My Speech at the Antiwar Rally
I was invited to speak at a peace march and rally in Birmingham, Alabama, sponsored by the Alabama Peace and Justice Coalition, and gladly accepted the offer to speak against the war in Iraq. Yes, the program was dominated by leftists who rightly oppose the war but want big government to run the economy. I accepted for the same reason I would accept an engagement to speak against taxes even if sponsored by a right-wing group that also favored the war. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (275)
Well done, Lew.
Published: September 25, 2005 8:16 PM
I really liked this portion:
"At the same time, freedom and individualism unleashed human energies and, in the setting of free economies, created a prosperity beyond any ever known. This made possible the vast expansion of the world's population, and human flourishing as never seen before."
I wonder if that resonated with the lefties.
Published: September 26, 2005 1:14 AM
Today's LR.com newsletter landed in my Inbox while I was blogging this article about the struggle by Pat Tillman's family to uncover the truth about his friendly-fire death in Afghanistan. Lew's speech was the next thing I read, and the last three paragraphs were all the more poignant for it.
Chalk up one more lefty -- that is, someone who believes that until we get the requisite popular support to destroy the war machine and its appetite for confiscation, we should at least work to correct the structural imbalances it creates.
Published: September 26, 2005 2:22 AM
Is the implication here that the U.S. would be safer now, if after 9/11 The Bush administration decided not go to war in afghanistan and/or Iraq?
And will the peace and freedom of the people of the United States be at all affected by the aquisition of nuclear weapons by any country in the near future? Should we be for it, against it or indifferent?
Published: September 26, 2005 3:20 AM
I'd be a Libertarian if they didn't have such ridiculous views on foreign policy.
"Of all forms of collectivist central planning, war is the most egregious....Its ends are destruction and killing — crime on a mass scale."
No, those are the means; the ends can be to defeat a collectivist tyrant, or to stabilize a region under anarchy.
"The US believes that it can use its weapons of mass destruction to threaten any country in the world on the very suspicion that it might be trying to defend itself. The US can then phony up intelligence, overthrow a leader, and install a regime of its choosing."
Isn't it odd that Democratic countries almost never fight each other? Is it immoral to overthrow a tyrant? Should the US now allow Iran to install a theocracy in Iraq?
"War leaves in its wake orphans, widows, parents without children, sickness, hatred, and spiritual and psychological trauma. It gives power to dictators on all sides. It is based on a lie that mass death can ever accord with justice."
Did WWII give power to dictators on all sides? The A-bomb did a lot of damage, and now Japan is free. Oddly enough, a high-level morality can emerge from low-level immorality. Had the Allies buried their heads in the sand, the Axis would've chopped them off.
Published: September 26, 2005 3:27 AM
Bravo-from a socialist!
Published: September 26, 2005 4:32 AM
"No, those are the means; the ends can be to defeat a collectivist tyrant, or to stabilize a region under anarchy."
Every single wicked act men do, they do with good ends in mind. A man may steal to eat, to improve his life, or to give to charity - all good ends to strive for; but theft is still evil. A murderer kills to acquire goods, to satisfy his emotions, or to achieve social advancement; all are good ends, yet the means is wicked.
A warmongering president might wage war to gain security, procure resources, depose another dictator, and put himself in the history books; yet his means - murder of thousands or millions, destruction of property, environmental devastation, theft via taxation, invasion of homes and communities, imprisonment of political opponents, imposition of harsh law - are the wickedest actions man has ever cooked up, and are responsibility for the bulk of all human suffering.
Crusader, it's not because of liberty's peaceful stance that you are not a libertarian. It's because you approve and applaud the use of man's worst wickedness to pursue questionable and unattainable goals.
Published: September 26, 2005 5:32 AM
Mr. Rockwell brings up Jefferson. If we would only follow his advice and not run around the world entangling ourselves in other peoples business.
Peace, commerce and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
I wish Jefferson would have stopped at just commerce. That is the key. Countries rarely go to war with one another if they mutually depend on the other comercially. The US and England have had two and 1/2 wars(I give the English help to the South in the Civil War a half) in the last 400 years. In these wars both sides wrecked their economies
Now look at our relationship with COMMUNIST China. The US and China are not exactly friends and probably never will be, but neither side can risk a violent confrontation that would destroy their economies.
Published: September 26, 2005 7:11 AM
It's amazing to me how far some people will go to defend the actions of tyrants. How can we possibly cast aside the obvious fact that the current war was deliberately started using lies and false intelligence. This is common knowledge for anyone who cares to remember. And yet so many still buy the ever-changing propoganda about why we are fighting in Iraq. They'll even go back as far as WWII to try and defend their flawed world view. Perhaps they forget that WWII was itself the product of U.S. intervention in world events and of previous nationalistic warmongering by European states. And yet the lesson is never that war is bad or that those in power cannot be trusted. I guess there's always some reason that can be fed to the public as to why they must engage in perpetual warfare. That's why sites like this that give a consistent, opposing voice are so important.
Published: September 26, 2005 8:39 AM
Beautiful speech, Lew. People need to understand that all agression is wrong, regardless of size or intended ends. To believe that agression can be wrong in one area yet somehow a useful tool in others or can be used for good in the right hands has been the most serious contradiction facing man from almost day one. It is selfishness which drives the belief that the ends, (what's in it for me/us), justifies the means.
Published: September 26, 2005 8:59 AM
Crusader (and isn't that an apt name for an obvious neocon!) is evidently not aware that Hitler was popularly elected. It is precisely this kind of blind allegiance to "democracy" that gives such tragic meaning to Hitler's remark: "What luck for rulers that the people do not think."
Published: September 26, 2005 9:11 AM
"Peace, commerce and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
I may be wrong, but I believe this quote is from George Washington, and he delivered it in his farewell address at the conclusion of his second term as President. And in my opinion, this principle may be his most enduring positive legacy to this country. Unfortunately, the large majority of members of all major political parties generally have not followed this principle for many, many years.
Published: September 26, 2005 9:22 AM
"Should the US now allow Iran to install a theocracy in Iraq?"
This is the socialist/imperialist trap: One failed intervention leads to the next one, in a never-ending downward cycle.
"Did WWII give power to dictators on all sides?"
Yes, WWII gave control of Eastern Europe and (ultimately) China to the ruthless dictators known as Communists.
Published: September 26, 2005 9:32 AM
According to brainyquote.com, Jefferson DID say "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
According to brainyquote.com, Jefferson also said, "Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it."
Unfortunately, brainyquote doesn't cite the sources of these quotes.
Published: September 26, 2005 9:36 AM
1 - To just exist means to "interfer" in the lives of others. Islam states infidels are to be killed, so just existing as a Chlristian or Jew is to "interfer" - get real on this sort of reality. Ditto Hitler's desire for Lebensraum (room to live); he conjured up the notion that Jews and other undesireables were "interfering."
2 - Years of gutless non-response by Clinton led to 3000 US deaths in the Twin Towers; tyrants are embolden unless slapped down. Clinton failed to have backbone; busy soiling blue dresses I guess.
3 - Bush's plan to take the war over there makes sense. Don't forget that the whole WMD thing was believed by both sides of the aisle, Britain, etc. and Saddam kept UN inspectors away from finding the truth for years...along with what, 11 or was it 17 disregards of UN orders. Bush had the guts to DO something.
It is easy to keep a theoretical outlook about why war is bad. It IS bad. Slavery is worse. So is getting increasingly whacked by a bully (fanatical Islam of late). Killing those whose first intent has been shown to kill you is smart, if you desire to survive, especially if they strike first.
Wake up to reality Lew.
Published: September 26, 2005 9:43 AM
Is defensive force moral? Can a state or an individual exercise pre-emptive force morally in defense of liberty? I believe the answer is yes. Can the war in Iraq be considered a moral use of pre-emptive force? I believe that it is debatable. I don't know that anyone who was not present or a participant in the intelligence gathering or analysis can say something like "How can we possibly cast aside the obvious fact that the current war was deliberately started using lies and false intelligence." It is not OBVIOUS. I disagree with Mr. Singleton. What does a libertarian advocate - Peace, commerce and friendship with all nations - even those who do not believe in peace, commerce or friendship with all nations? Do libertarians advocate that we continue to allow these states, who actively facilitate, participate, or allow the planning, preparation, and execution of aggression against our state, to exist peacefully until after their aggression has carried out?
I certainly believe only in the moral use of force - defensive force, and that governments are no more justified in their application of illegal force than any individual. But I cannot subscribe to allow someone to actively plot aggression against my liberty.
