From my forward to Ron’s new book:
Ron Paul has always believed that foreign and domestic policy should be conducted according to the same principles. Government should be restrained from intervening at home or abroad because its actions fail to achieve their stated aims, create more harm than good, shrink the liberty of the people, and violate rights. Does that proposition seem radical? Outlandish or farflung? FULL ARTICLE
{ 47 comments }
Excellent intro to Ron Paul’s book. However, there is a small flaw: Lew writes “…the crime of 9-11 was motivated by retribution against ten years of killer US sanctions against Iraq, US troops on Muslim holy lands, and US subsidies for Palestinian occupation.”
The sanctions against Iraq were UN sanctions, not US sanctions. Why didn’t the 9/11 attackers hit London, or the UN building in New York, if the sanctions motivated them. Bin Laden never mentioned Iraq in his reasons for launching the attacks. He never has cared about Iraq.
As for troops in the “Holy Land”, how is that a justification for murder? If the majority of Saudi’s didn’t mind, why should Bin Laden?
Our subsidy of the Palestinian occupation is a poor characterization of our support for the only repubic in the Middle East and its right to exist. Israel has tried many times to give the land it occupied in the 1967 war back to the original states who occupied it but only Egypt accepted the land back; Jordan and Syria refused. After the mass murderer Arafat took over, Israel pulled back from the West Bank several times, only to have to return to stop Arab attacks against its citizens. The Israeli pull out from Gaza has only increased Arab violence against Israel.
In short, the 9/11 attackers had no legitimate escuse for their mass murder.
Lew and RogerM,
I suggest you do not take the government’s word on the events of that day. For example: a list of hijacker’s names was already given out before the second plane hit WTC. According to the same government, they weren’t even aware of the second hijack until minutes AFTER it had hit the tower.
To me it seems pretty clear what the goal of the 9/11 events was. It was the thing that they began bullhorning almost instantly: getting MORE involved in Middle East military interventionism.
Or for something more scientifically formal:
I’d still like to hear a feasible sequential mechanism for the 12 to 15 seconds as the towers came down; outside of controlled demolition. After 5+ years, I still haven’t heard one.
“In short, the 9/11 attackers had no legitimate escuse for their mass murder.” –RogerM
I can’t imagine a bunch of people sat around a table one morning and said “Hey how about tomorrow let’s hijack a bunch of planes and crash them into buildings!”
“a list of hijacker’s names was given out before the second tower was hit”
you have any sources for that? I don’t follow so-called conspiracy theories but that is interesting if sourced
I prefer to keep an open mind on the whole 9/11 thing. I hold the government’s “official” conspiracy theory to the same standards as other proposed theories. While I don’t buy a lot of the alternative theories that have been proposed, the government’s story has been shot full of enough holes to discredit it as well. I think the real truth is somewhere between the government’s story and the conspiracy theorist’s stories. In any event, when someone can satisfactorily explain the manner of the destruction of WTC-7, I may give that person more credit on his overall views.
Privatizing Defense:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/03/privatizing_def.html
Roger,
I suspect you’re confusing explanation with justification.
So we’re to believe that an administration that is apparently so bumbling as to screwed up two wars, is also so adept at concocting a covert plan to start those wars and then keep it hidden for all this time? Maybe the bumbling is just a cover to hide their masterful planning of conspiricies.
Have the lunatics taken over this blog?
As for troops in the “Holy Land”, how is that a justification for murder? If the majority of Saudi’s didn’t mind, why should Bin Laden?
Huh?
Lew wrote “…the crime of 9-11 was motivated by retribution against…US troops on Muslim holy lands…” and Bin Laden’s own statements support Lew’s statement.
What part of that don’t you agree with?
The world prior 9/11 was unsustainable. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, neoconservatives saw the unique opportunity to finally achieve something that Hitler could not (and that’s why he lost) – to get in control of the Caspian basin and the Middle East.
