McCarthy opens impeachment inquiry

[Loren Pechtel]

The result of each intervention during that 52 years was that each intervention turned out to be a mistake that made the situation worse.

How do you know? Do you have access to parallel dimensions in which decisions not made are played out so that you can observe the effects of counterfactuals?

How do you know that the absence of one or more of those interventions wouldn't have been far worse than what actually occurred?

Given that for most of that time, global nuclear armageddon was a real possibility, it would seem that there's plenty of scope for worse outcomes than what we actually got; Assuming better ones, as the consequence of your alternative plan that was never enacted, is unwarranted.

Yup. That's why we got involved in the 1973 war in Israel. We knew Israel had the bomb and wouldn't simply accept being genocided. However, if they were pushed to the wall and used the bomb there was a chance that it would become a global war. Hence we aided them enough to ensure they didn't have to use their bombs.

 

[Swammerdami]

North Elbonia attacks South Elbonia. Why should the US use US money and US supplies and US lives to support either non-US side?

Because failure to support South Elbonia against North Elbonian aggression will lead to a more dangerous and less free world in which the US will be both poorer and at greater risk.

You see a mugger attack someone weaker than themselves. You are stronger than either party. Why wouldn't you defend the victim against the attacker?

Any party that initiates violence against another party is a risk to the entire community, and as a member of that community you have many good reasons to intervene, not least your own selfish desire to live in a world where you are less likely to be attacked. This is true of the community of nations just as it is of your own local community of individuals.

I'm astonished that anyone could reach adulthood without understanding this.

With a 52 year track record on foreign policy showing the LP has been right every single time on foreign intervention, and during that same 50 years the Demopublican war party was wrong every single time, your answer is certain to be right.

1) 52 years sounds very much like cherry picking.

2) You are assuming that the right answer in each case was not to intervene.

He picked a cherry that absolves from the Vietnam War. But he had to pretend Libertarians were not competent before "LP" :-- Because proto-Libertarians supported Hitler over the USSR and did not want to intervene in that War. "LP" sides with the QOPAnon-Putin axis on the matter of Ukraine? Does "LP" and/or Jason want to dissolve NATO?

Apparently Jason was happy with the Rape of Sarajevo. Perhaps "LP" allies with the QOPAnon-Putin axis on that matter as well. I can think of a possible reason why proto-Trumpists may have also opposed NATO actions against Serbia: That War can be viewed as a religious conflict, Christian vs Muslim. The QOP (and "LP" apparently) obviously support the Christians.

Clinton regrets NOT intervening before half a million Tutsis in Rwanda were massacred; should Clinton instead be proud he followed the "LP" lead there?

Jason apparently would have been happy to allow Al-Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan. (Obviously Cheney and his fellow war-mongers botched that adventure, but that doesn't make the original action wrong, as "LP" apparently insists.)

Of course debating "LP" is just harmless recreation. Has Jason ever divulged what is likely to be used for money when the Fed is dissolved? Gold? Beanie Babies?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The US intervened, the US made the situation worse. That does not require access to alternate dimensions, and that does not mean it couldn't have been even worse.

Try addressing what I wrote instead of wild claims that I didn't write.

No. The null case isn't an option. You have to compare intervene vs not intervene, you can't compare intervene to nothing happening. In every case there's no question the null would be the best choice--but the other side already chose action, the null wasn't going to happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The US intervened, the US made the situation worse. That does not require access to alternate dimensions, and that does not mean it couldn't have been even worse.

Try addressing what I wrote instead of wild claims that I didn't write.

The US intervened, the US made the situation different.

Whether or not it was worse could only be known if we know how bad it would have been without US intervention.

We can assess "this is how it was before the US intervened" and "this is how it was after the US intervened" and figure out if one of them is worse than the others. Therefore we can determine that things are worse after intervention, and do so without any access to alternate realities.

The problem is that you are looking at a static situation. The other guys get to act, also.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure. But post hoc, ergo propter hoc is logically fallacious.

Interventions happen for reasons. They exist only because someone believes (rightly or wrongly) that the situation will get worse if no intervention occurs.