Published: September 26, 2005 10:04 AM
War and Morality
You got the right string but the wrong yoyo this time.
"Another tradition, the liberal tradition, says that states must abide by the moral standards that apply to everyone in all times and all places."
Saddam was the perpetrator of countless atrocities applied with absolutely no moral standards and was indeed a weapon of mass destruction.
"The US believes it can starve foreign countries such as Iraq..."
"And who pays the price for this moral hypocrisy? The victims of war."
Wrong here. The slaves of Saddam's country were the ones being starved, tortured and killed and were the ones paying the price. They were the victims of Saddam. You should be thanking the US for its efforts to apply genuine God-given moral standards to those who would otherwise be choked to death.
Seems like in this case the US has an excellent understanding of "...the intolerable brutality of authoritarianism..."
Published: September 26, 2005 10:06 AM
Again, I could be wrong, but I thought Washington said something along these lines in his farewell address, which at least informally set policy on this matter in the early days of the republic.
Published: September 26, 2005 10:08 AM
As Libertarians, I think we should judge Lew's speech in the context of Hugo Grotius's greatest work: De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625) or The Law of War and Peace, which is a legal treatise rather than a treatise in political theory. Grotius addresses the issue of "just war," which is the theme of his doctrine of international law.
Can war ever be just? Grotius argued that not all use of force is prohibited by natural and volitional law, but only that use of force which is in conflict with the principles of society, that is, which attempts to take away the rights and possessions of another.
Grotius argued that just wars fall into two general categories: (a) those waged in defense of self and property, and (b) those waged to prosecute injuries and to inflict deserved punishment.
According to Grotius, the governing principle to determine whether a war is just (when a particular country has not been directly injured by the depredations of another country) is based on the concept that rulers are free to serve the interests of human society by punishing those who "excessively violate the law of nature," even though no direct injury has been done to those who mete out the punishment.
Grotius argued that this principle is derived from the fact that those who hold the civil power are subject to no other legal power, but are bound to observe and to enforce the law of nature wherever possible. Grotius quotes Seneca: "if a man does not attack my own country, but yet is a heavy burden to his own, and although separated from my people he afflicts his own, such debasement of mind nevertheless cuts him off from us."
Grotius cites Aristotle as authority for the proposition that war is sanctioned by nature against men who are truly barbarians; i.e., that a "war of civilization" is, in extreme circumstances, just.
The power of punishment derives from the law of nature itself and not from civil jurisdiction.
To me, Lew's speech did not ring libertarian. Even libertarians have to resort to war at times in defense of natural rights. To conclude as he does that all war is wrong ignores the general principles of the nature of man and society buttressed by history, both sacred and secular, from the jus gentium, and from divine volitional law.
Hence, war may be waged justly, but only to achieve or to reestablish the natural end of man, which is peace or the condition of tranquil social life, and not for personal or collective self-aggrandizement. Lew avoided the question of whether the war in Iraq and Afghanistan falls in the category of a just war.
Published: September 26, 2005 10:29 AM
Assuming the Founders meant it when they said one purpose of the Constitution was to Provide for the Common Defence of the U.S." (expressed through the Congress' war power), I fail to see how our current effort to provide for the defense of Iraq fulfills that mission. All of the reasons to go (WMD) turned out to be false, and I was never clear how Iraq's pursuit of these represented a threat to the national soveriegnty, territorial integrity or liberties of the people of the United States anyway. Perhaps to their neighbors and Israel, but not the U.S. Saddam no doubt disliked us, but he was in a bottle for ten years and is first and foremeost a survivor who had no desire to have U.S. tanks rolling through Baghdad. The tragedy of the Iraqi people under Saddam is clear, but the U.S. government has no legal or moral authority under the Constitution to come to their rescue/defense, no matter how dear and just their need or cause may be. And it is immoral and certainly NOT "in support of the troops" as many claim to endorse a wayward administration's arbitrary deployment of them in an illegal and unjust manner--killing our kids and destroying our resources in a fight that we can sympathize with, but that is not ours to join. And, as another lesson of history, our government's meddling and aggressive foreign policy has made us even less secure than we were before--our economy is imperield with deficits and inflation, and there are now more terrorists than ever in response to even more U.S. troops on "Islamic soil."
As for the crowd's reception, I suspect they filtered out the pro-freedom/market message and simply embraced the anti-Bush part, but it's good to be able to take that message to them, and it was certainly a good speech.
Published: September 26, 2005 10:36 AM
Unfortunately, I don't think they really grasped that Lew was in some parts arguing against statism in general and not just war.
But still, they seem a bit more serious than the leftist "antiwar" demonstrators in Washington and
San Francisco that Justin Raimondo have been telling us about. In a 2002 rally against the then only planned Iraq war he
told ushow the rally came to deal more with issues unrelated to war (I really like his side comments to these issues):
"all mouthing the same tired old phrases and subjecting their captive audience to every pathetic leftie cause under the sun: free Mumia Abu Jamal (won't somebody free us from him?), "money for jobs, not for war" (hey, bud, you get a job, and then you get the money!), "transgender rights" (say what?)"
Perhaps even funnier was when Raimondo back in
1999 told about how it went when he tried to join a far left demonstration against the war on Serbia. Apparently they were a lot less tolerant against "right-wing" war critics (And all focusing on the release of Mumia Abu Jamal):
""Hi," I said to the young man with the gentle voice who answered the phone at the San Francisco office of the International Action Center." My name is Justin Raimondo and I'm with Republicans Against the War."
Pause.
"I called yesterday, and a couple of times before that," I said, ignoring the pregnancy of that pause, that skipped beat in which his whole concept of the world was overthrown.
"Uh huh," was all he could manage.
"And what I wanted to know," I said, "was whether you had reached a decision as to whether we can have a speaker at the rally on the 17th."
"Yeah, well, that really hasn't been decided, yet."
"Oh really? Gee, that's funny, but the last guy I talked to said that the speakers had already been confirmed, and that there was no more room on the platform. You guys had better get your line straight."
I put a little emphasis on this last word, because I had already conjured what I thought was a fair approximation of the being at the other end of the phone line. I could see him clear as day in my mind's eye, like a mannequin in a store window lit up at night: twenty-something, sandal-and-beads, undoubtedly gay, a would-be artist -- aren't they all? -- young Lance (as good a name as any) is a Marxist who hasn't read much Marx: he has, however, read the complete works of Rigoberto Menchu.
I was getting tired of this guy already.
"You know," he said, the self-conscious gentleness in his voice hardening into a tone of priggish self-righteousness "we wouldn't let anybody racist, or anti-abortion, or homophobic speak: that would be giving a platform to bigotry." Apparently I was not the only one conjuring stereotypes on scanty evidence.
"Oh, don't give me that litany," I replied, laughing to myself, "you don't even know what race I am, never mind if I'm a racist or not. Listen" --
In the background, my television was blaring the news of the latest escalation: 500 more planes. 8,000 troops to Albania. And for the first time the President had not completely precluded the introduction of ground troops.
"-- people are being bombed, and this is just the beginning. How can you sit there subjecting me to some sectarian political test while NATO is raining death on Belgrade? You had better face up to it, buddy, all your bourgeois liberal friends are for this war, and the only real opposition is on the Right this time around."
But Lance wasn't having any of this, "Listen,' he said, his lisp a little more pronounced, "I am gay and I could not personally abide being on the same platform with a Buchananite."
"And so identity politics trumps your alleged opposition to this war."
"I think you Republicans should go organize your own rally."
"Well, good luck to you in selling a bunch of Serbians on your campaign to free Abu Mumia Jamal. I'll bet that's going over like a lead balloon."
"It's actually going quite well," he replied, a bit defensively.
"Yeah, I'll just bet," I said, slamming down the phone."
Published: September 26, 2005 11:12 AM
Well-done Lew!
"Antiwar" is not at all the same thing as "pacifist". Yet the neo-cons and liberventionists persist in blurring the line between self-defense and agression.
Admiral Yamamoto, when asked (after his stunning attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor) if he had plans to attack the US mainland, said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass".
This indicates he was smart enough to know two things; 1) America (at that time) was a society that still largely left its people free and armed, and; 2) No one fights more fiercely than when he is fighting for home and hearth on his own soil. This indicated that even Yamamoto, he of the daring attacks and Kamikazes understood the vast difference between defense and agression.