At the same time, those who were unfriendly to American Empire did not want to accept the status quo either. The U.S. victory over Yugoslavia showed that America can simply bypass the UN Security Council and bomb the heck out of any country until it forces submission to its interests. The only way to change this status quo is by getting US military in a ground insurgency situation, in which its technology does not have to be a decisive factor.
In other words, both neoconservatives and Al-Qaeda had a common interest: to provoke America to make a major move into the Central Asia and the Middle East. Neoconservatives did not have to stage something like 9/11, but it was not in neoconservative interest to prevent it, either. I am not making any accusations without evidence; I am simply pointing out strategic positions on that day (it was actually former FBI director Thomas Pickard who accused John Ashcroft of deliberately ignoring terrorist threats).
After 9/11, as Richard Clarke, Karen Kwiatkowski, as well as many others, testified about the eagerness of the neoconservatives to somehow produce evidence that would link Iraq with the attacks on America. When that seemed too nonsensical even to their greatest allies, they switch the story – trying to link Iraq with the weapons of mass destruction…
What’s my point? Who fed the United States with the crucial piece of evidence that pointed out that Iraq has WMDs, which was the ultimate justification for the U.S. intervention in Iraq? No, it wasn’t that poor Englishman that killed himself, because everyone knew that British will say whatever Bush wants. It was Russian intelligence service and Putin who served the Bush administration with a lie about Sadam’s capabilities. The same Russians – who were later accused of aiding the Iraqi insurgents. Now, why would they do something like that?
As I said before, nobody who had any power in this world wanted the status quo after the fall of Soviet Union. Something had to be changed. Those of you who know something about the mixed martial arts may find this analogy interesting: it was like a situation in which one fighter falls on the ground after receiving a strong series of punches – and now his opponent has to move in to finish him off – but instead of knocking him out, he gets tangled in a jujutsu ground battle, from which he better get out and swallow his hurt pride, before getting choked.
In other words, too many people outside of the United States wanted 9/11, in order to invite the U.S.A. to finally fight on the ground, where its opponents were successfully recovering from a knock-down. I don’t think that there was any need for someone within the U.S. government to stage it.
Just because Bin Laden blames the U.S. for being in Saudi Arabia doesn’t justify his actions or mean the U.S. did anything wrong. It is the false assumption that your own actions control the behavior of others- or the weather if you’re an environmentalist.
Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would exist without U.S. forces in the Gulf. Maybe he wouldn’t have attacked the U.S. first, but today there might well be a Bin Laden caliphate controlling a quarter of the globe’s oil resources, aquiring weapons paid for with $200/barrel oil. His real beef with the U.S. was that it supports the Saudi Royal family, which he sees as an illegitimate government and standing in the way of his power. He will put plenty of bs reasons in his writings, because he knows how to play a democracy off itself.
I’m not defending U.S. policy, I just truly believe Bin Laden to be an evil guy. It is no more helpful to blame oneself for his actions than it is to say low wages caused communism or Jewish behavior caused the Holocaust.
There always has to be some neo-conservative coming out swinging with ad hominems every time 9-11 is mentioned.
I don’t think I ever inferred that the administration was behind 9-11. I said that the government’s version of 9-11 left much to be desired.
Personally, I think Bush/Cheney are too big a bunch of morons to mastermind such an event, considering they can’t even run a war. Could the Mossad have done so? Possibly. For a number of reasons I tend to discount that possibility. Could the government simply have taken a passive position. Hard to say.
But always remember. It has happened before. FDR and his cronies sat on intelligence and permitted Pearl Harbor to occur. So I don’t see why people would even be shocked at the possibility it could happen again.
So lets stop with the ad hominems. If you blindly follow the government’s version, then feel free to do so. If you blindly follow an alternative theory, then also feel free to do so. And let those of us who wish to search for the real truth do so in peace.
