War Without Consequence? Absurd.
By suggesting that Americans look at their own government's actions, Rep. Paul took a shot at one of the nation's biggest sacred cows: we can do whatever we want in the world without consequence. For decades that seemed to be true, writes Doug Bandow. But no longer. It is critical that we honestly and realistically assess the consequences of US foreign policy. The first step to design good policy is to recognize the consequences — all of them, including the ugly, unexpected, and painful ones — of alternative strategies. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (65)
Hyrum Berg
"In fact, the evidence is much stronger that, by and large, terrorists view an activist America as being at war with them. The point is not that their belief is true, or justifies slaughtering Americans."
The U.S. troops are in the middle east to make sure the U.S. gets its way not to bring terror to the people. But I think Ron is right. What would we think if China stationed troops in America to make sure that they got their way?
Published: May 22, 2007 9:06 AM
narsi
It surprises that such an obvious fact has to be explained to some seriously responsible people. Conspiratorial as it may sound - maybe the situation is one of intended consequences. Given the fact that you move the US army from the region will bring in more instability. Sadly you need either a police or a mafia to bring in 'reliable safely' in a region. The outcome is peace thanks to either with one difference - a mafia does not adhere to any rule whereas the police has its hands tied a bit. That explains Iraq under both Sadam and the US rule.
Still to give Dr. Paul the credit, it is not our damn business to police this region no matter what the reason - Oil, Dollar stability, Russia, China or any other Checkmate pattern that Pentagon may draw out.
Published: May 22, 2007 9:24 AM
Luke
It was truly astonishing when Giuliani basically rebuked the whole idea of "blowback". Either he is a bald-faced liar, or, to put it kindly, he is an idiot. I guess, though, either of those traits are welcome in the White House. The fact that the crowd cheered Giuliani on really made me cringe and I hope that the people who were viewing the program or who read about it afterwards have enough sense to know that, again, Ron Paul was right on the money.
It was then incredible to watch several of the news interviews after the debate where they actually asked Paul whether "he'd back down" about his comments and to formally withdraw his statement. Unbelievable! 'They' really don't want any debate on the issue.
In one interview I saw (I think it was on CNN) they implied that he was 'blaming' the US for 9/11 and Paul explicitly says "No. I am blaming policy". And then immediately he said that, a graphic appears on the screen saying "Blames US for 9/11".
What can you do?
Published: May 22, 2007 9:38 AM
N. Joseph Potts
Giuliani's and then the crowd's reaction to Paul speaking the truth curdled my blood - with disbelief, horror, fear, and sadness (ridicule for the posturing, lying Giuliani came later). At least so far as this group is concerned, we have no hope - we either must kill them all, or they must kill us all, with beliefs like this. We have no better command of facts than the most-fanatic of wild-eyed Islamo-Fascist.
To this day, you cannot tell any American with recollections of Pearl Harbor that the attack was strongly incented by the oil embargo (secretly) imposed by the US, Britain, the Netherlands (Indonesia), and China on Japan. The "debate" remains short-circuited 66 years and one American victory later.
Published: May 22, 2007 11:02 AM
Nick Bradley
I would like to see the Israeli and Saudi studies that find Iraqi insurgents to be "green". A popular NeoCon argument is that the Iraq war serves as a "Jihadi Magnet", wherein the conflict draws in future 9/11 highjackers into the field of US firepower -- i.e. we kill terrorists before they can come to us.
Popularizing those findings would go a long way towards refuting those claims.
Published: May 22, 2007 11:03 AM
Paul Marks
I have learned that it is not practical to try and reason with people who interpret everything America does in the worst possible light.
One can not even ask that a particular statement be retracted, because such a statement will always be covered by little qualifying statements. For example "X hundred thousand babies were killed by American sanctions" will be qualified by the statements "this number is suspect" and "Saddam ...." (thus covering the fact that sactions did not cover food and meds and were an alternative to invasion, an alternative that Saddam found various ways round).
Also it will NOT be stated that (for example) "America was to blame for 9/11" - this will be IMPLIED instead, with the qualifying statement "of course I am not justifying what the terrorists did" (or whatever).
So I will simply state two things.
Firstly that this posting has nothing to do with the Austrian School of economics.
Secondly although I opposed the judgement to go into Iraq in 2003 (and still think the judgement, no matter how noble the aim, was mistaken), this sort "I will imply that Uncle Sam is always in the wrong, but I will write in such a way that will enable me to deny that is what I am doing" argument is of no use in the discussion of Iraq. It is clever (in that it wins lots of debating points) but it is of no use as a guide to policy.
Published: May 22, 2007 11:26 AM
David White
"this posting has nothing to do with the Austrian School of economics."
War, vis-a-vis the welfare-warfare colossus that the US has become, has everything in the world to do with Austrian economics, being the antithesis thereof.
Thus is America not to be blamed for 9/11; it's government is. And while statists like Bill Clinton can assert that "There's nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country." the fact is that hating the US government is now the most patriotic thing an American can do.
Published: May 22, 2007 11:55 AM
EconAndre
"this posting has nothing to do with the Austrian School of economics."
Foreign intervention would be more painful economically if the U.S. had sound money. War is one possible consequence of fiat monetary policy.
Published: May 22, 2007 12:08 PM
RogerM
Bin Laden is a liar, murderer and thief, but Ron Paul and Doug Bandow think he's an honest leader of a people oppressed by the US.
For example, bin Laden claims that he attacked the US because we stationed infidel troups in Saudi Arabia. But infidel Americans, Brits, Europeans, Philippinos and other infidels have worked in SA for over 50 years. Infidels outnumber Saudis currently on the peninsula.
Bin Laden claims he attacked the US because of our support for Israel. What support? He claims the US prevented Arab armies from destroying Israel in the 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars. But in fact, we gave Israel no support whatsoever during any of those wars and in 1967 reined in Israel to keep the Jews from over running Cairo and Damascus. Muslims have invented the fiction that US support for Israel caused their defeats in all of those wars in order to cover their shame and not being able to murder all of the Jews.
It's very interesting to see writers on this site choose sides with the extreme left and Al Qaeda against the US.
Published: May 22, 2007 2:32 PM
N. Joseph Potts
RogerM -
Not noting economic and military US government support for Israel over the entire period of that country's existence ranks right down there with Giuliani "never having heard" an interpretation of 9/11 such as uttered by Ron Paul at the debate.
I won't dignify that claim of ignorance by a substantive reply. If you never noticed the reality, much less its magnitude, you sure aren't going to get your eyes opened by my utterances.
Published: May 22, 2007 2:44 PM
Scott D
RogerM,
Thank you for brilliantly demonstrating how the neocons have spun Ron Paul's remarks. I know, let's spend the rest of this thread looking for new ways to put words in Ron Paul's mouth!
Oops, looks like some of you beat me to that idea.
Published: May 22, 2007 2:47 PM
Brainpolice
RogerM is a warfare statist and is ignorant to think that anyone who disagrees with his neocon view of foreign policy is representing "the far left". Take yuour false dichotomy and shove it where the sun don't shine. Further repeating the ludicris talking point that those who aren't statists like yourself are "supporting al queada" is laughable. If you'd like to discuss this seriously, leave your false dychotomies and "you hate America" propaganda at the door.