Today, we have a "professional" military, and are systematically disarming ordinary citizens while continually building up the armaments of the military and, increasingly disturbingly, private mercenary companies (i.e. Blackwater). We have no domestic capability for defense, having co-opted the state militias into the "National Guard", and we have taken weapons of self-defense away from law abiding citizens. The result of all of this "professionalism" and private soldiering? We are completely unconcerned about the security of our homeland, and are instead engaged in aggressive wars abroad.
It's time to bring ALL our troops home, now.
Published: September 26, 2005 11:36 AM
To Crusader it should be pointed out that it wasn't Iran that imposed a Shiite theocracy in southern Iraq, it was the [Shiite] Iraqis themselves who installed it through the democratic vote that the U.S. government gave them.
Published: September 26, 2005 11:37 AM
What a brilliant speech in such a short space! I sincerely hope that the opportunities for Mr. Rockwell to speak to the “left� increase in frequency and that he is given more time. I’m passing this on to all of my e-mail correspondents.
“Liberals� are easy to convince that tax-and-spend policies are antiquated and will become a thing of the past. The difficulty is in convincing them of the methods for achieving the better ways. People such as Lew Rockwell can do this if they are given the opportunities.
“Liberals� who view capitalism as an evil are small in number, in my experience, and it seems to me that it is the younger members, the same as in the 60s. This isn’t any big deal as anti-capitalism will always be present to some extent. The educational process needs to be changed so that young people are given more opportunities to use critical thinking. Additionally, anyone outside of neoconservative thought can plainly see that there are no TRUE free markets in America or with any of its trading partners, and, without these TRUE free markets, capitalism is corrupted. Lefties seem to believe that free markets are what the Bush administration promotes. This presents a major problem to be overcome. Go Mr. Rockwell!
“. . . he was in a bottle for ten years and is first and foremeost a survivor who had no desire to have U.S. tanks rolling through Baghdad.�
Don Beezley nails the situation absolutely. Saddam couldn’t have gone to the toilet without everyone knowing about it if that is what the “coalition� desired. At one time, America was spending $11,000,000 per DAY in Iraq. How much does it cost to put up a satellite, 5 satellites, 10 satellites? How much does it cost to maintain flyovers? Peanuts in comparison. If the “coalition� pooled its resources, it could have removed Saddam without a shot being fired over time and at a small fraction of the cost. Even making Afghanistan the base for all coalition infrastructure would have had much better results, if the hawks simply could not have resisted taking military action against Iraq.
If America ever is invaded by military forces, we will never stop fighting to get rid of them. Are people of other countries so different from us that they will not do the same? There was never any possibility that the Vietnam “war� would have been won unless America decided to colonize the world. And there is no possibility that the Middle East conflict will ever be won unless it is the intention of the US Federal government to dominate the world.
Comparisons to WWII have no place in discussions of Iraq. Texas has no more right to invade California because Texas does not like what’s going on in California, than the US has to point to anywhere in the world and decide that changes are needed and invasion and destruction will be the methods. California didn’t invade Texas. Iraq didn’t invade the US. Iraq didn’t intend to invade the US. Iraq was not forming coalitions to invade the US. In the overall scheme of things, Iraq was insignificant.
The entire US government suffers from a lack of creativity caused by its managing to gain so much oppressive power that it doesn’t need to be creative. There were plenty of alternatives involving economic motivations that could have been used to bring Iraq into the global economy but they were ignored. I have no doubt that the participants in this forum could come up with workable solutions that could have been used in lieu of invasion and destruction. The whole Iraq affair is as ridiculous as the Federal government that promoted it; what a travesty that people have to die in huge numbers for the world to see it.
Published: September 26, 2005 1:30 PM
A just war is a defensive war. Defensive does not mean pre-emptive. Pre-emption is and always has been a tool of tyrants and demagogues. It's an excuse that can be used to justify virtually anything. Iraq posed no threat to the people of the U.S. There was no legitimate defensive reason to invade. However, the U.S. is no longer a constitutional republic which is concerned with defense of its homeland from would be invaders. Instead it has become a world empire in the Roman sense. Where once it was isolationist, peaceful and industrious it is now interventionist, warmongering, heavily indebted, and squandering the very wealth that brought it into power. We see a threat under every mole hill and an excuse for "pre-emptive," "defensive" warfare around every corner. The Romans justified their wars by virtue of the civilizing influence they had on the savages and barbarians. We do the same only we call it "spreading freedom" or "making the world safe for democracy." Nothing new under the sun.
Published: September 26, 2005 1:40 PM
When exactly, Lew, CAN we commit our forces preventatively around the world...? If we let bad guys (however this started) maneuver their pieces into place we invite disaster ... The "cycle of violence" you want to avoid, I assure you, will escalate any time there is an imbalance of power and the character of the people involved are low (criteria of government officials, to be sure).
Under the Libertarian Nirvana of non-intervention the U.S. would lose against tyrannical states. It's a far better policy to "hold the line" with the use of military force and allow the market eventually to catch up. But that's an interventionist policy because the balance of power shifts. (Besides, corporations can be just as murderous and aggressive as states if and when they get the chance: it's a spiritual problem, not just an economic one)
The article didn't discuss the issues of growing Muslim populations in France, the failure of general Muslim integration into society, the history of the religious conflict, the historical inability of the Muslim states to integrate principles of freedom, the desired establishment of violent theocracies, nor any other strategic reason for our involvment
Nor did it indicate any of our significant present successes against terrorism. Osama has so far failed to unite the Arab world against us. That's huge.
We've a contingent in the U.S. that, frankly, "wants us to lose" because they'd gain politically. They won't say it, but that same group - in their behavior - believes all governments are essentially equal (hence the support of the U.N.) I'd take care to separate yourself explictly (instead of implicitely) from those crackpots, Lew. They're coming out in force.
Maybe we shouldn't be in Iraq or a dozen other places. Unfortunately, none of this article is reasoned to the point where it can be believed. It doesn't pass the "equality of crap" test. ALL sides are full of you-know-what. The truth needs to be told plain and straight, from every rational angle.
Upwards of 1/3 of our politicians probably have wet dreams about ruling the entire globe. But then so do the tyrants in every other nation. Care to bet which is better to live under? And how can we rationally constrain the lunatics in our government and still have a decent foreign policy? That's a much better question than the "Libertarian terrorist" method: bitch and run.
Improvement dictates that we have a rational and unexpected strategy. Frankly, I wish we'd bring back freedom radio and broadcast into the Arab nations
Broadening the subject: The whole theory of Libertarianism is just nonsense -- totally against the nature of man. You shouldn't be able to (following Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty) allow your children to starve, or abort them post-birth until they are "fully human" according to their "ability to reason", you shouldn't be able to marry your sister. Sorry, proper state action isn't coincident solely with limiting the initiation of violence and fulfilling contracts. If that's the foundation of liberalism it is just nonsense. I'll go for an "occasional interventionist, pro-balance-of-power, conservative" viewpoint. But if you don't, it's my (perhaps poor) opinion you need a better rounded viewpoint.
Published: September 26, 2005 1:41 PM
President Bush understands very well the evils
of imperialism, the slave state and the other evils you decry.
That is why we went to war. We want to give
Iraqis a chance a freedom and democracy. To
ignore these evils in Iraq is to implicity
approve them.
Thank God we are fighting this war.
Published: September 26, 2005 2:16 PM
President Bush understands very well the evils
of imperialism, the slave state and the other evils you decry.
That is why we went to war. We want to give
Iraqis a chance a freedom and democracy. To
ignore these evils in Iraq is to implicity
approve them.
Thank God we are fighting this war.
Published: September 26, 2005 2:16 PM
President Bush understands very well the evils
of imperialism, the slave state and the other evils you decry.
That is why we went to war. We want to give
Iraqis a chance a freedom and democracy. To
ignore these evils in Iraq is to implicity
approve them.
Thank God we are fighting this war.
Published: September 26, 2005 2:16 PM
Hi Jim,
I hate to disagree with you, but not only is libertarianism the only political philosphy completely compatible with natural law, it is the ONLY sensible, ethical way to live. Don't believe me? Ask 10 of your neighbors the following questions;
1) Would you under any circumstances aggress against me and take my property, freedom or life?
2) Would you help me if someone tried to do that?
I guarantee the vast majority would answer "no" to the first, and "yes" to the second. And if I lived in a neighborhood where that wasn't the case, I'd move.
Most ordinary people want only to be left alone to live their lives in peace. It takes crooks and politicians (I repeat myself) to wage violence and war.