Matt,
You are absolutely correct when you say that Al-Qaeda would certainly exist even if the U.S. forces were not in the Persian Gulf. We know that for the fact, because this basic organization (with the different context of its name, “the base”) existed even back in 1980s, when United States was its ally in Afghanistan. Without U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, we can reasonably assume that the U.S.A. would be its target as much as France or Germany are right now. We can only speculate, but without the U.S. forces in Gulf, the organization would probably busy with jihad in Chechnya, Southern Serbia, Macedonia, India, Philippines, Thailand, and elsewhere.
The U.S.A. government did many wrong things before the 9/11, either directly (like the Clinton’s administration’s operation “merciful angel” which was based on series of lies) or indirectly through its satellites (like Israel)… But its ambitions to establish permanent presence in the Middle East, in order to increase its control of the supply of oil and natural gas, simply forced Al-Qaeda to act. From their interests and perspective — they had to act during the economic recession in America — in order to get the U.S. government in a situation in which it will spend billions of dollars and reduce its own economic freedom and prosperity – rather then watching this empire getting stronger and stronger, with one boot already on the Middle East.
Of course that Bin Laden’s action against civilians was horrible and evil…. Just like the bombing of Serbian Public TV station, or the NATO bombing of refugee convoys in Kosovo… Evil people organize evil things. But they are not irrational – they want to accomplish something, and they choose their targets carefully and rationally. America should not blame itself for those horrible crimes on 9/11, but instead try to analyze what gave birth to Al-Qaeda, what this organization wanted to accomplish on that day, and what should have been an appropriate American response on a global stage.
â€Just because Bin Laden blames the U.S. for being in Saudi Arabia doesn’t justify his actions or mean the U.S. did anything wrong.â€
Again: Huh?
Who’s justifying his actions? All Lew is saying is don’t have a military presence in foreign countries. Then maybe we wouldn’t have foreigners with grievances, real or imagined, trying to retaliate against us. Is that such a difficult concept?
josh m: “Lew wrote ‘…the crime of 9-11 was motivated by retribution against…US troops on Muslim holy lands…’ and Bin Laden’s own statements support Lew’s statement.”
The main point of the article was that the US shouldn’t intervene overseas. Lew seems to be saying that Bin Laden has a legitimate excuse for attacking the US. I was arguing that the fact that the Saudi’s didn’t mind our having troops in the “Holy Land” nullifies Bin Laden’s problem with it.
FBC3: “I suspect you’re confusing explanation with justification.” You probably right. Or with rationalization. People can rationalize anything, even mass murder. Just ask the Nazis.
Anyone who thinks Islamic terrorism began with bin Laden should read the book, “Legacy of Jihad” by Andrew G Bostom. I warn you; it will give you nightmares.
“The main point of the article was that the US shouldn’t intervene overseas.”
Yes.
“Lew seems to be saying that Bin Laden has a legitimate excuse for attacking the US.”
No. He’s saying the U.S. shouldn’t intervene overseas. Period. Then there would be no provocation for violent acts against us.
“I was arguing that the fact that the Saudi’s didn’t mind our having troops in the “Holy Land” nullifies Bin Laden’s problem with it.”
Irrelevant. Some Saudis don’t have a problem with it, others have a huge problem with it. You had it right with your first statement, that the US shouldn’t intervene overseas. Then we would eliminate most of the grist for the mill of those who do have a huge problem with it.
Just adding to Josh’s comments:
There is no Constitutional mandate, nor any legitimate reason, for the U.S. government to station troops in Saudi Arabia. It is something the government should not be doing in the first place. Whether or not it incites terrorism is actually secondary.
If the terrorists were really motivated by hatred of “our freedoms,” as Bush suggests, that would be no reason to give up what freedoms we still enjoy. But we SHOULD stop meddling in foreign countries, period. It is both ill-advised and unjust, not only to the people in those countries, but to the Americans who are robbed to pay for these foreign adventures — which are, after all, unconstitutional.