Published: May 22, 2007 3:32 PM
Reactionary
RogerM,
Ron Paul said no such thing and your statement is irrational.
Published: May 22, 2007 3:34 PM
Robert Brazil
Roger made it pretty clear in another posting that he views Israel as the 51st American state, and its protection as a legitimate function of the U.S. government.
In other words, the U.S. government is right (in Roger's view) to tax Americans for the purpose of destroying Israel's enemies (along with scores of civilians), and, in so doing, to expose Americans to the danger of reprisal attacks such as we witnessed on September 11.
The fact that, to Roger, Israel is a "good guy" and its enemies are "bad guys" (never mind the dead women and children) is reason enough to ignore the Constitution, natural rights theory, rational self-interest and common sense. Anyone who objects to Americans' safety and liberty being sacrificed to spotless and perfect Israel is an Al Qaeda sympathizer or "hates America."
Is it even worth the time trying to reason with him?
Published: May 22, 2007 5:52 PM
Robert Brager
For example, bin Laden claims that he attacked the US because we stationed infidel troups in Saudi Arabia. But infidel Americans, Brits, Europeans, Philippinos and other infidels have worked in SA for over 50 years. Infidels outnumber Saudis currently on the peninsula.
Hey, Roger, perhaps the distinction hadn't occurred to you; but living and working in a given territory (fulfilling market whims) is an entirely different animal than finding yourself in that same territory at the behest of your government for the purposes of propping up the authoritarian local potentate.
If you belong to the former demographic, you are likely offering your labor in trade for an income and the fruits of that labor enrich the society. If you belong to the latter demographic, you are likely a gun-toting money pit viewed with suspicion or outright hostility by the locals, whom you're helping to parasitize, intimidate, and "keep in line".
The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia had no tangible benefit for the locals. Their sole purpose was to protect the House of Saud and all of the assets under the House's control from destabilization, ostensibly from without but no doubt from within as well as a practical result.
If I am a foreman on a construction crew or a falafel vendor on a street corner or any other (free) market actor, I've done far more for the Saudi people than any American serviceman ever has.
That's the difference.
Published: May 22, 2007 6:11 PM
Hector Davila
Must USA intervene in Darfour to stop genocide?
Was USA partly to blame for Rwanda genocide a few years ago?
Is justified to allow dictators like Sadam to gas the kurds?
It will be easy for americans to rest, while people are murdered all over the world. Perhaps Hitler would have been a winner, had USA keep out of WWII.
Published: May 22, 2007 9:07 PM
RogerM
Potts: "Not noting economic and military US government support for Israel over the entire period of that country's existence..."
I'm very familiar with the history of US/Israeli relations and know of no such help before the Camp David Accords in 1978 in which Jimmy Carter bribed Israel with a promise of $3 billion/yr and Egypt with $2 billion/yr., most of which goes to buy military hardware. If you can document such support, I'd be happy to change my mind. We also sell airplanes to Saudi Arabia after buying trillions of dollars worth of their oil. And we sell military hardware to Jordan, Qatar and other Arab countries. So why aren't we portrayed as lackeys of the Arabs?
Reactionary: "Ron Paul said no such thing and your statement is irrational."
Of course, Ron Paul was just pointing out the obvious: for every action there is an opposite reaction. Why would Paul make such an obvious and banal statement? Perhaps he couldn't think of anything else to say, so he decided to just state the obvious. Why do the writers on this site think such a trite statement is so important that they want to hammer it every opportunity? Could it be that they aren't so simple minded as to write articles about the obvious and trite? Could it be that they're trying to equate morally two classes of acts, our defense of Israel against Arab agression and suicide bombers, and our defense of Saudi Arabia against Saddam Hussein on the one hand, with bin Laden's murder of 3,000 people in New York on the other? Ron Paul and Doug Bandow won't state such a purpose outright, that would bring too much condemnation upon them. So they merely suggest it, figuring that readers are clever enough to fill in the blanks. Of course, not all of you are clever enough, obviously.
Most of the posts to this article demonstrate why no one but the anarcho-left side with the anarcho-libertarians. The left's hatred of capitalism and anarchist fevered hatred of the state has driven both mad. So mad that they will defend a liar, thief and mass murderer like bin Laden.
Published: May 22, 2007 11:11 PM
Luke
"So mad that they will defend a liar, thief and mass murderer like bin Laden."
Do you really think Roger that anyone is "defending" bin Laden's actions?
Published: May 23, 2007 3:54 AM
Reactionary
RogerM,
You put words in both Paul's and Bandow's mouth. Both were doing us the great service of pointing out forcefully that wars have consequences. The present conflict in Iraq may rightly be said to be a consequence of World War I, ninety years after the fact. There will be consequences to our blundering into Iraq. Apologize to your children and tell them to be ready.
Hector Davila,
If your heart bleeds for the oppressed worldwide, you'll be comforted to know that many of these are in regions where paramilitaries are a viable response to oppression. You can provide them with your own blood and treasure.
Published: May 23, 2007 7:31 AM
Scott D
"Perhaps Hitler would have been a winner, had USA keep out of WWII."
No. Germany was already badly overstretched when Hitler made the colossal mistake of attacking Russia. They lost the war in December of 1941.
There are numerous other reasons that Nazi Germany could not have had any lasting victory, white supremacist ideology among them.
Published: May 23, 2007 7:55 AM
Robert Brazil
"...a liar, thief and mass murderer..."
That is a pretty good description of the state. Maybe I'm just mad. But Roger, if you can't provide evidence (like quotations) to support your claim that people here are "defending" Bin Laden, then perhaps YOU are the one driven, by a fevered hatred of foreign policy critics, to ignore reality.
Hector,
How many men, women and children did the United States military incinerate in its bombing of civilian population centers during World War II? Is the American state a suitable judge of which innocent lives are worth saving and which can be snuffed out with impunity? Isn't "ends justify the means" logic the refuge of communists and other totalitarians?
As Reactionary noted above, you are free to donate your own money, life and soul to whichever cause you choose. But leave the rest of us out of it.
Published: May 23, 2007 8:08 AM
JC Hester
"Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here, or any woman - let me say, is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? ...This war, in its inception, was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war."
Woodrow Wilson in an address at St. Louis Missouri on Sept 5, 1919.
And every war sinse has been a commercial war.
The USS Maine attacked in Cuba was sunk due to an internal explosion...
The US was warned about the sinking of the Lusitania...but let Americans travel on it anyway...
Pearl Harbor...could have been prevented... More American lives sacrificed
The Gulf of Tonkin incident...well I guess we just take their word for it...
And now 911...which was so obviously an expert demolition...
And in the end who really suffers?
AMERICAN LIBERTY
Ron Paul is probably the bravest man in the US right now. Why? because he tells the truth.
Conspiracy Theory? Its not a theory anymore. There's just way too much hard evidence. And its especially transparent now with GWB playing the the "Great Keeper" of American freedom, while he puts you under surveillance and removes your basic rights. A neo nazi if there ever was one.
And I'd love to be as free as Americans "think" they are. Go Ron Paul!