Published: September 26, 2005 2:20 PM
Robert Heltman:
"1 - To just exist means to 'interfer' in the lives of others. Islam states infidels are to be killed, so just existing as a Chlristian or Jew is to 'interfer' - get real on this sort of reality. Ditto Hitler's desire for Lebensraum (room to live); he conjured up the notion that Jews and other undesireables were 'interfering.'"
Neither the Islamic sacred texts nor the Islamic tradition state that infidels are to be killed. Indeed, there's a long history of Islamic states not only tolerating, but providing equal legal rights to Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and other non-Muslims.
What Muslims are supposed to believe is that government should be controlled by Muslims and operated in accord with Islamic law. Non-Muslims who interfere with this may be killed to advance this putatively holy purpose.
Now substitute "Zionists" for "Muslims" and "Jewish" for "Islamic", and that pretty much describes the State of Israel.
"2 - Years of gutless non-response by Clinton led to 3000 US deaths in the Twin Towers; tyrants are embolden unless slapped down. Clinton failed to have backbone; busy soiling blue dresses I guess."
Decades of interference in the Mideast -- vast deployments of military, economic, and diplomatic aid to Israel; the CIA-sponsored coups against Islamic regimes; the so-called Gulf War; the ruthless economic sanctions against Iraq: all being highlights of such interference -- coupled with the easy borders engendered by the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, are what led to the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Your solution: Let's interfere in the Mideast even more. That'll teach 'em.
"3 - Bush's plan to take the war over there makes sense. Don't forget that the whole WMD thing was believed by both sides of the aisle, Britain, etc. and Saddam kept UN inspectors away from finding the truth for years...along with what, 11 or was it 17 disregards of UN orders. Bush had the guts to DO something.
It is easy to keep a theoretical outlook about why war is bad. It IS bad. Slavery is worse. So is getting increasingly whacked by a bully (fanatical Islam of late). Killing those whose first intent has been shown to kill you is smart, if you desire to survive, especially if they strike first."
Actually Iraq had become pretty cooperative with the inspectors in recents years. Rather there was aggressive denial by the Bush regime that inspectors had been shown the *real* hiding places where our regime's faked-up intelligence pretended WMDs were hidden.
Not that such WMDs should've been any of our business in the first place. Iraq was never a threat to us, though it would've been understandable that, after all the harm we'd been doing to it, that its regime would've been looked for ways to defend itself. (It didn't even do that, as it turned out.)
"Bush had the guts to DO something"? Yes, he had the guts to do something incredibly stupid, wasteful, counterproductive, murderous, treasonous, criminal.
"Killing those whose first intent has been shown to kill you is smart, if you desire to survive, especially if they strike first."
So what are you saying? That we ought to hunt down and murder every Muslim on earth?
Of course, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even the Bush regime mass murderers have dropped that lie. But according to you we ought to go around invading places like Iraq because, well, it's full of Muslims. That'll teach 'em.
Published: September 26, 2005 2:22 PM
So since the purpose of the war is to give Iraqis a chance for freedom and democracy and to stop human rights violations then I guess next we'll be invading Iran, Syria, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, pretty much every African country and oh yeah, don't forget North Korea and China. I know it sounds like a lot, but hey, we're America so if you don't like it you can go join the terrorists. We're just making the world safe for everyone and making sure everyone can vote. Yeah, we'll have to kill a lot of people to do it but we think its worth it and that's all that matters.
Published: September 26, 2005 2:32 PM
We can talk about war in general or war in Iraq in particular.
In general, I can bring up WWII. It shows that waiting for the enemy to invade is a mistake. And no, it didn't create a Communist dictatorship because Stalin was already in power by then, dividing up Eastern Europe, and strong enough to fight WWII.
And speaking of moral consistency, you Libertarians admonish the US for creating tyrants, yet you advocate doing business with them instead of fighting them. Same with Hitler as with Saddam. And you have different standards for individuals and countries. Would you really wait for someone to attack you before doing anything? Would you do business with an abusive father who threatens his neighbors?
Regarding Iraq, Saddam had over 20 violations, the least of which was WMD, but easier to sell to the public. You bring up the sanctions, but forget about the de-facto war over the no-fly zone. And here's the connection between Saddam and terrorism.
http://www.husseinandterror.com
The Iraq Intelligence Commission concluded that the intelligence was dead wrong, but not cooked up. Iraq became a quagmire because of poor planning and false expectations. Obviously, don't go in if you don't expect to win.
And the ends didn't justify the means. If that were the case, we'd have killed a lot more. As it stands, Saddam killed 15K Iraqis per year over 20 years, while the US killed some 15-20K civilians over two years (mostly in the initial invasion and Fallujah), while the insurgents killed the other 10K. About 2K US troops died, most in car accidents, which is about the number killed in the first HOUR of the invasion of Normandy.
PS. Ask me about the Crusades. Perhaps you have a false impression of them.
Published: September 26, 2005 2:33 PM
Any one speaking against the organized killing of other human beings is first and foremost the best of human beings, a true believer in the equality of all, and one to be heard and listened to.
The USA will cease to exist not as a result of socalled terroristic acts but because Americans stopped believing and practicing what Lew Rockwell warned his audience about.
As a veteran explained why he could not attend the Washington rally against the war. I have no money and no legs to stand on. Hopefully someone will speak on my behalf against the insanity of war.
Bravo. And thanks Mr. Rockwell
Published: September 26, 2005 2:36 PM
Crusader,
Bringing up WWII without mentioning the effects of America's entry into WWI, the humiliation and starvation dealt out to Germany, and how it aided and abetted the rise of both Hitler and Stalin is trying to draw a lesson from a vacuum. It isn't helpful. Neither are references to the crusades. If the US hadn't stupidly entered WWI, WWII might never have happened. Name to me one good result of any war the US has fought since 1900.
Published: September 26, 2005 3:18 PM
Perhaps there could have been more time spent with the balancing act. While there was initial concern with the speech's potential failings, it appears as though the concern was quickly discarded in favor of kowtowing. The result was devoid of any balance, and instead, resulted in parallel rhetoric that provided the audience with no value added.
While well intentioned, Lew did a disservice to himself and the Mises Institute.
Published: September 26, 2005 3:28 PM
Is this the same Llewellyn Rockwell that refused to go to Iraq to teach economics because he opposed the US government's policy their?
Published: September 26, 2005 4:31 PM
Freedom Lover,
The speech was perfect for the time allowed. Most important of all is that lots of people will be interested in finding out more about Libertarianism. Additonally, many will then delve further and, hopefully, begin to learn about Austrian Economics and REAL free trade.
A famous line from a famous literary giant: To be or not to be.
Do Libertarians want Libertarianism to become widespread or not? Congratulations to Mr. Rockwell for doing what he could. And congratulations to those who invited him. And if any of those who heard Lew Rockwell are viewing these posts, congratulations to them for wanting to learn more about real solutions to economic problems.
Published: September 26, 2005 5:12 PM
I wonder if anyone was "enlightened" by Lew's speech? My suspicion is no.
But Mr. Rockwell's words certainly could be mistaken (deliberately, but nonetheless so) by those adamantly _opposed_ to the values that he says he promotes.
As such, Rockwell does nothing but encourage the stupid and unthinking to remain so, and gives them easy fodder to "quote a famous guy" in their cause.
This is such a common occurance with Rockwell, that one wonders whose "side" he is on. He (unwittingly or unknowingly?) defends Red China, Iraq, et al ... whose regimes are/were brutal, despotic and the very antithesis of "capitalist" or "free market", but slams the best real world example of free minds and free markets at all times for all takers.
I raised this very point a few years ago on Lee Rogers afternoon radio program in San Francisco, where Rockwell was a guest. He defended CHINA with almost gushing adolescent glee, but slammed the U.S. as being "anti free market".
When challenged on the facts of this nonsense, and asked directly whether China or the U.S. were more capitalist, Mr. Rockwell hemmed-and-hawed for a full 20 seconds until a hard break occured. "Saved by the bell", Rockwell failed to ever answer the question after the commercials were finished.
It strains credulity that someone like him can be so often "misunderstood" as defending TRUE tyrants, while bashing flawed but vastly better men at every turn.
Published: September 26, 2005 5:20 PM
"flawed but vastly better men"? If you're referring to the fine men in Washington you're straining "credulity" a bit yourself there W.A.
Published: September 26, 2005 6:26 PM
David Morgan,
Crusader (!),
Jim Bradely.