And, as Ron Paul’s book explains, the founding fathers knew very well that such behavior would invite the kinds of troubles we have today, which is why they favored a non-interventionist foreign policy.
RogerM has a well-established track record on
this blog for Zionist apologia.
That’s just it, Keith: they haven’t been able to keep things hidden.
Dan: “RogerM has a well-established track record on this blog for Zionist apologia.”
And I’m very proud of it. What’s wrong with Zionism?
josh: “No. He’s saying the U.S. shouldn’t intervene overseas. Period. Then there would be no provocation for violent acts against us.”
I think I can read Lew’s mind as well as you can, and it seemed to me that he was defending bin Laden.
josh: “You had it right with your first statement, that the US shouldn’t intervene overseas. Then we would eliminate most of the grist for the mill of those who do have a huge problem with it.”
The Saudis asked us to intervene to protect them from Hussein. We should do the right thing regardless of what other people think, especially terrorists. Besides, I’m surprised that a libertarian would be willing to appease bin Laden’s policy to keep infidels out of his “Holy Land”. What about the freedom of movement libertarians are so proud of? Surely you know that bin Laden didn’t oppose our troops in Saudi Arabia because they were military troops. He had no problem with the Egyptians having military troops there in the first Gulf War. He opposed our presence for religious reasons.
You should also understand that our mere existence offends bin Laden. Should we all convert to Islam in order to appease him?
“I think I can read Lew’s mind as well as you can, and it seemed to me that he was defending bin Laden.”
I am taking Lew’s statement at face value; It is you who imputes to his statement a justification for bin Laden’s actions where none exists.
The argument is simple: Heed the founders’ advice, or there will be consequences.
“The Saudis asked us to intervene to protect them from Hussein. We should do the right thing regardless of what other people think, especially terrorists. Besides, I’m surprised that a libertarian would be willing to appease bin Laden’s policy to keep infidels out of his “Holy Land”. What about the freedom of movement libertarians are so proud of? Surely you know that bin Laden didn’t oppose our troops in Saudi Arabia because they were military troops. He had no problem with the Egyptians having military troops there in the first Gulf War. He opposed our presence for religious reasons.”
First, since the government should never have intervened in the first place, there is no ‘appeasement.’ And as Maybury has said repeatedly, the government and the people are not the same. If you feel it is the right thing vis-à -vis the principles of liberty to support the Saudi government with your money or labor, you should be free to do so, but the U.S. government has no business, constitutional or otherwise, to expropriate resources from citizens to defend a foreign government. That is Lew’s and Paul’s argument, and I’m not reading their minds, I’m reading their words. Moreover the fact that the animosity is religion-based is all the more reason to heed the founders’ wisdom of non-intervention.
“You should also understand that our mere existence offends bin Laden. Should we all convert to Islam in order to appease him?”
Um, no. The argument is an exceedingly simple one: We should take Paul’s and Lew’s advice—based on the founders’ wisdom—-and we never should have meddled in the first place. What part of that do you still not understand?
There is no Constitutional support for stationing U.S. troops abroad. In fact, the Founders were extremely wary of standing armies stationed at home, which is one reason they required funding for the army to be renewed every two years. Our military presence in foreign lands never quite seems to work out the way it is officially portrayed, which, according to everything we read and hear in the MSM, is to further the national defense.
An interesting analogy: Chinese troops are stationed in the coal fields of West Virginia because the governor of West Virginia doesn’t want the established flow of coal to China to be interrupted by a threatened invasion from the State of Virginia, and he can’t seem to scare up enough West Virginia troops to do the job—and let’s not forget also that he has made some lucrative deals with the Chinese. In addition, the Chinese have helped train and arm a band of West Virginia mercenaries in China’s proxy border war with a secession-minded province of northern Vietnam, which has been successfully concluded in China’s favor and the West Virginia boys are now itching to return home to West Virginia. Once home they begin to resent Buddhist Chinese ogling of West Virginia Baptist girls…not a good scenario, which is revealed to be true when a band of West Virginians hijack an airliner and fly it into a skyscraper in Shanghai, to which the Chinese respond by bombing the heck out of Virginia (?) and sending an invading army to change the Virginian form of government into an obviously superior Chinese Communist bureaucracy. A policy of foreign interventionism makes perfect sense!