Published: May 23, 2007 8:38 AM
JC Hester
And here we go again. More dead Americans for Oil.
Geopolitical Diary: AFRICOM and U.S. Military Priorities in Africa
The Nigerian militant group Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), which has shuttered one-third of Nigeria's oil output with attacks since December 2005, on Tuesday criticized the U.S. proposal to create a Pentagon command in Africa (AFRICOM). The statement comes shortly after the U.S. Energy Information Administration released data indicating Nigeria has become the third-largest supplier of U.S. oil, behind Canada and Mexico and ahead of Saudi Arabia.
The Pentagon's upcoming launch of AFRICOM reveals that U.S. activities in Africa are failing to fully protect U.S. interests there, namely energy -- meaning the Pentagon likely will open a command location in the Gulf of Guinea once AFRICOM gets under way.
AFRICOM, the Pentagon's newest combatant command station, is expected to be launched in September 2008 to combine U.S. defense activities in Africa under one roof. Until now, the Europe, Central and Pacific commands have held separate responsibilities for activities in Africa. The Pentagon has so far been divided on how to operate on the continent because, unlike in other theaters, it does not face a constant threat in Africa that requires a unified military presence there. Rather, the Pentagon has a number of competing priorities, including conducting counterterrorism, humanitarian, maritime and energy security operations to keep the ungoverned parts of the continent from becoming the next Afghanistan or Iraq.
AFRICOM will begin operations from a U.S. base in Stuttgart, Germany, but will relocate to Africa once a basing model is determined. The Pentagon has yet to decide whether AFRICOM will follow a single headquarters model or a multiple location, distributive model.
In the Horn of Africa region, the United States carries out counterterrorism operations from Camp Lemonier in Djibouti. The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa command, which conducted airstrikes in early January against al Qaeda and Islamists in southern Somalia, falls under the Central Command's responsibility.
In the Sahel region of West Africa, U.S. concern for combating terrorism led the Pentagon in 2005 to launch the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative (TSCI), which built on the previous Pan-Sahel Initiative. TSCI, which falls under the Europe Command, does not use a fixed base location. Rather, this initiative, which receives funding of $100 million per year, provides for joint military cooperation with countries bordering the largely ungoverned Sahara desert region.
While TSCI includes Nigeria, it does not include security for the country's oil-rich Niger Delta region. This issue is of particular concern in Nigeria, where the government has proved incapable of protecting Niger Delta oil infrastructure against attacks by militant groups, the best known of which is MEND. Since the group kicked off its December 2005 campaign to demand national political prominence, MEND attacks have cut Nigeria's oil output by a third.
AFRICOM's goal is to boost security cooperation in the region. While the United States is not expected to send troops into Nigeria to guard oil facilities or personnel, the Pentagon can be expected to work closely with the Nigerian government and military by providing training, advising and possibly weapons to improve their indigenous security capabilities. The United States previously engaged in military cooperation with Nigerian forces, training a battalion of Nigerian peacekeepers in 2000 perceived to have performed exceptionally during U.N. and West African peacekeeping missions in Sierra Leone and Liberia.
Adding the Gulf of Guinea region to the Pentagon's list of priorities for AFRICOM complicates the challenge of determining the command's location. With 2,500 miles from north to south and 2,500 miles from east to west -- as well as little reliable transportation infrastructure in between -- responding to crises in Africa's vastly disparate and troubled regions presents a tremendous logistical challenge. Therefore, AFRICOM is not likely to follow the single headquarters model; rather, it probably will use a distributive model with a series of lily pad bases. Even so, AFRICOM will still have to deal with logistics contingencies that cannot be solved by spreading bases out among a number of locations.
The Camp Lemonier base in Djibouti likely will be kept, as it is an excellent location from which to conduct counterterrorism operations in the Horn of Africa. Liberia, the closest U.S. ally to the Sahel region, could also be considered for a base from which to launch into the Sahel. Improving energy security cooperation in the Gulf of Guinea, however, will require its own nearby military presence -- and for that AFRICOM likely will focus on one of two locations: Sao Tome and Principe, or the Malabo archipelago of Equatorial Guinea.
Both are island territories that provide numerous advantages for military planners and the oil industry as they are essentially protected by water from land-based threats like MEND. Malabo has the benefit of being more closely located to the Niger Delta, while Sao Tome and Principe is located in the middle of the Gulf of Guinea subregion, roughly equidistant to Angola's oil fields to the south and the Niger Delta to the north. Lastly, particularly in the case of the Niger Delta, being located nearby yet offshore would reduce AFRICOM's visible and likely controversial presence.
While Pentagon planners have not yet determined how and where AFRICOM will be configured when it is set up in fall 2008, this much is certain: The current setup does not adequately serve U.S. interests. AFRICOM will be a different kind of command, with priorities other than conventional combat that relegate fighting further down the list, but being ready in the Gulf of Guinea will remain a high priority.
I guess anyone who wants freedom from White House intervention is a terrorist now.
Published: May 23, 2007 9:26 AM
Liberty Lover
1113 GMT -- UNITED STATES -- Nine U.S. warships carrying 17,000 personnel entered the Persian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz on May 23 to conduct exercises. U.S. Navy officials said the exercises are part of a long-term effort to reassure regional allies of U.S. commitment to security in the Gulf. This was the largest daytime grouping of ships in the Gulf since the 2003 Iraq war.
Now just imagine if the folks in Iran were ready to meet Allah….and take a whole bunch of “infidels” with them….
Iran has the weaponry to sink all nine ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
And that would give the White House what it needs to invade the rest of the middle east wouldn’t it?
Possibly another 911/ Pearl Harbor?
This was either an incredibly stupid or incredibly brilliant move.
And all with the possibility of yet more American lives sacrificed for political expansion.
Published: May 23, 2007 11:06 AM
RogerM
Luke: "Do you really think Roger that anyone is "defending" bin Laden's actions?"
I don't know what the purpose is for stating the obvious and trivial principle that actions have consequences. Everyone knows that. We may not anticipate all of the reactions, but only socialists believe actions have no consequences. The important questions are "Were our actions justified?" and "Are bin Laden's reactions justified?" Simply stating that bin Laden and the jihadists react to our policies accomplishes one or both of two things: it justifies bin Laden's actions, or it argues that we should surrender our foreign policy to bin Laden.
Published: May 23, 2007 11:16 AM
Reactionary
RogerM,
Similarly, one should not poke pit bulls with sharp sticks. If we are going to participate in conflicts between various Middle Eastern tribes, and if we are going to maintain open borders, then I suggest you get used to the occassional terrorist attack. Alternatively, you can rethink US foreign policy.
Published: May 23, 2007 12:59 PM
RogerM
Reactionary: "Alternatively, you can rethink US foreign policy."
Do you mean follow the lead of the Europeans? For example, the UK has removed the nations flag from many public places because it displays the cross of St. George, a Crusader, and they don't want to offend muslims. As Mark Steyn writes in "America Alone" Europe has already surrendered all foreign policy and most domestic policy to muslim terrorists out of fear of the terrorist reaction to those policies. Of course, with the election of Sarkozy in France, there's a little hope that the French will grow a backbone.