Your amnesia is convenient indeed. But it blinds you to a threat that will hurt you terribly in the long run.
Note that it was your political leaders who empowered Saddam in the first place. Oh yes they did. Presumably it was for "self-defense" against Iran (which had previously been done in by your mob for the purpose of "self-defense against the USSR). So you are the ones who financed and armed Saddam's Iraq. Next you encouraged his war with Iran. Well done! Millions dead. Then you encouraged his invasion of Kuwait. Well done again! More dead. Later it was your exalted leaders (to whom you pay your homage and tributes) who led you to wage war against Saddam.
For over a decade you have run a campaign against Iraq and accomplished.... absolutely not much at all. Certainly none of these actions achieved freedom or peace or the creation of wealth. And none achieved enhanced security...
There has been a lot of rhetoric from your mob but it is so obviously false. You may believe in it but most people do not. And that is an increasingly big problem for you.
Now the developing situation is that all over the World people hate the USA and what it stands for (thanks to you and your ideas). They do not see Capitalism or Liberalism and any of the good things. They remember that which they directly experienced at your hands: lies, murder, prejudice, theft, fraud, torture, rape, destruction, pestilence and war.
Yes, people do hear your smug self-justifications. They simply do not believe in it. They have ample justification not to.
Guess what. They hate you. They want to kill you off, since that's the only option you leave open for them. How else are they ever going to see the back of you?
Remember, most people KNOW you as dishonest and as violent invaders. It is not a good reputation to have. Think on this.
Repent.
Published: September 26, 2005 7:44 PM
David Morgan,
Crusader (!),
Jim Bradely.
Your amnesia is convenient indeed. But it blinds you to a threat that will hurt you terribly in the long run.
Note that it was your political leaders who empowered Saddam in the first place. Oh yes they did. Presumably it was for "self-defense" against Iran (which had previously been done in by your mob for the purpose of "self-defense against the USSR). So you are the ones who financed and armed Saddam's Iraq. Next you encouraged his war with Iran. Well done! Millions dead. Then you encouraged his invasion of Kuwait. Well done again! More dead. Later it was your exalted leaders (to whom you pay your homage and tributes) who led you to wage war against Saddam.
For over a decade you have run a campaign against Iraq and accomplished.... absolutely not much at all. Certainly none of these actions achieved freedom or peace or the creation of wealth. And none achieved enhanced security...
There has been a lot of rhetoric from your mob but it is so obviously false. You may believe in it but most people do not. And that is an increasingly big problem for you.
Now the developing situation is that all over the World people hate the USA and what it stands for (thanks to you and your ideas). They do not see Capitalism or Liberalism and any of the good things. They remember that which they directly experienced at your hands: lies, murder, prejudice, theft, fraud, torture, rape, destruction, pestilence and war.
Yes, people do hear your smug self-justifications. They simply do not believe in it. They have ample justification not to.
Guess what. They hate you. They want to kill you off, since that's the only option you leave open for them. How else are they ever going to see the back of you?
Remember, most people KNOW you as dishonest and as violent invaders. It is not a good reputation to have. Think on this.
Repent.
Published: September 26, 2005 7:44 PM
You cannot CLEARLY perceive a vast chasm of difference between the likes of a George Bush or even - gasp - Bill Clinton and the monsters in charge of China or Saddam Hussein?
Clarity is important. If I said that there was "no difference" between Jeffrey Dahmer and Pee Wee Herman - because they are both "law breakers", that's a gross distortion of reality, even though they both factually share the title "law breaker".
Similarly, although one can accurately ascribe all sorts of statist tendencies to many in our government, it is a stretch to defend those who openly murder their own citizens AS A MATTER OF STATE POLICY, and those who do stupid, misguided things like increase taxes, expand state controls over private property, or go to war over what can only be called mistaken reasoning in hindsight.
I think that's clear to anyone who cares to genuinely think it through. It's not a defense of statism or of those who advocate it by whatever name, but it IS putting things in reasonable perspective.
And it's not especially difficult to be clear about those distinctions, it's not all that subtle.
Which is why I find Rockwell's propensity to appear to be "on the wrong side" of his own stated principles perplexing. Certainly he is gifted enough with language to choose his venues and words better.
Even if the _effect_ is to support the enemies of free minds and free markets, the claim that one _intended_ to educate them may be acceptable. But if one is continually being "misunderstood" about such things, then the speaker is either being disingenuous or is incapable of understanding the power and effect of their own words.
How effective can any such spokesman be for any cause or position?
Published: September 26, 2005 7:50 PM
I LOVE it Lew! I like how you went as far back as St Augustine. The last paragraph really stirred my spirt!
Published: September 26, 2005 8:58 PM
Although well written, I dont think it was a very good Libertarian speech.
I fail to see why there is a desire amongst followers and advocates of Libertarianism to 'spread the word', especially at an anti-war rally. In the end principles are usually compromised to make a consistent (or extreme depending on your point of view) set of ethics palatable to the general public. This causes far more harm than good.
Compare this website to the speech as a method of advocating Libertarianism. People who are interested in the ideas will come, read, think and then decide whether they agree or not. The big difference is that they had to exercise their volition to actively pursue these ideas.
A speech at a random and frankly intellectually dubious and non-receptive rally seems to be not only a waste of time but counter productive as Libertarianism does not seem to be truly represented.
Published: September 26, 2005 9:03 PM
W. A. Scheer, et al.:
What you fail to understand is the insidiousness of the state in its modern form -- i.e., the "soft" totalitarianism that Tocqueville so presciently foresaw over 170 years ago. Today's welfare socialism is not only as murderous as its more nakedly oppressive predecessors; it is more so in that it murders not only human beings but the human spirit. Which is to say that the "banality of evil" that Hannah Arendt saw in the Nazi concentration camps is even more evident in the killing fields of the welfare state. Couple this with military interventionism that has nothing to do with national security and everthing to do with empire, and you've got what we now have: a nation teetering on the brink, bankrupt both morally and financially, with nowhere to go but back to its roots.
And the sooner we get there, the better.
Published: September 26, 2005 9:04 PM
W.A. Scheer:
"... it is a stretch to defend those who openly murder their own citizens AS A MATTER OF STATE POLICY, and those who do stupid, misguided things like increase taxes, expand state controls over private property, or go to war over what can only be called mistaken reasoning in hindsight."
Well, no one is defending Saddam, and you're forgetting about Waco, Texas. But I agree with you that ours is far from the most tyrannical government internally. As Hans Hoppe has pointed out, the most liberal nations internally tend to be the most aggressive in their foreign policy. This is because the free market generates so much wealth that a large amount of it (in absolute terms) can be siphoned off to the military without upsetting the public too much.
(By the way, you're flat wrong when you say "mistaken reasoning" -- these guys knew exactly what they were doing. There are many people and groups that benefit from war.)
I think the reason Lew and the rest of us criticize Bush specifically is not that he's worse or even close to being as bad as tyrants like Saddam, but because (1) he's our president acting in our names using our resources, and (2) he has by far the most resources at his disposal of anyone on the planet with which to wreak murder and mayhem.
One more point: to all the posters who have tried to justify the war by pointing out how tyrannical Saddam was to his own people; what you're advocating is a welfare program, where the recipients are non-U.S. citizens. If you're a conservative or liberventionist, you are presumably against domestic welfare. How do you justify foreign welfare? It has the same problems as normal welfare programs: (1) it is immoral to steal from some to help others, regardless of how noble the cause, and (2) in the long run, it harms the recipients.
I suggest you think of this war as a giant welfare program, and then you may begin to see it more clearly and oppose it.
Published: September 26, 2005 9:09 PM
"Name to me one good result of any war the US has fought since 1900."
Umm, defeated Fascists, saved South Korea, bankrupted Soviets, saved Kuwait, brought down the Taliban, prompted Libya to abandon its nuclear program and Syria to pull out of Lebanon.
Sione Vatu, should the US do business with dictators or not? For instance, exchanging oil for weapons. Russia and China have no problem doing it.
And who hates us so much? Muslims always hate us "liberals". Communists are always sore losers. Africa doesn't care. Eastern Europe, India, Australia, love us. And then, there's EU, namely Germany and France, who project the guilt over their own empirialist past onto us, but they don't want to kill us off.
Sounds like Larry Ruane would call the abolishment of slavery a giant immoral welfare program, since it steals from the rich plantation owners to help slaves.