!!!You should publish that.
Nothing frames the “Government Does Not Work” plea better than a rousing debate about what government should or should not do regarding something government did or did not cause. Maybe we should not do government.
RogerM: “What’s wrong with Zionism?”
Lucky for you, and everybody else on this blog, I am feeling rather mellow today, otherwise you would be receiving a 5 to 10 page rant on the evils of neo-conservatism and zionism about now.
That is the sort of open ended question that invites long winded rants.
However, I will just post a link instead and spare everybody else.
http://www.palestineremembered.com
Tons of information that strips Zionism of all its false pretenses and exposes it for what it really is.
Josh: “I am taking Lew’s statement at face value; It is you who imputes to his statement a justification for bin Laden’s actions where none exists
No you’re not! You’re interpreting him as you would like. My interpretation fits the context better than yours.
Josh: “First, since the government should never have intervened in the first place, there is no ‘appeasement.’”
Call it whatever you want; when you boil it down, it’s appeasement, just like Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler.
Josh: “And as Maybury has said repeatedly, the government and the people are not the same.”
That’s true only if you’re taling about the imaginary world of anarchism. Lew was talking writing about the real world.
Josh: “…we never should have meddled in the first place.”
One could argue that the Founders’ wisdom was more a practical matter of protecting an infant, weak nation. Europe is pacifist today for the same reason; they’re weakness. I have a real problem with libertarians who refuse to help a weaker nation defend itself against a mass murderer like Hussein.
Dennis: “An interesting analogy:”
No, a stupid analogy. You’re using the ancient and stupid Marxist arguments that 1) we were in Saudi protecting our supply of oil and 2) that we created Al Qaeda with our support for the Afghans against the USSR. Both are the products of the ignorant Left who want to blaim the US for every problem in the world.
Mark, I’ve read that kind of nonsense for years. I probably know it better than you do, and I also know there isn’t a thread of truth in it. If you prefer to be ignorant about history that’s fine. I prefer the truth.
Roger, If you beleive in Zionism, that’s great. But don’t make me or my sons support your beleifs with the government acting as your agent. That’s the whole point. Donate your money or yourself to the cause, but don’t make me, thru government, support your cause with my money or my sons.
The WSJ has an interesting article about KSM at http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009792. The author writes this:
“…bin Laden and his acolytes declared “war” on the U.S. in his fatwa of 1998…”
Bin Laden issued his fatwa three years before the US put troops on Saudi “Holy Land.”
Lew argues that US intervention anywhere at any time is immoral. Then he adds that intervention has consequences. If intervention is immoral, then the response to intervention is necessarily legitimate and moral. That’s why I say that Lew is justifying bin Laden’s attack. But as the OpinionJounal article shows, bin Laden started the war with the US long before US intervention in Saudi Arabia.
Ajax: “But don’t make me or my sons support your beleifs with the government acting as your agent.”
How has the US government supported Zionism? We’ve given Israel $3 billion annually since the 1978 Camp David accords, but the was just bribery to get them to sign. At the same time, we have given Egypt $2 billion annually as part of the same agreement. Otherwise, I can’t see how the US has helped or spent a dime on Zionism.
Roger M, I’m no expert on this subject, so my critique will be very narrow. Nevertheless:
“How has the US government supported Zionism? We’ve given Israel $3 billion annually since the 1978 Camp David accords, but the was just bribery to get them to sign.”
I’d say that almost 30 years of $3 billion is quite a bit! Depending on what years we include, that annual payment has totaled to about $90 billion.