Given a situation that is expected to deteriorate without intervention, the observation that it deteriorated despite intervention is not evidence that the intervention was the wrong approach. It's equally reasonable to conclude that the intervention was merely insufficient.

"We intervened, and things got worse", could imply that the intervention made things worse; Or that the intervention prevented things from becoming even worser.

The real world rarely presents dichotomies; "Worse" isn't an absolute, and something that is worse than before, can easily be better than it might have been.

So that is why you keep saying we need to see alternate realities. The fact that things are worse after US intervention isn't enough for you, you need to see an alternate reality where things are "worser".

Of course it's not.

Shall we ban ejection seats? After all, they yeet a pilot out of their plane so hard that injury is certain and a safe landing is not assured. Is every pilot who banged out wrong? Especially those who were going fast enough that there was a good chance they would die? I'm thinking of a case where the pilot was unable to blow the canopy and chose to fire the seat anyway despite knowing that in testing that tended to rip the legs off the crash dummies. (His legs were ok, his oxygen mask did get ripped off. He was at 35,000' without oxygen--if he pulled his chute he would die of hypoxia (and perhaps hypothermia) before descending to a survivable altitude. If he passed out he couldn't pull his chute and would end up lithobraking. He ended up keeping himself conscious for long enough that he could pull his chute without dying. IIRC he's still the only survivor of a supersonic ejection.)

Shall we ban paramedics? Either the patient is already dead and they simply confirm the fact, or the patient is not dead but may die after their intervention.

If the predictions had turned out to be incorrect, you would be happily trumpeting that from the highest tower. Instead all you can say is "well they weren't in office when they made those prediction so it doesn't count."

You aren't proving your analysis correct.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He picked a cherry that absolves from the Vietnam War. But he had to pretend Libertarians were not competent before "LP" :-- Because proto-Libertarians supported Hitler over the USSR and did not want to intervene in that War. "LP" sides with the QOPAnon-Putin axis on the matter of Ukraine? Does "LP" and/or Jason want to dissolve NATO?

Yeah, that's why I missed the importance of 52 years--I was thinking of them as a political position as opposed to a party. The creation of the party put a name to what exists, it didn't create the position.

Clinton regrets NOT intervening before half a million Tutsis in Rwanda were massacred; should Clinton instead be proud he followed the "LP" lead there?

I don't think we could have helped there.

Jason apparently would have been happy to allow Al-Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan. (Obviously Cheney and his fellow war-mongers botched that adventure, but that doesn't make the original action wrong, as "LP" apparently insists.)

Of course debating "LP" is just harmless recreation. Has Jason ever divulged what is likely to be used for money when the Fed is dissolved? Gold? Beanie Babies?

The problem with going after Al-Qaeda is that it was an unwinnable war as the other side had untouchable backing: Pakistan. Same reason we were able to "defeat" Russia there.

 

[Elixir]

Shall we ban ejection seats? After all, they yeet a pilot out of their plane so hard that injury is certain and a safe landing is not assured. Is every pilot who banged out wrong? Especially those who were going fast enough that there was a good chance they would die? I'm thinking of a case where the pilot was unable to blow the canopy and chose to fire the seat anyway despite knowing that in testing that tended to rip the legs off the crash dummies. (His legs were ok, his oxygen mask did get ripped off. He was at 35,000' without oxygen--if he pulled his chute he would die of hypoxia (and perhaps hypothermia) before descending to a survivable altitude. If he passed out he couldn't pull his chute and would end up lithobraking. He ended up keeping himself conscious for long enough that he could pull his chute without dying. IIRC he's still the only survivor of a supersonic ejection.)

A friend was the first guy to be shot down twice in Vietnam. Second time he ejected at over 350 knots, got clipped by the tail of his plane and got fished out by a rescue swimmer. In his telling, the rescue swimmer swam up to him with a bag Rambo knife in his teeth, and exclaimed “Commander, you okay?” At which point the knife fell out of his mouth, and sank. Fred’s back was broken from the impact of the tail - he says it hurt to laugh.
… some people.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

He picked a cherry that absolves from the Vietnam War.

First, the LP can't issue position papers if the LP doesn't exist. Second, Vietnam was a disaster.