Muslims will hate us no matter what we do. For example, Steyn quotes a letter from bin Laden authorizing the London subway bombings and one of bin Laden's complaints against the UK was that they didn't intervene in Bosnia to prevent the Serbs slaughtering muslim Bosnians. Did bin Laden credit the US for intervening. No, because he's a hypocrite, a liar, a thief and a mass murderer. And some of you want him to direct our foreign policy?
Published: May 23, 2007 5:05 PM
Brett Celinski
Or we can hunt out and kill the terrorists... like I thought the govt was doing after 9/11...
RogerM, what in the world did Iraq have to do with any of that?
In that sense, Ron Paul was indeed a 'hawk' after 9/11. He understood the threat was bin Laden and acted accordingly in signing legislation to find and kill him.
Published: May 23, 2007 5:54 PM
Robert Brazil
"The important questions are 'Were our actions justified?' and 'Are bin Laden's reactions justified?'"
How about "no" and "no?" That's what I think most people here are trying to get across. If Mulsim terrorists attacked us out of anger that Americans have too many liberties, THEN we would have no reason to change.
But America's interventionist foreign policy IS unjustified — it is immoral, unconstitutional, ill-conceived, often arbitrary and dangerous. And until it changes, we will continue making new enemies and losing more and more of our liberties.
Bin Laden's acts are unjustified. Happy? The murder of innocents is never just. What you seem to forget is that the family, friends and countrymen of innocents killed by US weapons feel the same way. And if Americans buy into wars of reprisal against Muslims, then it should come as no surprise that Muslims buy into wars of reprisal against Americans.
Published: May 23, 2007 6:01 PM
Dan Mahoney
RogerM,
What does the "M" stand for, by the way?
Published: May 23, 2007 10:15 PM
RogerM
Brett: "what in the world did Iraq have to do with any of that?"
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. As I've written before, Bush II was cleaning up the mess in Iraq that his dad left and Clinton refused to resolve. Hussein had started a war with Iran in which close to 1 million people were killed in the 1980's. He murdered about 300,000 kurds during that time. Then he invaded Kuwait, raped and murdered thousands and stole everything he could. Then he set hundreds of oil wells on fire. Bush I drove Hussein's army out of Kuwait but left him in power. Bush I had encouraged the Kurds and Shia to rise up against Hussein, but when they did, he refused to help them. Hussein slaughtered another 3-400,000 Kurds and Shia while we watched. Next Hussein tried to assassinate Bush I and began training terrorists to attack Americans. He was closely linked to the first World Trade Center bombing. For justice sake, someone needed to kill Hussein. Clinton didn't have the guts, so the job was left to Bush II.
Robert: "How about "no" and "no?" That's what I think most people here are trying to get across."
I can respect that. But why the red herring about bin Laden just reacting to our policies?
Dan: "What does the "M" stand for, by the way?"
McKinney
Published: May 23, 2007 10:33 PM
Anthony Gregory
Osama and Bush are the greatest things that ever happened to each other.
Here's a piece I wrote on "surrendering" to the terrorists:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory120.html
Published: May 24, 2007 12:29 AM
Albert Esplugas
RogerM,
The important questions are "Were our actions justified?" and "Are bin Laden's reactions justified?" Simply stating that bin Laden and the jihadists react to our policies accomplishes one or both of two things: it justifies bin Laden's actions, or it argues that we should surrender our foreign policy to bin Laden.
There is another important question that you leave aside: "Will prompt our actions (justified or not) good consequences ( i.e. less terrorism against the US) or not? Paul and Bandow's explanation only aims to answer this last question. Notice that Bandow emphasizes, again and again, that pointing out the bad consequences of US foreign policy (i.e. more terrorism) does not amount to justify terrorist actions. Why keep you conflating both issues when they are conceptually different and both Paul and Bandow have repeated ad nauseum that terrorist actions are indeed utterly criminal? (as if it were necessary to explain this every time). Furthermore, since the avowed objective of government is to protect US citizens from attacks, the government MUST try to answer this question you leave aside (if at least the gov wants to be honest / consistent). And this is what Paul is pointing out, that if the government actually wants to protect America it has to change its foreign policy. It all sounds very reasonable to me, and I don't see why you link this reasoning with anarchism or the far left.
Muslims will hate us no matter what we do.
Of course I agree some islamists hate us, in part, for reasons we can't alter, but precisely because we can't do anything about them we have to focus in the ones we can alter, namely, the reasons motivated by US interventionist foreign policy. Do you really think that US foreign policy has no relation at all with terrorists' motivations? To consider that US foreign policy must change you don't have to believe that it is the ONLY reason they hate us, but that it is ONE reason, a contributing factor, the only one we can actually manage and change for the better.
Published: May 24, 2007 3:31 AM
drzz
It is sad M. Bandow didn't write about the only thing really worth noticing about 9/11.
It was not "terrorism". It was jihad. Religious fighting.
Radical islamists hate everybody except the followers of their extremist rules.
M. Bandow shows that he didn't understand that we are facing a fight against the largest and oldest totalitarism of all times.
He didn't even write about islam, although the debate about islam the the key of the problem.
You cannot understand M. Ahmadinejad's will for nuclear weapon if you think Iran is like North Korea. It is not. It is an islamic state. Ahmadinejad is no sort of communist leader, he believes in the return of the 12th Imam.
It is definitely about religion. M. Bandow didn't mention it.
So I'm sorry to say his column totally misses the key point of the debate.
http://leblogdrzz.over-blog.com
Published: May 24, 2007 7:38 AM
drzz
See the VIDEO here :
http://leblogdrzz.over-blog.com/article-5631633.html
Published: May 24, 2007 7:39 AM
RogerM
Albert: "Will prompt our actions (justified or not) good consequences ( i.e. less terrorism against the US) or not?"
We can't always no what the consequences of our actions will be. Bin Laden didn't warn us before we sent troops to Saudi Arabia to defend it against Hussein that he would initiate terrorist attacks against us. No rational person could imagine that bin Laden would do what he did. So what do you suggest, that we form a focus group of terrorists and allow them to vet all foreign policy decisions? And even if bin Laden had warned us, should we have refused to defend Saudi Arabia? Should we force Israelis to lay down their weapons and let muslims murder them in order to appease bin Laden?
Ron Paul and others assume that terrorists are honest people and will keep their agreements. But muslims are not obligated to keep any agreement with infidels. In fact, Islam forbids such agreements except in cases when the muslims are weak and need time to rebuild their forces. Also, there's a doctrine in Islam called "taqiya" which encourages muslims to deceive infidels in the defense of Islam or muslims.
Albert: "Do you really think that US foreign policy has no relation at all with terrorists' motivations?" Exactly! Anyone who has read more than the mainstream media on jihad knows this.
Albert: "...if the government actually wants to protect America it has to change its foreign policy."
This shows the ignorance of history and the muslim culture on the part of those who blame our foreign policy. Muslims admire strength and abhor weakness. Mark Steyn quotes bin Laden saying that muslims will always choose the strong horse and kill the weak one. He refers to governments. Any sign of compassion, appeasement, or attempts to win their hearts and minds, causes muslims to see the US as weak and ready to give in to their demands. Any display of compassion on our part encourages terrorism; any show of strength discourages it. If terrorism in Iraq is worse today than before, it's because of our self-restraint. After all, Saddam Hussein had no problems with terrorism.
