thing as a nation, who intervened in Vietnam? Who do you propose to do these "good" interventions you advocate for? Are you personally going to pick up arms and go do some righteous "intervenin'" as a individual?
    "The Patriarch"

  35. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I said nothing about US involvement in Cambodia.

    My point was that East Asians are perfectly capable of killing each other, by the millions.
    They weren't killing each other in Cambodia until the U.S. intervened. The U.S. intervention in Cambodia caused the killing fields. People of every ethnic group, religion, language, culture, region, etc are capable of "killing each other by the millions" given the right circumstances. The United States gave the right circumstances. Cambodia was a monarchy before the U.S. intervened. The monarchy tried to stay neutral in the Vietnam conflict the way the U.S. tried to stay neutral at the beginning of World War I. That neutrality involved not forcibly expelling the Viet Cong operating from their territory. So we bombed the hell out of Cambodia, invaded, and orchestrated a coup. Before the killing in Cambodia was over we were supporting the murderous Khmer Rouge!

    ...and, in Korea, they did just that, and would have with or without US involvement.
    Most likely not as it was the U.S. involvement that caused the killing field in Cambodia.

    All that US involvement did was end it sooner and isolate it geographically - which was worth doing.
    According to you. Not according to actual history. Vietnam didn't become the Cambodian killing fields (the Vietnamese actually helped end the genocide in Cambodia). Vietnam also did not become the wasteland that is North Korea. The most likely outcome if the U.S. has not intervened is that Korea would be like Vietnam, a communist country with flourishing U.S. tourism and exports to the U.S.

    It's ultimately the "anti-colonialists" in both countries who were responsible...?

    Any attempt to blame the US (or French) for the Khmer Rouge is disgusting.

    Don't do that; you're better than that.
    Go You are the being disgusting. I gave you the facts. The U.S. intervention in Cambodia is what caused the fall of the monarchy and led to the genocide. Take you militaristic, false patriotic, politically correct garbage and shove it where the sun don't shine.

    Another war that didn't need to happen.

    ...you know, for a peacenik, you like war a lot.
    I am a non-interventionist. Apparently you have no clue what that even means. And you are the one advocating wars. I listed three wars that fit the constitutional principals of non-interventionism and you listed about 8 wars you support. So how can you sit here and claim I am the one liking war when you are the one advocating for every war conceivable? The constitution gave the federal government the power to repel invasions (war of 1812), to suppress insurrections (U.S. Civil War) and the power to punish piracy and crimes committed on the high seas (Barbary Coast War). Where in the U.S. constitution does it give the right to intervene in Korea? Oh yeah it DOES NOT!


    There is no such thing as a nation; there are individual human beings.
    Then take your individual a$$ to North Korea and fight yourself since you care so much. You love all wars except those actually authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-17-2016, 04:36 PM
  2. The School of the Americas
    By jim49er in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-29-2011, 03:03 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-19-2009, 11:39 PM
  4. RP Addresses Home School Grads
    By ronpaulhawaii in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-17-2009, 01:35 PM
  5. school of the americas
    By benhaskins in forum Family, Parenting & Education
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-28-2008, 08:29 PM

Posting Permissions

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