Because proto-Libertarians supported Hitler over the USSR and did not want to intervene in that War.

Nice straw man. I've consistently stated that if Wilson had not intervened in WWI the disaster of WWII could have been avoided.

"LP" sides with the QOPAnon-Putin axis on the matter of Ukraine? Does "LP" and/or Jason want to dissolve NATO?

The LP wants to say out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is the opposite of taking a side. The LP recommends the US leaving NATO, not dissolveing NATO.

I can think of a possible reason why proto-Trumpists may have also opposed NATO actions against Serbia: That War can be viewed as a religious conflict, Christian vs Muslim.

We're not discussing you and Trump, we're discussing LP foreign policy.

Jason apparently would have been happy to allow Al-Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan.

You mean the same Afghanistan that was destroyed by foreign intervention until the Taliban was able to rally the people to throw out foreign occupiers?

So, in this thread we have:

1. The LP not issuing position papers before the LP was founded is evidence of cherry picking
2. The fact that we can't produce an alternate world where the interventions didn't occur to compare means that we just have a 52 year long series of coincidences that don't add up to anything.
3. The evidence saying intervention fails, and the LP saying intervention fails, means the LP is only saying they are right instead of having evidence back us up.
4. Anyone who disagrees with intervention obviously supports the other side of whatever conflict the interventionists want to jump in to.
5. Interventionists will never own any of their past mistakes.

 

[Swammerdami]

Libertarianism is a spectrum of doctrines which trace their roots back to the Enlightenment and the teachings of Adam Smith. It's a confusing political movement to define since the Liberty of ordinary humans and the Liberty of property owners are so often in conflict: Whose liberty does "libertarianism" favor? In the 20th century I often called myself a "libertarian" but no longer. Today most ordinary citizens who call themselves "libertarian" are simply citizens who don't like to pay taxes but do like to smoke weed. Their leaders focus on the rights of property owners; I suppose many of them are sincere and don't realize that their policies are inhumane and lie on the road to fascism.

While "GOP" is a well-known nickname for the Republican Party, many of us do a double-take when we see "LP." Just as a simple cross or fish symbol is supposed to remind us of the power of Christianity and specifically of the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, "LP" is thought by its own cult members to remind us of the particular brand of "Libertarianism" espoused by their own Messiah, Gary Earl Johnson.

Gary Johnson is a cross between a pro-rich right-winger and a nut-cake. He supports the "FairTax", an oxymoronic program that rational thinkers would call an Unfair Tax. Since the effect of FairTax would be to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, Johnson might be treated as a "fellow traveler" of right-wing fascism, whether he personally detests Donald Trump or not.

I realize that this nut-cake got 3.3% of the vote in the 2016 Presidential Election!! But very few of those voters actually thought he might win; they clicked his box to show their apathy. I did Wikipedia the man to show respect for Mr. Harvestdancer, but I didn't study his positions in detail. An early sentence seemed to summarize his specialness:

During his tenure as governor, Johnson adhered to an anti-tax policy, setting state and national records for the number of times he used his veto power: more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together.

It is Johnson's opposition to military interventions which especially appeals to some of his supporters and this policy often does have merit.

But there are several bad actors in the world: North Korea, Russia, Islamic terrorists like ISIS, and so on. If good people and good nations fail to combat naked aggression, the world will belong to the evil-doers. Now let's look at specifics:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jason's reply reminds us why taking single sentences out of context can lead to an inane cycle of meaningless "He said she said" where both sides forget what the discussion was about!

He picked a cherry that absolves from the Vietnam War.

First, the LP can't issue position papers if the LP doesn't exist. Second, Vietnam was a disaster.

Just as Abe Lincoln inspired with his "Four-score and seven years ago," so "52 years ago" has special significance to Jason.

The Vietnam War, good or bad, is irrelevant to the discussion. The confusion was about Jason's insistence on "52 years" -- which he removed from the excerpt. I apologize but I overlooked his obsession with "LP." Strong opposition to intervention in foreign wars has naturally been a major theme in American politics since before the 20th century but he has a peculiar reverence for the "LP." It's almost as if this cult worship transcends the actual issues.