As for defending Americans against Islamic terror, how many terrorist attacks have we seen from foreing muslims in the US since 9/11? On that account, you have to admit that Bush is doing a pretty good job.
Published: May 24, 2007 9:18 AM
Robert Brazil
RogerM,
The only legitimate function of government is to protect the lives, liberties and property of the governed against predation by those members of society who are not constrained by moral tenets against murder and theft (including the agents of other states).
An interventionist foreign policy is in direct contravention of this function. First of all, the lives and property of the governed must be violated in order to pay for and administer such a policy. In fact, an interventionist foreign policy necessarily implies the existence of a ruling class that is superior to and apart from the ruled.
For example, the US government spends trillions overseas, stationing troops, training armies, arming militants, propping up dictators, broadcasting propaganda and influencing elections. The average American is hardly aware of the extent or details of US meddling in foreign affairs. Even congress is in the dark about much of it. Only the chosen few are qualified to play at remaking the world in their image — with our lives and money, of course. Is this what Jefferson had in mind when he penned the Declaration of Independence?
Secondly, US foreign policy ENDANGERS, rather than protects, our lives and liberties. It is expensive, leads to suppression of liberties at home and makes us enemies around the world — this last point leading to the perpetuation of the cycle. Yesterday's friends become today's enemies.
The arbitrariness of our interventionist foreign policy is a result of the fact that, despite all the claims about "national security," the real purpose of foreign policy is the same as most other government programs: the perpetuation and expansion of power, privilege and perks for the ruling class.
You may want to support Israel. Someone else might want to support the Palestinians. In any case, neither of you have the right to force your preference on the rest of society.
You wrote:
"As for defending Americans against Islamic terror, how many terrorist attacks have we seen from foreing muslims in the US since 9/11? On that account, you have to admit that Bush is doing a pretty good job."
How many Americans have lost their lives overseas since 9/11? How many will be mamed for life? How many will turn out like Timothy McVeigh or John Allan Muhammed?
How many innocent civilians have been killed? How many new enemies has our government made?
How much wealth has been squandered on pointless and destructive endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan? How long will we, our children and grandchildren be paying for this? How many of our liberties have been threatened, diminished or outright repealed by the government?
No, I don't have to admit that Bush is doing a "good job." By my standards, he isn't. In fact, those Muslim terrorists you fear so much could never have inflicted so much harm on America. Nor would they be able to recruit anyone for suicide missions if we minded our own business and stuck to defending our own borders.
Published: May 24, 2007 12:49 PM
RogerM
Robert: "The only legitimate function of government is to protect the lives, liberties and property of the governed..."
If you feel that way then that's what you should say and not pretend that you know something about jihad when you don't. That our foreign policy causes enemies and encourages terrorism is a faith of the left and anarchists, not a reality.
Published: May 24, 2007 1:45 PM
Robert Brazil
RogerM,
How could our foreign policy NOT make us enemies? Please explain this rather than simply appealing to authority or resorting to ad-hominem attacks.
I don't have to be an expert on jihad to know that people get angry when their friends, family or countrymen are killed by a foreign government, or when a foreign government meddles in the political affairs of their country; and that this anger can be channeled by demagogues into terrorism.
The policy is unjust. Continuing injustice begets anger which begets the further injustice of terrorism.
Do you believe the victims of US foreign policy simply go about their lives unaffected by events around them?
Please explain.
Published: May 24, 2007 3:15 PM
mikey
RogerM, you now have to explain why America has only become a target of Muslim hostility relatively recently,also why other Christian countries have not been targeted.I have never heard Mexico being named on any extremist hate list, and it is a very Christian country and good friend of America's.
It is peculiar you will not admit to any correlation at all between the amount of government intervention in other countries and the
level of animosity directed at that government.
It is like pretending the Irish hated the English not because they were occupied and displaced from their land, but because they were Catholic and hated the Church of England.
Published: May 25, 2007 10:47 AM
RogerM
Robert: "I don't have to be an expert on jihad to know that people get angry when their friends, family or countrymen are killed by a foreign government, or when a foreign government meddles in the political affairs of their country...Continuing injustice begets anger which begets the further injustice of terrorism."
In the first place, our actions in the Middle East are not injust, so there is no reason for Arabs to be upset. In the second, you're thinking like a westerner. Arabs and muslims don't have the same ideas of justice as we do. For example, it bothered bin Laden not at all that Saddam Hussein murdered close to one million muslims. Hussein has murdered more muslims than the US will ever kill in war. But in jihadist thinking, a muslim ruler may murder millions of muslims and that's OK; but let an infidel kill one muslim accidentally and we've committed genocide.
Robert: "Do you believe the victims of US foreign policy simply go about their lives unaffected by events around them?"
No, but I can guarantee you that you can't figure out how they will respond. Polls have shown that some Arabs admire Bush's policy in Iraq because they admire strong leaders. A few Arabs recognize what an evil murderer Hussein was; they're just embarassed that Arabs couldn't do anything about him and had to wait for an infidel power to take him out.
mikey: "you now have to explain why America has only become a target of Muslim hostility relatively recently,also why other Christian countries have not been targeted.I have never heard Mexico being named on any extremist hate list, and it is a very Christian country and good friend of America's."
That's pretty obvious, isn't it? Is Mexico a world power? According to jihadist writings going back decades, the Muslim Brotherhood and it's franchises decided to attack the USSR first, in Afghanistan, because they considered it the greater of the two evils since it promoted atheism. But they made it very clear that they would attack the US next. After the fall of the USSR, they US became the leading power in the world. In the mind of jihadis, they had to destroy the US as they had the USSR because they believed that the US was propping up the corrupt regimes in the Middle East and protecting Israel from them, neither of which is true.
Jihadism is based on the myths created by the jihadis that they destroyed the USSR and can do the same to the US. They created the myths that the US supports corrupt Arab dictators and Israel because they're too ashamed to admit that they can't overthrow either one.
Published: May 25, 2007 3:25 PM
RogerM
Some of you should try living in the Middle East for awhile, or at least reading books by people who have. There are some really good ones out there. An interesting aspect of the culture, from Iran to Morocco, is their devotion to conspiracy theories. Before the 1960's, the UK was the chief conspirator and every problem, from sewage problems to electricy shortages, people blamed on the British. Even the educated people cling to these conspiracy theories. To imagine what they're like, picture whole nations of people who believe UFO's, or the CFR, or the Illuminati are controlling everything behind the scenes. Today, its the US and the Jews. Most Arabs and Iranians, even educated ones, believe that the Jews control both the Congress and the US President. And the US controls all the governments in every Arab country and Iran. If you do manage to visit Iran or an Arab country, which I highly recommend because they're very friendly and hospitable, keep in mind that everyone will assume you're with the CIA.
Published: May 25, 2007 3:36 PM
RogerM
Here is an example of how Arabs think: "In all events, American policy towards the Middle East angers the Arab peoples because a large percentage, if not the majority, of its architects are Israelis. It is no longer a secret that the key figures in foreign policy research centres at the time that plans to invade Iraq were being drawn up were Israelis, and that most of these stepped down from their posts after these plans went horribly askew.