Published: September 26, 2005 10:06 PM
W.A. Sheer,
“You cannot CLEARLY perceive a vast chasm of difference between the likes of a George Bush or even - gasp - Bill Clinton and the monsters in charge of China or Saddam Hussein?�
Without a doubt, the differences are clear. But does this mean that an invasion of China is on the horizon? And George Bush might be a great guy, but the administration he fronts for wants a new Fatherland, minus violence against America’s citizens thus far.
“Similarly, although one can accurately ascribe all sorts of statist tendencies to many in our government, it is a stretch to defend those who openly murder their own citizens AS A MATTER OF STATE POLICY, and those who do stupid, misguided things like increase taxes, expand state controls over private property, or go to war over what can only be called mistaken reasoning in hindsight.�
Forgive me if I missed something, but I haven’t yet seen anybody defend the murder of citizens. I HAVE seen many statements that suggest, strongly, that we don’t have the right to invasion. Additionally, after “success� from an invasion, is not the question ALWAYS, “Okay. That’s done. Who’s next? Who else is acting against what we think is right?�
“I think that's clear to anyone who cares to genuinely think it through. It's not a defense of statism or of those who advocate it by whatever name, but it IS putting things in reasonable perspective.�
That would be YOUR perspective that you wish to project on others, would it not?
“Even if the _effect_ is to support the enemies of free minds and free markets, the claim that one _intended_ to educate them may be acceptable.�
Who are the enemies of free minds? Certainly you cannot be liberal-bashing; liberals are the ones the neocons want to stop from free thinking. And surely you’re not suggesting that the neocons have been promoting free markets or, for that matter, anything even resembling free markets!
“How effective can any such spokesman be for any cause or position?�
As you have asked for a response from nobody in particular, the answer is VERY effective.
Published: September 26, 2005 10:23 PM
Daniel,
I’m uncertain as to your viewpoint on making Libertarianism widely accepted. As a disgruntled Democrat, who originally came from being a disgruntled Republican, I sought out differing ideologies. I found Libertarianism in that search and then, just recently, was introduced the Mises Institute by a brilliant and articulate lady who has her own pro-Liberty website. However, had I not previously been introduced, and had I heard the subject Lew Rockwell speech, even as short as it was, it would have caused me to investigate further.
Does it matter how one is encouraged to investigate Libertarianism? You do want Libertarianism to be widely accepted, don’t you? I guess I’m asking for clarification. Are you concerned that the speech might give the wrong impression? If so, it seems to me that it was a good thing for it to be short. It was tantalizing enough to stimulate interest but not specific enough to be misinterpreted by a reasoning person. What do you think?
Published: September 26, 2005 10:54 PM
You know, I stopped paying any attention to Lew when his blog became a froth-at-the-mouth antiwar diatribe with no hope for sensible disagreement and all together too many antiwar nutjobs being given an open mike to rant and rail about how nothing was going to happen and everything was utterly wrong.
It's been about 3 years now, and, unless your only source of information is the twits at the MSMs, it's not the hopeless quagmire Lew, his nutjobs, or the antiwar left idiots were utterly CERTAIN it was going to be. In fact, events are not half bad by any means. Lew, of course, would disagree. I really, really couldn't give a rat's ass, and the chief reason for that was when he responded to poll data which suggested he was wrong about Iraqi perception of our presence there by claiming the poll was clearly untrustworthy because no one was going to give "real" answers to a pollster who went around with a bodyguard. That there was plenty of other evidence to support that poll was lost on him. That there are certainly ways to design a poll which deals with that problem was lost on him. In short, he was out to have his view and damn whatever the data available said.
I've kept reading the articles at Mises because, for the most part, they avoided getting political. I think you should keep that separation in place when it comes to Iraq. I consider the Isolationist policy of Libertarians to be the primary thing holding it back from exploding. There are lots of people unhappy with the economic behavior of the GOP, who won't begin to consider switching to the even worse Dems. Libertarians need to get a grip on the simple fact that the USA is no longer the poor agrarian state we once were. We are the Top Dog, and as TD, we are ALWAYS going to have people aiming for us -- not because of ANYTHING we do, have done, or will do -- but SOLELY because we are the Top Dog. As such, we cannot take on a "leave them alone and they'll leave us alone" attitude. It's simply preposterous to the point of sheer, unmitigated stupidity.
Libertarians *could* become the "other" major party, as the Moonbat Left continues to drive the Dems into the ground, as centrist Dems defect to the GOP, which shifts it more and more towards statism. Libertarians have an alternative -- but only if they grasp the notion that they need to find a middle ground between NO action and TOO MUCH action, instead of presuming that NO action will work simply because it did during the 1800s when we were a second-rate nation with two huge moats protecting us from the rest of the world.
..Of course, with Moonbat Libertarians like Lew connecting them to the Moonbat Left (one has to ask about associating Libertarians with the force behind ANSWER -- the Stalinist Workers World Party) there is no possibility for growth.
Right there, someone, somewhere, should be asking themselves: "What the HELL are we doing!?! This CAN'T be right!"
Regardless -- you can feel free to watch the ship sink, if you want, and go down knowing that you were the one -telling- them that "bailing wasn't enough, they had to plug the leak", instead of doing something -yourself- about plugging said leak.
Me? I've got leaks to plug. That isn't going to happen by joining the moonbats in their frothing diatribes. No one listens to them -except- the Major Media. That is -not- going to change.
Published: September 27, 2005 12:58 AM
Dear Bob,
In my personal opinion, I would like Libertarianism to be accepted, but only if people truly digest the concepts on their own. For this to happen, I believe that people need to be actively seeking for a code of ethics rather than being on the receiving end of a "sales pitch" (Im sorry, Im not THAT critcal with the speech, but it was the only term that I could think of).
The essential problems with actively trying to find converts, as opposed to assisting those who want to be converted, is that the message gets distorted along the way. Its a death of a thousand cuts, starting with minor inconsistencies or comments that are open to different interpretations. Sorry to be picky, but Id like to refer to Lew's comment to "Keep making the sacrifice" in the final paragraph. That phrase conveys the kind of sentiment that can easily be misconstrued.
In summation, I think the most positive promotion is allowing there to be resources to be accessed by people like yourself who were disgruntled with your previous values/ideologies. I, for one, would be content if Libertarianism had a smaller group with consistent definitions and ethics rather than a more "popular" but more ill-defined set of adherents.
Cheers
Published: September 27, 2005 1:07 AM
Who was President when we sent the Navy to "the shores of Tripoli" to clear out terrorists (pirates) that were seizing American commercial ships. He's the one that started it all.
Saddam had a clear shot to take over a large portion of the oil of the Middle East. Why he didn't keep going and attempt to seize some or all of the Saudi fields when he had a clear shot, I do not know. But I think he could have succeeded in keeping much of his gains since no one at the time had the resources in strategic position to stop him.
Iran is going nuclear soon. Missile technology is becoming commonplace enough that they gain immense strategic advantage before this decade is out. At least for now they do not have a clear shot at the rest of the ME oil. There are a few US troops in their way. But once they go nuclear we are in a new Cold War. Unless it gets Hot. Are we sure the Fundamentalists in control in Iran are as rational as the Soviets turned out to be. Do they love life more than death? Perhaps. I'd hate to be wrong.
That is why we are in Iraq. It is a strategic position to try to stop Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria and Saudi Arabia). It is also true Saddam had been working with terrorists. He had money and intellectual knowledge from his various programs he could have passed on to others. It is not realistic to think that we can defend the US shores by positioning troops and ships at our borders and shores. Technology has changed a lot of the strategic considerations of war. They CAN hit us at home without a conventional navy, army and air force capable of projecting power. The reasoning here on this blog is stuck on 9/10.
Yes, maybe we had a chance to stop this in 1900. It's long past any point that we could reverse the last 100 years (even if I were to grant your point that they were grievous mistakes on the US part). So your implied reasoning is that we should pull all our troops home and "disentangle" from all these areas. Station ourselves around our borders. And then everyone would say, "those Americans are really nice people now, we'll leave them alone". But what if they said "those Americans sure have a lot of wealth and all that empty land, and all those natural resources and man-made infrastructure. Let's get it for ourselves". Would they need to actually invade? Or do they have other ways of hitting that could make us surrender. Like you said, wait a few years and those leftys at your rally will disarm us all anyway. Do you really think they listened to you about freedom and natural rights etc? Do you really think the WWP and those other groups do not understand what their ultimate victory would end up looking like? They do not want what you want. You were speaking to the core socialists and I do not think you changed any minds. They will disarm us and take over themselves. Unless of course, someone beats them to it.