Because proto-Libertarians supported Hitler over the USSR and did not want to intervene in that War.

Nice straw man. I've consistently stated that if Wilson had not intervened in WWI the disaster of WWII could have been avoided.

Interesting. I believe you've stated that, Jason but I don't recall it. I can't read every post at IIDB. I do know that more than one million men were killed or wounded at the Battle of the Somme and that was BEFORE "Wilson intervened." Do we have an Alternate History thread where I can learn why putting an end to World War I was a bad idea?

That's "more than one million" with an M and an M.

I am not a historian, and don't know whether to praise or condemn Wilson. But the first Google hit shows

Wilson's 14 Points focused on a lasting peace after the end of World War I, while the Treaty of Versailles was a more punitive document.

The LP wants to say out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is the opposite of taking a side. The LP recommends the US leaving NATO, not dissolveing NATO.

Without Western support Ukraine would be crushed.
As for NATO, recall that its operational document is the Treaty of Washington. A NATO without the U.S. would be like a breeding stallion without semen.

Jason apparently would have been happy to allow Al-Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan.

You mean the same Afghanistan that was destroyed by foreign intervention until the Taliban was able to rally the people to throw out foreign occupiers?

I've consistently stated that the Cheney Administration bungled Afghanistan reprehensibly.
But what was your and Gary Johnson's proposal? To allow al-Qaeda to continue to operate freely?

 

[Swammerdami]

@Jason -- I see that in the Swammi post which you addressed, you overlooked my question to you:

Has Jason ever divulged what is likely to be used for money when the Fed is dissolved? Gold? Beanie Babies?

Serious question! I want to understand the knowledge level of those calling for the abolition of the Fed. What do you even know about "money"? Rand Paul and Gary Johnson seem to support "studying a return to the gold standard" -- a hedge position that "studies" an alternative to the Fed without actually endorsing lunacy. Ted Cruz -- AFAIK not an actual disciple of LP -- unequivocally supports a return to the gold standard.

How about you, Jason?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

@Jason -- I see that in the Swammi post which you addressed, you overlooked my question to you:

Has Jason ever divulged what is likely to be used for money when the Fed is dissolved? Gold? Beanie Babies?

Serious question! I want to understand the knowledge level of those calling for the abolition of the Fed. What do you even know about "money"? Rand Paul and Gary Johnson seem to support "studying a return to the gold standard" -- a hedge position that "studies" an alternative to the Fed without actually endorsing lunacy. Ted Cruz -- AFAIK not an actual disciple of LP -- unequivocally supports a return to the gold standard.

How about you, Jason?

Since we're discussing foreign policy here, why not have a thread where that is the topic. Or tell me the foreign policy implications of the LP monetary preference so that we can tie your question to the existing discussion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Libertarianism is a spectrum of doctrines which trace their roots back to the Enlightenment and the teachings of Adam Smith. It's a confusing political movement to define since the Liberty of ordinary humans and the Liberty of property owners are so often in conflict: Whose liberty does "libertarianism" favor? In the 20th century I often called myself a "libertarian" but no longer. Today most ordinary citizens who call themselves "libertarian" are simply citizens who don't like to pay taxes but do like to smoke weed. Their leaders focus on the rights of property owners; I suppose many of them are sincere and don't realize that their policies are inhumane and lie on the road to fascism.

Ah yes, reducing the entire platform to two points. That certainly is the best way to give a thorough analysis to the question as a whole.

(Lots of babbling about Gary Johnson snipped)

It is Johnson's opposition to military interventions which especially appeals to some of his supporters and this policy often does have merit.

Interestingly enough, he adopted his anti-interventionist views while seeking the LP nomination. I was one of several who spoke to him personally about his intervention-lite platform and how it wasn't a good fit with the LP.

But there are several bad actors in the world: North Korea, Russia, Islamic terrorists like ISIS, and so on. If good people and good nations fail to combat naked aggression, the world will belong to the evil-doers.

Now where did the bad actors come from?

The current war is always a good war. We're usually allowed to criticize prior war, but not always. Warmongers never take credit for the enemies they create, they only take credit for the enemies that they are overly eager to fight.

He picked a cherry that absolves from the Vietnam War.