"Are we supposed to rest easy with an American administration whose president begins his day by reading a brief on the Middle East prepared by an Israeli residing in the White House, who despises the Arabs and who is bent on fragmenting the Arab world, fuelling anti-Arab hatred in the US, and thwarting any attempts on the part of American ruling elites to broker a Middle East peace that will not threaten vested interests elsewhere and at home?"
This is from the government-owned Al Ahram, the oldest and largest newspaper in Egypt. This is available at http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/846/op31.htm
Published: May 25, 2007 4:09 PM
Robert Brazil
RogerM,
"In the first place, our actions in the Middle East are not injust, so there is no reason for Arabs to be upset."
I guess we don't see eye to eye on this, Roger.
To me, the US arming Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was unjust. Overthrowing the elected leader of Iran was unjust. Welfare for tyrants in Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere is unjust. Arming Israel in its war against the Palestinians is unjust. So were the sanctions against Iraq that even our own government admits killed hundreds of thousands.
Is it really so hard to understand why the Arabs would be upset about these things (and there are other legimitate grievances but I can't list them all in a blog post)?
The only conclusion I can draw is that you view the Arabs as being sub-human, as having no right to be incensed when they are gassed by US chemicals, oppressed by US-funded dictators, blown up by US weapons, have their trade cut off by a US embargo and their governments overthrown by the CIA.
Of course, the US is not the only player in these crimes but it should not be a player at all.
And as for fanciful jihadist writings: Every war has its mythology. I've already pointed out in a previous post that saying something is not the same as doing it. George Bush might say he is bringing democracy to the Middle East but that doesn't make it so. World War I was not the war to end all wars, either.
I don't care to study Muslims as if they were animals whose behavior can't be predicted. I imagine the thinking of many Americans ("the terr'ists hate our freedoms!") must seem very strange to people who are not exposed to US government propaganda 24/7.
Why don't we try acting in a civil manner towards the Muslims (i.e. not doing all the things I pointed out above) and see what happens?
How about it? Let's bring all our troops home from overseas (ALL of them). End all foreign aid -- not a single penny or a single weapon changes hands between the US government and any other state. End all trade restrictions and use diplomacy to promote peace. Use some of the enormous amount of money we save to defend our borders at home.
Let's try this for five years (10 would be even better) and see what happens. Our interventionist foreign policy for the last 50 years has hardly been a success; it has led to one war after another. Why are the partisans of war so afraid to try something else?
Published: May 25, 2007 10:12 PM
RogerM
Robert: "Let's try this for five years (10 would be even better) and see what happens. Our interventionist foreign policy for the last 50 years has hardly been a success; it has led to one war after another."
Apparently you think the US is the only evil in the world. I suppose we startedd WWI and WWII, also. Typical leftist propaganda.
Published: May 26, 2007 8:17 AM
Robert Brazil
"Apparently you think the US is the only evil in the world. I suppose we startedd WWI and WWII, also. Typical leftist propaganda."
Apparently, you missed this from my previous post:
"Of course, the US is not the only player in these crimes but it should not be a player at all."
No, we didn't start WWI and WWII, although our involvement in WWI almost certainly precipitated the rise of Hitler in Germany.
And in both wars, the president promised to keep us out while secretly scheming to draw us into hostilities. Nonintervention was as wise a course then as it is now.
But keep calling me a "leftist." I suppose you are also unaware that it was "leftists" -- communist agents, to be precise -- who had infiltrated the Roosevelt administration and influenced government policy.
Chodorov was right. Many of the people who are quick to denounce communism actually advocate communism themselves, when it suits them.
Published: May 26, 2007 8:52 AM
josh m
I love this discussion. Please keep going, Roger.
:)
Published: May 28, 2007 3:46 AM
Dave
Yeah, I'm enjoying this discussion, too!
They both have good points, although Robert seems to have a stronger case.
Published: May 28, 2007 4:13 AM
RogerM
Robert:"...our involvement in WWI almost certainly precipitated the rise of Hitler in Germany."
Niall Ferguson, history prof at Harvard, has a new book called "War of the World" in which he states that both WWI and WWII were caused by growing protectionism. Both Japan and Germany were highly industrial nations who depended upon exporting manufactured goods and importing food. As their trading partners increasingly blocked their exports of manufactured goods, the US included, Japan and Germany feared that their people would starve because they couldn't produce enough food on their own. So both Japan and Germany decided the only was to survive was to capture good farmland to feed their people. In Germany, the policy was called lebensraum, or living room.
If you believe that sending troops overseas for any reason whatsoever is unjust and immoral, regardless of the cause, then I can't argue with that. But if like normal people you weigh the justness of the cause, then some of our ventures could be deemed just, some unjust.
Robert:"Of course, the US is not the only player in these crimes but it should not be a player at all."
What would happen if the US decided not intervene anywhere in the world for the next generation? Well, we can look to history for come clues. Until the Spanish American War, we stayed at home. Were there any wars in the world until then? I can think of a few in Europe. The US was isolationist in the extreme between WWI and WWII. Did that bring world peace? The world is too much interconnected for any nation to think it can quarantine itself from the diseases of humanity.
What do you think about Iran? Every leader since the 1979 revolution has promised to destroy Israel and Iran will have that capability within 5-10 years. Several leaders have publicly stated that Iranians wouldn't care if the US or Israel destroyed Iran, too, as long as they could destroy Israel because there would be plenty of muslims left, but no Israelis. Israelis are pretty confident they can't defeat a nuclear armed Iran. Should we allow Iran to use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and murder millions of Jews? Stopping them would require a pre-emptive strike that might kill millions of Iranians. A lot of people would answer yes, allow Iran to nuke Israel because it's none of our business. Others of us wonder if failing to prevent such a crime, when we have the ability, doesn't make us partners in the crime. And if we sacrifice Israel for our own comfort, who will we have to sacrifice next? Sounds very similar to sacrificing the Czechs to Hitler, doesn't it?
Published: May 28, 2007 12:46 PM
Robert Brazil
RogerM: "Until the Spanish American War, we stayed at home. Were there any wars in the world until then? I can think of a few in Europe."
Yes, and how many Americans died in those wars? How many liberties did Americans lose because of them? And how much wealth was confiscated from Americans as a result?
If wars break out regardless of whether or not the U.S. government gets involved, that is hardly an argument for it to drag the American people into foreign conflicts.
The classical liberal tradition respects the limitations of what government -- aka force -- can accomplish in this world. Clearly, and despite all the promises, our involvement in foreign wars has never brought about lasting peace.
Attempts to eradicate evil from the world by bombing and shooting people are just as doomed to failure as attempts to eradicate poverty by subsidizing it through legalized robbery. The burden should fall on the interventionists to explain why, if there are going to be wars anyway, Americans should join the killing and dying.
RogerM: "Should we allow Iran to use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and murder millions of Jews? Stopping them would require a pre-emptive strike that might kill millions of Iranians.
Think about what you're saying. We should kill MILLIONS of innocent people to prevent something that MIGHT happen but is historically unprecedented and highly unlikely (only the U.S. has ever used nukes against an enemy and even that was during wartime). Do you see the insanity in this?