Never mind that any alliance with a country, e.g. Israel, entangles us in an alliance that could prove to be a liability in the future.
Just who is this “us” that makes these alliances, anyway? I don’t care how representative my government claims to be; it’s clearly not “me.” So, if “we’re” so intent on starting a war, why don’t “we” send “our” troops over there. . .and leave the rest of “us” alone.
Further, it seems to me that your citation of bin Laden’s ‘declaration of war’ on the U.S. conveniently cuts off most of the history of United States’ involvement in the middle east. If only it were as simple as “We were humming along, minding out own business, when in 1998 they declared war on us!”
Any cursory glance at the history of the U.S. in the middle east shows just how potentially dangerous even an initially small amount of foreign intervention is in the long run, good intentions or not.
Has bin Laden declared war on Switzerland? Jersey? New Zealand? Canada?
RogerM:
If your version of the “truth” is the unerrant word of the almighty John Hagee, I think I will skip. The history of zionism and of the occupation of Palestine is inescapable. The fact presented at Palestine Remembered can be verified at a number of neutral scholastic sites and also with the British, who were the Zionists comrades in arms.
I am interested in the truth. The truth will not be found with the Zionist/Neo-conservative right or with the Post Millenist crowd. Nor will it be found with extreme elements within the Palestinian authority. I do understand why the Palestians would be more than a little insulted with paltry offers of the West Bank and Gaza strip, when their main farms and lands sat within Israel proper.
I propose that the U.S. stay out of the situation. To that end, we can cut Israel off the $3 Billion a year teat and end all other forms of aid and cooperation. Israel has nuclear weapons, so they can damn well take care of themselves.
Roger: “Bin Laden issued his fatwa three years before the US put troops on Saudi “Holy Land.”"
What in heaven’s name are you talking about?? The U.S. had a half million troops in Saudi Arabia 7 years before bin Laden’s fatwa.
Roger,
Ok, now I’m confused. When you initially wrote “An excellent intro to Ron Paul’s book,†I assumed you agreed with Lew’s premise of non-interventionism and the consequences of not adhering to that policy. I assumed we had common ground, and my only point in addressing your initial post was that recognizing the existence of causality is not ‘justification’ for a criminal act—for causality is all Lew was pointing out per his statement, “…the crime of 9-11 was motivated by retribution against…US troops on Muslim holy lands…”
Yet you now imply that the threats that exist are not a consequence of a failed interventionist foreign policy, and you seem to advocate foreign intervention in direct opposition to the admonitions of Lew, Paul, and the founders. Indeed, you have gone on to actually invoke the offensive (according to Paul) ‘times have changed’ argument.
In view of the foregoing, it seems we have little common ground on this matter after all, and I would not have engaged you initially had I known this to be the case. I wish to see you argue to your position as vigorously as you can; I will bow out.
josh: “Yet you now imply that the threats that exist are not a consequence of a failed interventionist foreign policy, and you seem to advocate foreign intervention in direct opposition to the admonitions of Lew, Paul, and the founders.”
My position is only confusing because it’s not black or white. Libertarians tend to see the world in black and white. I like Ron Paul’s book because it’s an antidote to the prevailing views by both the left and right that the US should police the world. I definately think the US should scale back dramatically on its foreign intervention. Specifically, I would like the US to pull all troops out of Europe and Asia, and withdraw soon from Iraq.
At the same time, I oppose the idea of no intervention any place at any time. Sometimes, helping weaker nations against an attack by a more powerful one is good and in the long term interest of the US. Had the US, UK or France pre-emptively attacked Hitler in 1938 instead of 1939, millions of lives could have been saved. The world will never know what our pre-emptive strike against Iraq spared it.