First, the LP can't issue position papers if the LP doesn't exist. Second, Vietnam was a disaster.

Just as Abe Lincoln inspired with his "Four-score and seven years ago," so "52 years ago" has special significance to Jason.

That is when the LP was founded. That's the reason I picked that number. I didn't pick it at random. In fact, I explained that 52 years ago is when the LP was founded the very first time I was accused of cherrypicking with that number. I'm explaining it again, and you're still going to insist it has "special significance" instead of remembering that the LP was founded in 1971.

Because proto-Libertarians supported Hitler over the USSR and did not want to intervene in that War.

Nice straw man. I've consistently stated that if Wilson had not intervened in WWI the disaster of WWII could have been avoided.

Interesting. I believe you've stated that, Jason but I don't recall it. I can't read every post at IIDB. I do know that more than one million men were killed or wounded at the Battle of the Somme and that was BEFORE "Wilson intervened." Do we have an Alternate History thread where I can learn why putting an end to World War I was a bad idea?[/quote]

You can learn it in THIS history. I'm not the one insisting we pull out alternate Earths in order to study the differences. That was bilby.

The LP wants to say out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is the opposite of taking a side. The LP recommends the US leaving NATO, not dissolveing NATO.

Without Western support Ukraine would be crushed.

How did it get to this point in the first place again? What brought events to the point where Russia invaded Ukraine?

Jason apparently would have been happy to allow Al-Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan.

You mean the same Afghanistan that was destroyed by foreign intervention until the Taliban was able to rally the people to throw out foreign occupiers?

I've consistently stated that the Cheney Administration bungled Afghanistan reprehensibly.
But what was your and Gary Johnson's proposal? To allow al-Qaeda to continue to operate freely?

The Soviet-Afghan war lasted from 1979 to 1989, with the US heavily backing the anti-Soviet side. The US funded the Mujahideen heavily, and they eventually became the Taliban. The Taliban is what gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda. Once again the US backed "the enemy of my enemy" without bothering to see if they were actually good people.

A common refrain of US foreign policy is "oh shit the people we armed are shooting at us". Yet the warmongers never learn.

 

[Swammerdami]

Serious question! I want to understand the knowledge level of those calling for the abolition of the Fed. What do you even know about "money"? Rand Paul and Gary Johnson seem to support "studying a return to the gold standard" -- a hedge position that "studies" an alternative to the Fed without actually endorsing lunacy. Ted Cruz -- AFAIK not an actual disciple of LP -- unequivocally supports a return to the gold standard.

How about you, Jason?

Since we're discussing foreign policy here, why not have a thread where that is the topic. Or tell me the foreign policy implications of the LP monetary preference so that we can tie your question to the existing discussion.

We've had plenty of threads about money and monetary policy. If you actually even HAVE an answer -- but don't know enough to post to one of those other threads -- it could fit in a sentence or two and you could squeeze it in here.

But "LP monetary preference" makes it appear that you think Gary Johnson (or "LP") DOES have an answer. Really?

 

[Swammerdami]

I don't have time to play whack-a-mole with every post, but let's do give Jason some answers.

Libertarianism is a spectrum of doctrines which trace their roots back to the Enlightenment and the teachings of Adam Smith. It's a confusing political movement to define since the Liberty of ordinary humans and the Liberty of property owners are so often in conflict: Whose liberty does "libertarianism" favor? In the 20th century I often called myself a "libertarian" but no longer. Today most ordinary citizens who call themselves "libertarian" are simply citizens who don't like to pay taxes but do like to smoke weed. Their leaders focus on the rights of property owners; I suppose many of them are sincere and don't realize that their policies are inhumane and lie on the road to fascism.

Ah yes, reducing the entire platform to two points. That certainly is the best way to give a thorough analysis to the question as a whole.

So we can't criticize the "LP" or Saint Gary at all unless we submit a 17-page treatise Every.Time.We.Mention.LP. Got it.

Just as Abe Lincoln inspired with his "Four-score and seven years ago," so "52 years ago" has special significance to Jason.

That is when the LP was founded. That's the reason I picked that number. I didn't pick it at random.