Osama - Americans love their life. We love our glorious deaths.
Lew - if you're wrong, what are the consequences?
After 9/11 we had two choices. Take the fight to them. Or sit back and hope they can not continue to take the fight to us. It's not a pretty choice. Both involve fighting a war. One involves fighting it in the US and the other mostly outside the US. Both have their nasty consequences. If we choose and choose wrongly, which has the worst consequences?
Published: September 27, 2005 3:19 AM
If the world beyond the United States was filled with countries like present day Switzerland our security needs would be minimal. But it is not.
It is a shame that Libertarians are so incapable of realistically assessing the foreign threats to our lives, our liberty and our property, while being so adept at challenging the ones we've grown at home.
The market process is a discovery procedure in which alert entrepreneurs act in order to gain; shouldn't that quality of alertness be available to defend and secure that which has been gained, as well?
Both begin with a sober understanding of the world as it is. And in neither case will passivity serve you well. Active searching is required.
If you understand the subjective nature of value, then you know that many people out in the world will not give a crap about free minds, free markets, natural rights, or the roundaboutness of production, but might instead value more highly the sight of you and your children being forced to brey to Mecca five times a day.
Or the sight of a few more American cities in chaos, or a few thousand more Americans dead.
If Libertarian meant defending liberty by being willing to pick up a gun to defend it, judging from the comments above, there aren't many Libertarians here. Or am I wrong?
Do I have an implied mutual defense pact with you American Libertarians, or not?
Does being an American mean being willing to come to the defense of fellow Americans? Or are they no different to you all than, say, Englishmen?
I'm beginning to think that 'Libertarian' means, to sit around and gripe while others do the heavy lifting.
(Note: this was not a commentary on the war in Iraq.)
Published: September 27, 2005 3:59 AM
Get real, Peter. NOBODY is in a position to invade the United States. There's only one country capable of projecting the amount of military might necessary to even consider such an undertaking, and that's the United States itself. And if you hadn't noticed, Iraqi peasants are giving us, the world's only military superpower, a hell of a time. To suggest that anyone could realistically pose an invasion threat to the United States is insanity.
The reason others attack us is because we constantly do things to piss them off. We maintain military bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's made a lot of Muslims angry for years. We invade Arab nations and then start spouting rhetoric about Democracy. In the past we installed brutal puppet governments, generating decades of anti-American sentiment that still continues to this day.
Our recklessness on the global stage is why we find enemies at every turn; you use the existence of people who hate us to justify further aggravating international misadventures. That's a great example of trying to solve a problem by doing even more of the things that caused the problem in the first place.
You can't get out of a pit by digging deeper, so pardon us if we're not scrambling to help you shovel.
Published: September 27, 2005 4:31 AM
If you play chess with someone who you know is obliged to play by the rules whereas you don't, this is a great advantage to you. You'd just use your knight to jump the board, take the kind and run off with the queen.
I'm sure the comparison could be bettered but isn't the APPLICATION of libertarian theory a bit like this? i.e. others can respond to your rules to their own favour.
If some nations follow a libertarian policy this can be a major tactical advantage to those that don't and who have extremely different values than those you are trying to protect.
I am trying not to give any topical examples as I have learnt through tedious and repetitive experience that any contemporary problem anywhere on earth will be regressed by libertarians to being America's fault in the first place.
Published: September 27, 2005 4:48 AM
It seems to me that both right and left make the same mistake,viz wanting to intervene/not wanting to intervene based mainly on ideological reasons. The very left that cheered the arrest and attmepted extradition of General Augusto Pinochet decried the NATO intervention in Kosovo because Milosevic was "anti-imperialist" and "socialist".
The right( mainly the Wall Street Journal) opposed it, arguing that Britain and Spain should not interfere in Chile's internal affairs( which lead me to wonder if the Journal would have taken a different view had Castro been in the dock).
"Sovereignty" has become a sacred cow for both sides even though in the era of globalisation, CNN and the internet, it has become a formality.
There are no easy answers I admit( even if I did oppose the Iraq war but approved Desert Storm, Kosovo and the campaign against the Taliban-how's that for ideological inconsistency).
Published: September 27, 2005 4:57 AM
To the contrary Jonathan, I think attacking a Libertarian state would be more dangerous than attacking a society protected by a conventional government and military.
Governments respond with consideration to politics and international diplomacy. Individuals and smaller groups act out of expediency, world opinion be damned. Not only is negotiating a truce more difficult when facing a decentralized military structure, it's also more difficult to cripple it by severing communication with a central command. The United States has never been defeated by a conventional army, but armed civilian resistance has fought us to a standstill in the past and probably will again in the future.
Published: September 27, 2005 6:18 AM
Well-said, Ryan!
Published: September 27, 2005 7:04 AM
It is interesting that a lack of appreciation of methodological individualism leads to crass comments about "us" doing business with dictators. Leaving aside the fact that most western countries actually have been trading with countries ruled by dictators, the point being lost is that individuals are supposed to do the trading, form dependencies and get rather less interested in waging wars for material "gain". It's quite possible to buy something from a Muslim without problems. It happens with great frequency in the world already.
Wherever the deals are made by national governments, that's a different thing entirely. If things get transformed into territorial nationalism, that's when the barbarity ensues...
Published: September 27, 2005 8:18 AM
Nick:
Keep up the good work of not “paying any attention to Lew�. And thanks for pointing out Lew’s observation that this Iraq poll “…was clearly untrustworthy because no one was going to give "real" answers to a pollster who went around with a bodyguard�. That was quite funny. It just goes to show how Lew will look for any little nit to pick to suggest things are not that rosy over in Iraq. After all, what is so disconcerting or significant about a pollster requiring a bodyguard?
Published: September 27, 2005 9:06 AM
Ryan,
your logic can be used to undermine the libertarian position ... if attacking a libertarian state is 'more dangerous than attacking a society protected by a conventional government and military' because 'negotiating a truce (is) more difficult when facing a decentralized military structure, it's also more difficult to cripple it by severing communication with a central command', then presumably it is rather difficult for a libertarian nation with a 'decentralized military structure' to defend itself against a 'central command' and a centralised mililtaristic aggressor?
Citing American examples to support the notion that libertarian states would be tough to beat is very selective. The USA is blessed with wealth, relative freedom, good geography, resources, friendly neighbours etc. A theocratic nuclear armed state would find a neigbouring small libertarian neighbour a bit of a pushover and this is not far fetched.
To forestall usual abuse, I am not American, I don't like Bush or his interventions in Middle East etc. and totally agree that recently most government intervention has been poorly judged.
I simply disagree with the libertarians extreme position on basically waiting to be attacked before responding, it's plain silly especially if opponents know you are straightjacketed by those rules by which they dont have to play.
Ask a card player if he'd rather play a game where the players all follow same rules, or where he has special exemptions.
Published: September 27, 2005 9:14 AM
Hi Jonathan,
Where, in defense of our sovreign territory, has anyone here said we would be bound by "rules"? If we were invaded, I envision a libertarian US would make the lives of invaders miserable enough that they would leave pretty quickly.
If you are speaking of the "non-aggression maxim" of libertarianism, I don't see how that constrains us from defensive action in any way. It does, however, restrain us from attacking another sovreign country that represented no threat to us whatsoever.
By staying out of other countries' business, as we have failed to do for the last 100+ years, the likelihood of an attack like 9/11 would be reduced to an immeasurable level.
But let's address your scenario - let's say we had a purely defensive military capability, and we were attacked with a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb - how could the death and destruction therefrom hope to rival what we have already wrought using conventional weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan? And how could the cost of capturing and prosecuting the people responsible approach the cost ($200 BN)of the current "War on Terrorism"?
By the way, did we ever capture the mastermind of 9/11? No? What makes us so sure he won't do it, or something worse again?
Published: September 27, 2005 9:30 AM
Peter Matias,
"If Libertarian meant defending liberty by being willing to pick up a gun to defend it, judging from the comments above, there aren't many Libertarians here. Or am I wrong?"
Are you wrong? That's far too subtle a word. That statement is also used frequently to describe liberals in general, also a load of crap. One of the few good things to come out of the Bush regime is that it has made the goal to ensure that neocons don't have all the guns a top priority of the anti-neocon left. In fact, ANY good thing I can find coming from the Bush regime is actually opposite of what was intended.