Iran is preparing to take over the Middle East with nuclear weapons, in a manner very similar to what the Nazis did. We can wait, as the West did against Hitler, until the full horror of the Iranian intentions are revealed, and then fight. In that case, history will declare us in the right. Or we can strike pre-emptively and spare millions in lives and property, but risk being portrayed as the agressor by history as the world has portrayed us in Iraq.
Josh: “Indeed, you have gone on to actually invoke the offensive (according to Paul) ‘times have changed’ argument.”
If that offends Paul, I can only say that he must be easily offended. If he sees nonintervention as an absolute to never be violated under any circumstances whatsoever, then I would say that wasn’t the view of the founding fathers. I doubt they saw their noninterventionist view as absolute, but as an excellent guide in most situations. After all, Thomas Jefferson as president sent war ships and marines to Tripoli to end the pirating of US ships.
Send Marines to Tripoli? To the contrary, the Barbary Wars demonstrate how ill-advised it is to depart from the founders’ advice, not a negation of it.
“Had the US, UK or France pre-emptively attacked Hitler in 1938 instead of 1939, millions of lives could have been saved. The world will never know what our pre-emptive strike against Iraq spared it.”
Good one. That’s if you choose 1939 as the start of history. If you start history in 1917 and the U.S. stays out of WW I, you get a negotiated peace, no Versailles Treaty, no humiliated Germany, no reparations, no hyperinflation, no desperate populace clamoring the state “to do something,†no Hitler, millions of lives are saved, and “the world will never know what our non-intervention could have spared it.†See how that works?
“I like Ron Paul’s book because it’s an antidote to the prevailing views by both the left and right that the US should police the world. I definately think the US should scale back dramatically on its foreign intervention…At the same time, I oppose the idea of no intervention any place at any time. Sometimes, helping weaker nations against an attack by a more powerful one is good and in the long term interest of the US.”
I see. With you we get ‘scaled back intervention’ but we get intervention nonetheless, and the ideology that an interventionist state can and should create international order in certain situations—as deemed by you—is upheld. I am no longer confused. Again, had I known you were in the Eric Dondero ‘Let’s-pretend-my-position-is-libertarian’ camp, I wouldn’t have bothered with the discussion.
josh: “Send Marines to Tripoli? To the contrary, the Barbary Wars demonstrate how ill-advised it is to depart from the founders’ advice, not a negation of it.”
You completely ignored my point, which is that the advice of the founding fathers was not intended to be absolute dogma, since one of those founders, Thomas Jefferson, violated it. How was it ill-advised? It stopped the piracy.
josh:”If you start history in 1917 and the U.S. stays out of WW I, you get a negotiated peace, no Versailles Treaty, no humiliated Germany, no reparations, no hyperinflation, no desperate populace clamoring the state “to do something,†no Hitler, millions of lives are saved, and “the world will never know what our non-intervention could have spared it.†See how that works?”
That’s pure nonsense! You’re assuming WWII was just the continuation of WWI. It wasn’t. Besides, WWI had nothing to do with Germany’s hyperinflation. That was totally caused by their central bank. Besides, the hyperinflation ended with the depression of the 1930′s. German’s voted for Hitler because they had become socialists in the late 1800′s. As for a negotiated settlement if the US stayed out, there is no evidence that would have happened.
josh: “Again, had I known you were in the Eric Dondero ‘Let’s-pretend-my-position-is-libertarian’ camp, I wouldn’t have bothered with the discussion.”
I’ve never pretended to by anything, least of all the anarcho all-government-is-evil brand of libertarian. I’ve always been a Mises type of libertarian, not a Rothbard type. Mises saw government as a necessary good for society with legitimate purposes. I would be interested in you sending me quotes, if they exist, of his opposition to the US entering WWI and WWII.
RogerM, I dont think that Mises would have liked US to participate in WWI, since he served in the Austrian military (like Hayek). I dont know how much actually they supported Austro-Hungarian government.
But Hayek and Mises had stated that this violent collectivism which reigned in the Third Reich and Soviet Union must be opposed before it spreads.