Also, what rational or moral argument can be advanced in favor of millions of dead Iranians as opposed to millions of dead Israelis? Is not every innocent life of equal worth, regardless of the perceived goodness or badness of the ruling classes that start all wars? Why should Americans partake in the unqualified evil of mass murder? What values are we defending in doing so?
Finally, do you honestly believe an Iranian holocaust would be the end of Israel's problems or the beginning of something far worse?
For what it's worth, I don't see a conflict between Iran and Israel as being inevitable, the chest-thumping of Iranian leaders aside. I might remind you that our own politicans have publicly threatened, by way of refusing to rule it out, a nuclear strike against Iran.
If the Iranians were truly suicidal, they could cause plenty of damage right now with conventional weapons. Let's not fall for the state's tactic of demonizing its enemies as irrational savages.
RogerM: "And if we sacrifice Israel for our own comfort, who will we have to sacrifice next? Sounds very similar to sacrificing the Czechs to Hitler, doesn't it?"
We, meaning the American people, are not in a position to sacrifice the Israelis. Nor did we sacrifice the Czechs to Hitler. Their lives were never ours to give.
The principle, and only defensible, justification for the existence of government is defense. If the government cannot defend its people it does not deserve their support.
If the Israelis feel genuinely threatened by Iran, it is incumbent upon them, not the U.S. government, to deal with the problem. And if individual Americans wish to donate their own blood and treasure to such a venture, let them not drag the rest of us along.
Published: May 28, 2007 3:11 PM
RogerM
Robert: "For what it's worth, I don't see a conflict between Iran and Israel as being inevitable..."
You should change your name to Chamberlain.
Robert:"If the Israelis feel genuinely threatened by Iran, it is incumbent upon them, not the U.S. government, to deal with the problem."
What if they can't defend themselves? As Kuwait couldn't, or Czechoslovakia and Poland?
Robert: "If wars break out regardless of whether or not the U.S. government gets involved, that is hardly an argument for it to drag the American people into foreign conflicts."
You're avoiding my point, which was that all the evil in the world today is not caused by US foreign policy. If the US tried to isolate itself for a few years, as you suggested, not much would change, as history demonstrates. If you think US foreign policy has caused muslims to attack the US, then please explain why the Japanese, Germans, Koreans and Vietnamese aren't doing the same.
Published: May 29, 2007 8:25 AM
Reactionary
RogerM,
Ever notice how so many of today's problems are the result of yesterday's government solutions? That's the blind spot in your libertarianism. Intervention begets intervention, with the government using each new crisis to justify its expansion. Muslim terrorism was not a problem for the US until we decided to cast our lot with Israel in its eternal dispute with other Semites over too little land.
Published: May 29, 2007 12:01 PM
Robert Brazil
RogerM: "You should change your name to Chamberlain."
It's always 1939 for Bush supporters, isn't it? Try moving on because your analogy is flawed. No country has ever invaded the territory of a nuclear-armed state. Israel has nukes. Not surprisingly, Iran wants them too so it can avoid ending up like Iraq.
RogerM: "What if they can't defend themselves? As Kuwait couldn't, or Czechoslovakia and Poland?"
You forgot to include Iraq. See my point above about nukes as a deterrent (Israel has them). Regardless, the U.S. Constitution allows the government to provide for the common defense of the United States, not "the common defense of all the countries Roger likes."
A government can not protect the lives, liberties and property of the governed while simultaneously plundering the governed, suppressing their freedoms and sending them off to die every time there is a war going on overseas. The latter function makes a joke of the former and implies the existence of a ruling elite entitled to dispose of its subjects as property in wars of its choosing.
"You're avoiding my point, which was that all the evil in the world today is not caused by US foreign policy."
I already responded to this point. Yes, wars and evil will always exist in this world, regardless of whether the U.S. participates in these things or not. And since U.S. intervention DOES NOT result in lasting peace and DOES NOT bring goodness into the hearts of all foreigners, but DOES harm the lives and liberties of Americans in direct contravention of the purpose of government, it makes no sense whatsoever to meddle in foreign conflicts. Is that clear enough?
"If you think US foreign policy has caused muslims to attack the US, then please explain why the Japanese, Germans, Koreans and Vietnamese aren't doing the same."
The Japanese DID attack the U.S. as a result of our interventionist foreign policy: our embargo against them, FDR's illegal funding of the Flying Tigers in China and other hostile acts by the U.S. government. In fact, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a deliberately sought-after manifestation of "blowback" that allowed the lying Roosevelt to drag America into WWII. None of this negates the atrocities committed by the Japanese state, just as those atrocities don't justify the crimes of the American state, including those directed against its own people, during that war.
Ditto for the Germans, who declared war on the U.S. shortly after Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt made America a belligerent on the side of the British long before December 7.
The fact that individuals then did not come here and engage in suicide terrorism does not negate my point. Those were wars between states. The U.S. is (but not for long) the only superpower and no conventional military can challenge its dominance. In addition, many Muslims rightly view their governments as U.S. puppets.
Either way, the end result is blowback: Americans dying, growth of government, loss of liberty and prosperity.
Published: May 29, 2007 12:58 PM
RogerM
Robert: "The Japanese DID attack the U.S. as a result of our interventionist foreign policy..."
You side-stepped my question: why aren't the Japanese, Germans, Koreans and Vietnamese attacking the US as jihadis are? After all, we killed far more of them than we have ever dreamed of killing jihadis.
Robert: "A government can not protect the lives, liberties and property of the governed while simultaneously plundering the governed, suppressing their freedoms and sending them off to die every time there is a war going on overseas."
Obviously you oppose US intervention overseas because you oppose intervention for any reason under any circumstances. You write like an anarchist who thinks all government is evil, so anything a government does is evil. Why not just admit that and give up on trying to show some kind of cause/effect relationship with US foreign policy?
Robert: "And since U.S. intervention DOES NOT result in lasting peace and DOES NOT bring goodness into the hearts of all foreigners..."
That's a pretty tall hurdle to overcome. Lasting peace? Are you kidding? "Bring goodnes into the hearts of all foreigners." Are you serious? Please inform me of any policy that could accomplish either one. Isolationism wouldn't come close to instantiating either one. US foreign policy has always been less ambitious than that. What's wrong with stopping a madman from murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents?
Published: May 29, 2007 1:33 PM
Reactionary
RogerM,
Have the US military call in a few airstrikes on German, Japanese, Vietnamese and Korean villages and let me know what happens. The analogy is inapt. However, do you know US servicemen in Okinawa and in Japan are advised to stay close to their bases on Hiroshima day?
Why do you give government a free pass on foreign policy given that it operates under the same perverse incentives as domestic policy? And if Islamic jihadists are such a big threat, why do we buy Middle East oil and sell them UST's? Why do we keep our borders open? Not even the Bush administration believes such overheated rhetoric.
Published: May 29, 2007 2:13 PM
RogerM
Robert: "It's always 1939 for Bush supporters, isn't it? Try moving on because your analogy is flawed."
We will continue to remind people like you of 1939 until you learn the very simple lessons that history should teach you.