Yeah. We figured that out. Your obsession with "LP" -- to the point where you think the Party is even important enough to abbreviate! ("Go to Saint James so often I will call it 'Saint Jim'") is cutesie.

instead of remembering that the LP was founded in 1971.

See? Obsession. I can barely remember my nieces' birthdays, but the founding of the "LP" is oh so very very special!!

Do you even listen to yourself?

Jason apparently would have been happy to allow Al-Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan.

You mean the same Afghanistan that was destroyed by foreign intervention until the Taliban was able to rally the people to throw out foreign occupiers?

I've consistently stated that the Cheney Administration bungled Afghanistan reprehensibly.
But what was your and Gary Johnson's proposal? To allow al-Qaeda to continue to operate freely?

The Soviet-Afghan war lasted from 1979 to 1989, with the US heavily backing the anti-Soviet side. The US funded the Mujahideen heavily, and they eventually became the Taliban. The Taliban is what gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda. Once again the US backed "the enemy of my enemy" without bothering to see if they were actually good people.

Pay attention! The Taliban was armed and funded by the US, as you imply. So your sentence that I've reddened is, more or less, TRUE.

But you're talking about a different war. NOT the one anyone speaking of "al-Qaeda" is talking about. There have been wars off and on in Afghanistan for centuries -- no, for MILLENNIA.

It looks like you were playing an inane game of Gotcha! "Get him to say something about 'Afghanistan war" then jump out of the Bush and shout "Gotcha! I was talking about one of Afghanistan's other 99 wars!"

Discussing with you is futile and pointless.
My life is pointless!!
Off to breakfast.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ah, I understand. Perhaps you might want to read a few older posts this and get back to me on your belief that Gary Johnson is the end-all an be-all of libertarianism.

 

[Swammerdami]

(Lots of babbling about Gary Johnson snipped)

Babbling? I do spend a few sentences on Saint Gary's tax plan: -- The FairTax™.

Johnson has advocated the FairTax as a template for tax reform. This proposal would abolish all federal income, corporate and capital gains taxes, and replace them with a 23% tax on consumption of all non-essential goods, while providing a regressive rebate to households according to household size, regardless of income level.

This hugely regressive tax goes far beyond even the wet-dreams of Koch, Forbes, Ted Cruz et al. It makes a mockery of the notion that "LP" is a pro-people party.

What's your stance on the FairTax, Jason?

Ah yes, reducing the entire platform to two points. That certainly is the best way to give a thorough analysis to the question as a whole.

So you're saying I was wrong to single out the minor idea of abolishing ALL income taxes and replacing them with a 23% consumption tax? In a limited post I should have focused on renaming post offices and the details of medicinal marijuana??

Speaking of Saint Gary, I read Krugman, Stiglitz, Piketty et al. I still haven't even finished the new book by the Two Davids. So don't suggest I waste my time hunting down Gary's opinions, if any, on the gold standard.

The way message-boards work is I ask YOU for YOUR opinions on minor(?) topics like "abolishing the Fed" and MONEY creation. If YOU can only respond with a copy-paste from Saint Gary's teachings, that's fine. But to imply that I might want to hunt down Saint Gary's precious opinions by myself shows lack of self-awareness on your part.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Knowing they had dick on Biden, they target Mayorkas, and the GOP put it to a vote... and lost in the House. Standalone Israel bill then failed as well. Time for Johnson to join McCarthy? Dude can't get anything done.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Knowing they had dick on Biden, they target Mayorkas, and the GOP put it to a vote... and lost in the House. Standalone Israel bill then failed as well. Time for Johnson to join McCarthy? Dude can't get anything done.

No--he doesn't want to get anything done. The Republicans are the party of problems, not the party of solutions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The way message-boards work is I ask YOU for YOUR opinions on minor(?) topics like "abolishing the Fed" and MONEY creation. If YOU can only respond with a copy-paste from Saint Gary's teachings, that's fine. But to imply that I might want to hunt down Saint Gary's precious opinions by myself shows lack of self-awareness on your part.

And I said "start a thread on the topic" because this topic has nothing to do with McCarthy opening impeachment inquiries. One more time and I'm alerting the mods.