But interventionism home brings interventionism abroad so many have good concerns being alarmed about the foreign policy.
“If you start history in 1917 and the U.S. stays out of WW I, you get a negotiated peace, no Versailles Treaty, no humiliated Germany, no reparations, no hyperinflation, no desperate populace clamoring the state “to do something,†no Hitler, millions of lives are saved”
I agree, the hyperinflation had a lot to do with Hitler’s rise to power (it almost destroyed the german middle class). Certainly without american intervention the chances of a negotiated peace were much larger. There is also little doubt that the Versailles betrayal of Wilson’s terms for the armnistice (including the right of national self-determination) created a revanchiste mentality in Germany.
Was american participation in WWI the only cause of world war II? No, I don’t think so.
Was it a major cause? definitely.
It is also worth mentioning the fact that W. Wilson lied to the americaqn people to get the US into the war. Public opinion was very divided (with a large number of german-speaking americans) and most saw the war as the power struggle between imperial monarchies that it was.
The fact that Wilson’s SecState recognised in his memoirs how they had lied and pushed the public into the war had a lot to do with US isolationism until FDR.
RogerM,
“Mises saw government as a necessary good for society with legitimate purposes.”
More like a necessary evil.
You don’t have to be an anarchist to believe government is evil. Just like you don’t have to be a pacifist to believe that violence is evil.
BTW, you can also believe in national defense without believing in foreign adventurism and entangling alliances. Just look at Switzerland or Sweden. Well armed neutrality is a sure fire way of not doing more harm than good.
Israel was CREATED as an American client by Harry Truman’s premature recognition of the Jewish insurgents in Palestine as a “country” with which the US had diplomatic relations. This helped immeasurably with the very close re-election race he faced that year against Dewey.
$90 billion later (by the calculation in this thread) we continue to pay heavily for Truman’s political career. THESE bucks don’t STOP anywhere, but they keep flying out of our pockets!
flix: “I agree, the hyperinflation had a lot to do with Hitler’s rise to power (it almost destroyed the german middle class). Certainly without american intervention the chances of a negotiated peace were much larger.”
I’ve been reading Niall Ferguson’s (Harvard history prof) “War of the World” which is a history of WWI and WWII. He says the idea that WWII was just a continuation of WWI is popular, but there’s no evidence for it being true. Also, the idea that the inflation of the 20′s or the depression brought Hitler to power is also unsupported. The German people had been socialists for a very long time. Hitler merely supported their socialist aims. The dominant economics on the continent for decades before Hitler had been the German Historical school, which promoted state control of the economy for the benefit of the state. Ferguson says the intellectuals, especially academics, worhipped Hitler first and sold him to the public.
Also, the idea that Japan and Germany would negotiate a settlement is pure fabrication. As Ferguson shows, the casualty rate on both fronts was highest just before the end during WWII. Almost no Japanese surrendered and very few Germans. In WWI, huge numbers of German soldiers surrendered when it became clear that the two sides would negotiate a settlement. Besides, a negotiated settlement would have left Hitler and Japan’s mass murderers in power for many more years, so there would be no justice for millions that each side had murdered. In addition, Hitler would have been able to finish the task of murdering all of Europe’s Jews, which the German’s continued right up until the hour that Allied troops captured the death camps.
joe: “Well armed neutrality is a sure fire way of not doing more harm than good.”
It’s also a good way to ignore the murder of millions of people in neighboring countries while boasting of one’s self-righteousness. Why should we think well of the Swiss and Swedish because they can ignore the pain of others and feel good about it?
If a government has a legitimate purpose, it is to protect the rights of its citizens. Thus, government intervention in the affairs of other countries is not legitimate except in defense of the country, i.e., to protect their citizens from foreign invasion. This does not mean that people should be unconcerned with the problems of people in other nations, it merely means they should not rely on their own government to do something about it.
Comments on this entry are closed.