International thread 2

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Horza said:

I think military action and assassination are unlikely, but I really don't see the distinction between doing anything short of those things to "end" a government and staging a coup.

There's entirely a distinction.  That distinction is one of the main bases for modern international relations.  It's the difference between purely 'hard' power - military action - and what is called 'smart' power - economic sanctions - these days.

6 minutes ago, Horza said:

And when it comes to ruling out reckless and downright murderous pathways to that goal, the personnel involved in this policy are more than a just a "concern"

It's always much more of a concern with a GOP regime.  That's just how it goes.  Is this regime more worrisome than your regular GOP let's-start-a-war somewhere mean?  In some ways, yes.  But in other ways, actually no.

8 minutes ago, Horza said:

As a smart guy said about many of the same people fifteen years ago:

I don't know who this is.  Or why it's important.  Or why I'm supposed to read someone's random opinion about something that's tangential to the topic.

[Horza]

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

There's entirely a distinction.  That distinction is one of the main bases for modern international relations.  It's the difference between purely 'hard' power - military action - and what is called 'smart' power - economic sanctions - these days.

I don't see the relevance of modern international relations terminology to the argument that doing everything short of invasion or assassination to overthrow a government is not the same thing as staging a coup. It's strange that you're even adding external military action to the criteria for a coup, and it's odd that you've left covert action out of the picture.

Quote

It's always much more of a concern with a GOP regime.  That's just how it goes.  Is this regime more worrisome than your regular GOP let's-start-a-war somewhere mean?  In some ways, yes.  But in other ways, actually no.

More worrisome for who, exactly? (That's a note-perfect Megan McCardle parody, by the way. Chapeau).

Quote

I don't know who this is.  Or why it's important.  Or why I'm supposed to read someone's random opinion about something that's tangential to the topic.

Dan Davies, like I said, a smart guy. Well worth reading on almost any subject and currently has a book out on dodgy lying scoundrels.  Here, I'll excerpt the important bit:

Quote

There is ... no fancy Latin term for the fallacy of “giving known liars the benefit of the doubt”, but it is in my view a much greater source of avoidable error in the world.

Not really tangential. It's the same people, with an even less competent president. From what I understand the logistics really don't stack up for an invasion, but there are so many other ways measures short of war can result in a disastrous conflict and no reason to believe this crowd would stop short at the threshold of a military coup and civil war.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Horza said:

I don't see the relevance of modern international relations terminology to the argument that doing everything short of invasion or assassination to overthrow a government is not the same thing as staging a coup. It's strange that you're even adding external military action to the criteria for a coup, and it's odd that you've left covert action out of the picture.

I don't see why you continue to speculate about something that has no fundamental basis in fact and are continuing to argue that I'm being "blind" by pointing that out.  There is no evidence of any covert action, and certainly not a coup.  Is the CIA engaging in covert action?  Yes of course, that's their job.  But I have no idea to what extent that is and neither do you.  And there's no specific indication that it entails an assassination or a coup at this point.  All you or @Spockydog are doing is just rehashing what the CIA and the US in general has done in the past and presenting it as if that means it's a certainty that's what happening now.  I'm frankly getting tired of it because all this is is ultimately arguing about arguing, so this will probably be my last post on reiterating the same points unless you present something substantive to talk about.

19 minutes ago, Horza said:

(That's a note-perfect Megan McCardle parody, by the way. Chapeau).

Tell me why I should care about Megan McCardle.  At alldle.

21 minutes ago, Horza said:

Dan Davies, like I said, a smart guy. Well worth reading on almost any subject and currently has a book out on dodgy lying scoundrels.

Again, don't care.  I prefer actual empiricism rather than thought pieces from people that leverage academic success into marketing their opinions.  Those people tend to be total douchebags, btw, in my personal experience.

23 minutes ago, Horza said:

Not really tangential. It's the same people, with an even less competent president.

There's no giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.  I'm not entirely sure what the benefit of the doubt would even mean with a guy like Trump making decisions for an administration.  It's about interpreting reality rather than wildly speculating on what 'could' happen.  Could Maduro be assassinated a minute after I post this and the CIA be behind it?  Of course.  I'm not denying that possibility, nor that the possibility that the CIA could be ordered to do so is significantly higher due to the current personnel in office.  What I'm denying is this is already the case, or something that should be assumed, which is the position I took issue with.

[Spockydog]

5 hours ago, Horza said:

 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeting like a supervillan?

That is outrageous. People are dying.

As much as our leaders like to tell us how bad the Russians and the Chinese are, if, in a galaxy far, far away, someone is writing about our world, it won't be them who is the fucking Empire.