Robert: "The Japanese DID attack the U.S. as a result of our interventionist foreign policy: our embargo against them, FDR's illegal funding of the Flying Tigers in China and other hostile acts by the U.S. government."
So let me get this straight: the US funded the Flying Tigers and placed embargoed trade with Japan for no reason whatsoever. The Japanese were minding their own business when the US suddenly decided to bully them. Or did you forget that the Flying Tigers and the embargoes were our response to Japan's invasions of Korea and China, during which they murdered and raped with impunity? Ever read "The Rape of Nanking"?
Published: May 29, 2007 2:17 PM
Robert Brazil
RogerM: "...why aren't the Japanese, Germans, Koreans and Vietnamese attacking the US as jihadis are?"
The circumstances of those interventions were drastically different. What wasn't different was that they all led to blowback and were all detrimental to Americans' lives and liberties.
Now, why don't you explain why there has been no 9/11 in Switzerland, Mexico and all the other countries that are just as free/culturally decadent as the U.S. but refrain from meddling in the Middle East?
Roger: "You write like an anarchist ..."
I suppose George Washington was also an anarchist?
RogerM: "Please inform me of any policy that could accomplish either one. Isolationism wouldn't come close to instantiating either one."
I never said it would. But noninterventionism (not "isolationism") would at least keep the U.S. at peace.
RogerM: "What's wrong with stopping a madman from murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents?"
There was nothing wrong with Ron Paul and others trying to stop Bush from invading Iraq. Since we're in agreement, I fully expect you will oppose the planned attack, by the same madman, against Iran.
Published: May 29, 2007 2:19 PM
Robert Brazil
RogerM: "Ever read 'The Rape of Nanking'?"
Are you even bothering to read my posts? This is from the post you replied to:
"None of this negates the atrocities committed by the Japanese state, just as those atrocities don't justify the crimes of the American state, including those directed against its own people, during that war."
Published: May 29, 2007 2:23 PM
RogerM
Robert: "Now, why don't you explain why there has been no 9/11 in Switzerland, Mexico and all the other countries that are just as free/culturally decadent as the U.S. but refrain from meddling in the Middle East?"
I already answered that. You're not reading my posts.
Robert:"None of this negates the atrocities committed by the Japanese state..."
It doesn't stop them either. I really have a hard time with the morals of people who have no compassion for others. You obviously couldn't care less how many people Hitler and Hirohito murdered, enslaved, and raped, as long as it didn't happen to you personally.
Published: May 29, 2007 3:55 PM
Robert Brazil
RogerM: "I really have a hard time with the morals of people who have no compassion for others. You obviously couldn't care less how many people Hitler and Hirohito murdered, enslaved, and raped, as long as it didn't happen to you personally."
For someone who rails on about "leftists," this sounds an awful lot like the attacks they level against opponents of the welfare state.
The answer to this is, of course, that two wrongs don't make a right. Let's examine the results of U.S. intervention in WWII that you would rather us forget:
Over 400,000 U.S. military personnel were killed. Many hundreds of thousands of civilians were blown apart or incinerated by U.S. bombings of Japanese and German cities. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to radiation sickness for immediate survivors and birth defects for later generations.
Our ally, Stalin, went on to murder many more millions than even Hitler, after we handed him half of Europe along with all those POWs who had to be tranquilized because they didn't want to go back. China was eventually communized by Mao, who made even Stalin look like a piker in terms of mass-murder.
Over 100,000 Japanese Americans were imprisoned in "concentration camps" (FDR's words) for the crime of being Japanese. Many were robbed of their private property. Dissenters against the war were labelled as Nazi sympathizers and some were even put on trial before kangaroo courts. Income tax witholding was introduced to pay for the war and never repealed, making it easier fo the U.S. government to plunder working Americans.
I could go on. Needless to say, I don't see these outcomes as "compassionate." If the justification for U.S. involvement overseas is to stop mass-killing and enslavement, then why are both the means and the ends just more mass-killing and enslavement? Or are some lives worth more than others?
Published: May 29, 2007 4:40 PM
RogerM
Robert: "Needless to say, I don't see these outcomes as "compassionate."
So you would have let Hirohito take over S.E. Asia and Hitler take Europe and murder as many people as they wanted? And you think that is a righteous stance, or even a just position? Thenk, I don't want to have anything to do with your brand of justice. Yes, the US killed a lot of people and lost a lot of soldiers, but it was a very small percentage of the number Japan and Germany murdered.
Published: May 29, 2007 5:14 PM
Robert Brazil
RogerM: "So you would have let Hirohito take over S.E. Asia and Hitler take Europe and murder as many people as they wanted?"
The lives of other Americans are not mine, nor should they be anyone's, to dispose of, so your question is moot. When the presidents and cheerleaders for war take the front lines, then they might have some ground to stand on asking others to die for their pet causes (but never forcing them to do so).
Furthermore, the policy you defend involved "letting" Stalin take over Europe, resulting in mass murder and enslavement, making your position hypocritical as well as immoral.
RogerM: "Yes, the US killed a lot of people and lost a lot of soldiers, but it was a very small percentage of the number Japan and Germany murdered. "
In other words, the ends justify the means. It is right and just to murder the innocent as long as your heart is in the right place (where have we heard this before?), and even if the ultimate outcome is to replace one set of tyrants with another, even worse, set of tyrants.
I don't want anything to do with your brand of justice, so consider the feeling mutual.
Published: May 29, 2007 6:48 PM
Ray Harmon
So, what if we held a war and nobody showed up? Obviously, we can't have that happening.
Well, to ensure that enough people show up we need to make it mandatory, it's been a proven solution in the past in prevent no-show wars.
Also, we can mitigate absenteeism by using high tech solutions like high altitude bombing; we get our war but and require far less participants on our side.
Another favorite are sanctions and embargoes, we just constrict, restrict and block trade shipments and just let the reliable four horsemen do the dirty work.
But, if all else fails, it pays to advertise. Sometimes we just need to market the war properly. Remind your citizens that the enemy is inhuman and capable of anything due to their complete and utter irrational hatred toward everything we love.
This has proven to be far more successful method of ensuring war attendance than even mandatory service.
Yes, undeclared, unpopular wars take a lot of work, but isn't that what makes our country so great?
Published: May 29, 2007 7:16 PM
RogerM
Robert: "Furthermore, the policy you defend involved "letting" Stalin take over Europe, resulting in mass murder and enslavement, making your position hypocritical as well as immoral."
Typical leftist/anarchist thinking: the US is damned if it does; damned if it doesn't.
Robert: "It is right and just to murder the innocent as long as your heart is in the right place..."
That's the anarchist in you speaking. War is not murder under sane, rational moral codes.
Published: May 29, 2007 8:34 PM
Robert Brazil
"Yes, the US killed a lot of people and lost a lot of soldiers, but it was a very small percentage of the number Japan and Germany murdered."
"War is not murder under sane, rational moral codes."
Willful killing of innocents is murder, Roger. That is truth. No euphemism, no verbal trick can change it. There's nothing sane, rational, or moral about mass murder, regardless of what you choose to call it.
Published: May 29, 2007 10:26 PM