 

[Horza]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I don't see why you continue to speculate about something that has no fundamental basis in fact and are continuing to argue that I'm being "blind" by pointing that out.  There is no evidence of any covert action, and certainly not a coup.  Is the CIA engaging in covert action?  Yes of course, that's their job.  But I have no idea to what extent that is and neither do you.  And there's no specific indication that it entails an assassination or a coup at this point.  All you or @Spockydog are doing is just rehashing what the CIA and the US in general has done in the past and presenting it as if that means it's a certainty that's what happening now.

This is odd, I thought we'd actually hit common ground on the understanding that the US had agreed on a policy of trying to "end" Maduro's government by any means short of war and assassination. You seem to think that should preclude speculation about covert action and I can't think why, as on any assessment of the history of policies like this, covert action frequently appears as a tool of statecraft. It'd be quite exceptional if that wasn't the case here.

Naturally we can't know what form that takes, and I agree that any speculation as to the extent or nature at this point wouldn't be productive, but your argument is that speculation that covert action is part of this policy has no fundamental basis in fact. Arguing that history is inadmissible and absent some spectacular disclosure we must assume a government whose Secretary of State tweets about power outages like he's holding Gotham City to ransom is a tabula rasa for US Latin American policy is quite something.

And by the way: Spockydog speaks for himself. Cheers.

Quote

Tell me why I should care about Megan McCardle.  At alldle. 

*whoosh*
 

Quote

Again, don't care.  I prefer actual empiricism rather than thought pieces from people that leverage academic success into marketing their opinions.  Those people tend to be total douchebags, btw, in my personal experience.

There's a lot of douchebags out there, it's true.

Quote

There's no giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.  I'm not entirely sure what the benefit of the doubt would even mean with a guy like Trump making decisions for an administration.  It's about interpreting reality rather than wildly speculating on what 'could' happen.  Could Maduro be assassinated a minute after I post this and the CIA be behind it?  Of course.  I'm not denying that possibility, nor that the possibility that the CIA could be ordered to do so is significantly higher due to the current personnel in office.  What I'm denying is this is already the case, or something that should be assumed, which is the position I took issue with.

You're strawmaning here and I don't get why. All I've maintained in this exchange is that the US government has a policy to overthrow the Venezuelan government by all means short of invasion or (likely) assassination. You at one point agreed with that. For reasons yet unexplained, you don't think such a policy amounts to attempting a coup and keep on bringing up assassination conspiracies.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Horza said:

You seem to think that should preclude speculation about covert action and I can't think why, as on any assessment of the history of policies like this, covert action frequently appears as a tool of statecraft. It'd be quite exceptional if that wasn't the case here.

There are plenty of examples of the US using covert action to institute new regimes.  There's also plenty - and many more - examples of the US not doing so.  This is why it's not 'odd' to point it out.

3 minutes ago, Horza said:

Arguing that history is inadmissible and absent some spectacular disclosure we must assume a government whose Secretary of State tweets about power outages like he's holding Gotham City to ransom is a tabula rasa for US Latin American policy is quite something.

I'm not saying history is inadmissible.  Even a bit.  I'm saying it's empirically fallacious to solely rely on history (rather than relevant and contemporary evidence) as an argument for why A is going to happen in B circumstance.  Because it is.

6 minutes ago, Horza said:

All I've maintained in this exchange is that the US government has a policy to overthrow the Venezuelan government by all means short of invasion or (likely) assassination.

The basis of my objections came from someone - admittedly another poster but you then took up the mantle - saying the US was "basically staging a coup."  No qualifications, no likelihood.  And a coup is actually more involved than a simple assassination, tactically speaking.  That is what I'm arguing against.  I suppose it may be "strawmanning" to attribute that opinion to you, but you're the one that started arguing with me about it.

12 minutes ago, Horza said:

For reasons yet unexplained, you don't think such a policy amounts to attempting a coup and keep on bringing up assassination conspiracies.

I am not the first to bring up assassination conspiracies.  That's been part of the context of this discussion since before this thread.  As for sanctions and threats amounting to attempting a coup - no, I don't think that's accurate.  In fact I know it's not.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't see why you continue to speculate about something that has no fundamental basis in fact and are continuing to argue that I'm being "blind" by pointing that out.  There is no evidence of any covert action, and certainly not a coup.  Is the CIA engaging in covert action?  Yes of course, that's their job.  But I have no idea to what extent that is and neither do you.  And there's no specific indication that it entails an assassination or a coup at this point.  All you or @Spockydog are doing is just rehashing what the CIA and the US in general has done in the past and presenting it as if that means it's a certainty that's what happening now.  I'm frankly getting tired of it because all this is is ultimately arguing about arguing, so this will probably be my last post on reiterating the same points unless you present something substantive to talk about.

Tell me why I should care about Megan McCardle.  At alldle.

Again, don't care.  I prefer actual empiricism rather than thought pieces from people that leverage academic success into marketing their opinions.  Those people tend to be total douchebags, btw, in my personal experience.

There's no giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.  I'm not entirely sure what the benefit of the doubt would even mean with a guy like Trump making decisions for an administration.  It's about interpreting reality rather than wildly speculating on what 'could' happen.  Could Maduro be assassinated a minute after I post this and the CIA be behind it?  Of course.  I'm not denying that possibility, nor that the possibility that the CIA could be ordered to do so is significantly higher due to the current personnel in office.  What I'm denying is this is already the case, or something that should be assumed, which is the position I took issue with.

It’s coming close to the “argument from ignorance”.  I.E... Because we cannot show it is happening it must be happening.  The same argument Trumpanistas use when they accuse Sec. Clinton of murder.  

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It’s coming close to the “argument from ignorance”.  I.E... Because we cannot show it is happening it must be happening.  The same argument Trumpanistas use when they accuse Sec. Clinton of murder.  

Aye, I'd refer to it as a pretty typical evidence of absence fallacy.  Which is rather common when it comes to Pavlovian hatred for US foreign policy actions, or inactions.

[Spockydog]

nvm. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

Aye, I'd refer to it as a pretty typical evidence of absence fallacy.  Which is rather common when it comes to Pavlovian hatred for US foreign policy actions, or inactions.

Honestly a pavlovian hatred for US foreign policy in South and Central American is probably the safest bet and should be axiomatic, even in the absence of evidence.*

 

*I mean, there's a pretty long pattern here.  And if anyone doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, it's the CIA and the gutted Trump State Dept under Pompeo.

[DMC]

37 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Honestly a pavlovian hatred for US foreign policy in South and Central American is probably the safest bet and should be axiomatic, even in the absence of evidence.*

No, it shouldn't.  Name me all the regime changes that are US influenced and I can name exponentially more that weren't.  Ultimately it's just dumb hippies who think they've cracked the code on US foreign policy when they don't have any idea what they're talking about in actuality.

[Conflicting Thought]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

The "oil" sanctions have been covered extensively.  As for who is in charge, it's certainly concerning but also certainly not actual evidence.

You cant really have concrete evidence if they are covert operations ( as the US likes to do).

We have the evidence of past covert actions, and we know that the US goverment have plenty of experience destabilazing goverments, so they have an open road to put people who serve the US (or big buissnes, or both) in power. 

With the sanctions to venezuela it all has an incredible feeling of dejavu. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, it shouldn't.  Name me all the regime changes that are US influenced and I can name exponentially more that weren't.  Ultimately it's just dumb hippies who think they've cracked the code on US foreign policy when they don't have any idea what they're talking about in actuality.

You fucking kidding?

Brazil mid 60s, Guatemala (UFC activity, later Reagan), Paraguay (Stroessner), Chile (Allende removed, backing Pinochet), Nicaragua (backing Contras over Sandinistas), Panama (take your pick, really), El Salvador (UFC, later civil war), Argentina (Peron removed ), Peru (Fujimora).  

[Conflicting Thought]

19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You fucking kidding?

Brazil mid 60s, Guatemala (UFC activity, later Reagan), Paraguay (Stroessner), Chile (Allende removed, backing Pinochet), Nicaragua (backing Contras over Sandinistas), Panama (take your pick, really), El Salvador (UFC, later civil war), Argentina (Peron removed ), Peru (Fujimora).  

Yup, and those are just a sample of the 60s to 80s period. 

I accept that we dont know to what extent they are involved in venezuela, we also didnt know to what extent they where involved in Chile for a long time (and the same applies to a lot of other countrys and goverments).

So you will have to forgive me for not having an optimistic view of US foreing policy.  Even if we dont have all the information. 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

You fucking kidding?

Nope.

Quote

And you cannot name exponentially more that weren't. And that's not even a comprehensive list.

Yes, I can.

[TrueMetis]

Okay you can, so are you going to?

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Okay you can, so are you going to?

Probably not.  Generally I'm not your monkey, look it up yourself.  Maybe if I get bored.

[TrueMetis]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Probably not.  Generally I'm not your monkey, look it up yourself.  Maybe if I get bored.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence seems appropriate here.

So I'm going to have to go ahead and give this round to Larry.

[Conflicting Thought]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

No, it shouldn't.  Name me all the regime changes that are US influenced and I can name exponentially more that weren't.  Ultimately it's just dumb hippies who think they've cracked the code on US foreign policy when they don't have any idea what they're talking about in actuality.

 We are just dumb hippies, ok. 

How do we engage with a response like that?. 

 

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence seems appropriate here.

So I'm going to have to go ahead and give this round to Larry.

This isn't evidence that's questionable or difficult to verify, it's just time consuming.  Just look up regime changes since WWII and calculate the percentage that were US influenced with any significance.  Again, hell, just look at the elections since Chavez took power.  If the US/CIA's omnipresence was as influential as is being posited, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

24 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

 We are just dumb hippies, ok. 

How do we engage with a response like that?. 

I dunno, take a grav bong hit?  I'll pack you one.