Published: September 27, 2005 9:50 AM
Hi Jonathan:
What some libertarians would propose, militarily speaking, is a defensive attitude along the lines of what the Swiss took during WWII and prior. The Swiss (lacking several of the assets you enumerate for the US) have had a pretty good track record with this approach, by the way. I believe it is based on the following truth: As much as the despots of the world enjoy expanding their empire, they are very much the cowards one would estimate them to be. They don't want to die for their "cause". Of course, they'd have their subjects die for their cause. Anyways, the Swiss were an unfavorable target of conquest because (for one reason) they had an unusual philosophy of targeting for assassination aggressive heads of state and their top military brass. It's a simple, direct and effective approach which solves a single problem and a myriad of symptoms all at once. There is no reason an American libertarian culture could not have similar success with such an approach.
Secondly, since the Swiss have had a policy of non-intervention, they don’t disturb the wrath of those who would murder the innocent subjects of a more interventionist state. If you read an interview with bin Laden, you will notice that he makes a point of this himself. They don’t target the people of countries (western or otherwise) whose states don’t inflict or support the death and destruction of Muslim nations.
It is sad that some people think the reason the United States is the focus of terror attacks is because it is the beacon of western values, or the leader in affluence and or decadence. Ignorance is no protection from the truth that the US government brings on this animosity via its aggressive and deadly foreign policy. Terror is the only means of war for the poorer countries of the world. How does the saying go? War is how the rich man inflicts terror, and terror is how the poor man inflicts war. So on it goes.
Published: September 27, 2005 9:55 AM
Provactive. Well done.
I believe that any philosophy of governing is based upon shifting the power of government (and/or its elements) versus the power of people (and/or their elements). Regardless of how you mix it up, their are advantages that can be exploited by ruthless people who seek power and use the system of governing to fulfill their ambitions.
I believe that it is fundamental flaw of human nature that when a person feels that they have power they will eventually be corrupted by that power. This happens in business, social groups, and just about every type of organization that exists, but it is most pronounced in government.
When a President feels that he has the power to put forth his own agenda, we should expect to see wide-scale corruption and abuse such as with our war in Iraq. We see power deranged speeches of a man who believes that he could win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by promoting a state of occupation that has escalated the levels of terrorism, and cost the Iraq people untold hardships and suffering.
But how many people stop to realize that We, the people, gave this President this power. We opened the door with our outrage over 911. The people hastily agreed to a loss of rights in the spirit of deterring terrorism. We stood silent as the President rattled his saber. We stood silent as he promised to bring Osama Bin Laden to Justice. We stood silent as the shock and awe was laid down on Baghdad. We were awestruck by the torture US Soldiers carried out, but we did not protest. We stood in fear that we would be judged as un-American if we objected to anything in the Presidents agenda. We accepted the Presidents right not to allow protestors at his election rallies. We accepted the tampering with the election processes. We are now paying the price for the power that We relinquished.
Published: September 27, 2005 10:08 AM
Vince,
I am addressing the non aggression axiom, correct.
With all due respect you are going down the usual cornered libertarian route of ranting but not really addressing the question at hand.
Your questions don't really defend the libertarian position do they? Asking 'did we ever capture the mastermind of 9/11? No? What makes us so sure he won't do it, or something worse again?' could be met by a neocon's agreement and request for more funds to find them as opposed to your interpretation that we shouldn't have bothered looking?
Your question 'let's say we had a purely defensive military capability, and we were attacked with a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb - how could the death and destruction therefrom hope to rival what we have already wrought using conventional weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan? And how could the cost of capturing and prosecuting the people responsible approach the cost ($200 BN)of the current "War on Terrorism"?'
That's even easier, if they killed more and cost more.
An ex-Soviet suitcase nuke would do the job, and these things exist, they aren't hypothetical bogeymen.
Will it happen or can it be stopped? I have no idea.
But I think you are missing the point, I am attacking the non-aggression axiom as a rule to be followed unilaterally by all.
The U.S. is in a better position to do it than most but smaller, poorer states in unfavourable geographic, hostile regions might disagree.
Published: September 27, 2005 10:18 AM
Regarding the Swiss and WWII. How long do you think they would have lasted in "Fortress Europe" had we not crushed the Nazis under the weight of the Third Army.
Published: September 27, 2005 10:42 AM
Jonathan,
You ignored my point that non-aggression, which we have completely violated, would make us about, oh, let me guess, 99.44/100ths% less susceptible to such an attack in the first place. And you ignored my implication that returning the military to a purely defensive orientation would free up enormous resources, which could be directed at the perpetrators of such an act, possibly even capturing and / or killing them.
In stark contrast, when we ignored the non-aggression axiom (for well over 100 years), invaded every part of the globe, then, when attacked, instead of going after the perpetrators directly, bombing the hell out of a country we didn't like (where bin Laden ALLEGEDLY was), and then turning around and fabricating a rationale for another war with another country we don't like (Iraq), then threatening other countries (Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan) we don't like..... All the while, the evidence seems clear that bin Laden, the supposed objective of our wars, is probably resting comfortably in the bosom of one of our favorite dictators, Pakistan's "President" Musharraf.
I'm not going to play games here - we tried it your way, and we have failed miserably. Let's try it another way - withdraw ALL of our troops from everywhere, bring them home, and put a $1-100 billion dollar on bin Laden's head, increasing it until he or his verifiable remains turn up.
Published: September 27, 2005 10:42 AM
Vince,
you clearly didn't read or at least understand my post. Maybe you should stop ranting and when you have calmed down read up a little on how to reason in an argument before responding next time.
Published: September 27, 2005 11:19 AM
The hawkish comments on this thread are odd, repeating arguments that have been discredited for many months. Solely in terms of realpolitik, the war on Iraq was a huge blunder.
Iran now sits firmly in the catbird seat with its longtime allies, the Iraqi Shi'ites.
Saddam had nothing to do with the Wahhabist terrorists funded by Saudi Arabians and was a useful counterweight to Muslim religious fanaticism in the region.
Israel is a net tax consumer with no oil. It makes zero financial sense for us to kowtow to the Jewish Zionists who feared Saddam's secular, pan-Arabic nationalism.
The US troops are ineffective, hunkered down in their fortified bases, venturing out occassionally to kick in doors and play roadside bomb lottery.
The war has been incredibly costly. If we are to stand behind Bush's promise to support the current Iraqi government, we will be there forever. The place is a three-sided civil war waiting to erupt.
Published: September 27, 2005 11:28 AM
I will apologize in advance for any use of sarcasm as I rarely see it enhancing meaningful discussions. But I am unable to avoid it now. For those who keep mentioning Saddam Hussein and Iraq as a major threat to the US and the Middle East:
Are you talking about the terrifying, sophisticated, highly trained and motivated, heavily armed Republican Guard? Are you talking about the state-of-the-art military equipment his fighting forces possessed? Are you talking about his superior military commanders with their highly developed strategic and tactical planning abilities? Do you envision a potential march and conquest by these thundering hordes across all of the Middle Eastern countries, Japan, China, Ukraine, all the various –stans of the former USSR, France, Germany, on and on ad infinitum?
Has anyone ever noticed that a big guy never picks a fight with a bigger guy but always with a smaller guy? It isn’t that there aren’t bigger guys out there, is it? That’s the thing to remember for those who believe we are Top Dog. That kind of bravado will ensure that the rest of the world knows what we’re about, and that we will continue to remain NOT the top dog.
I’ve got no use for people like bin Laden. Murderers are scum, pure and simple. Everyone has considered what the situation would have been like had they decided to strike the Twin Towers a couple of hours later. Bin Laden doesn’t want war any more than Saddam Hussein wanted war. Bin Laden wants to punish the US to an extent that it will remove itself as the government/corporate oligarchy-in-waiting of the world. By orchestrating 9-11-01 he has rearranged the entire world social-economic-political climate. Are we better off than we were on 9-10-01?
We made the same Top Dog judgments about SE Asia (Vietnam). How can people wearing black pajamas whip us, the mightiest force on earth? I was in SE Asia in ‘68/69. I know all about the firepower based in Thailand. The “war� could have been ended very quickly with all that firepower. We could have declared victory and left. But Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and China would have continued as soon as we departed. There was NO possibility that China would have permitted US victory. The pajama-clad fighters would have changed the color of their pajamas and that is the only change in strategy or tactics the world would have seen. The US wanted to control resources and actions in the Pacific Rim and Vietnam was a tool, but domination of China would have been required and the government finally wised up, in large part due to America’s citizens pointing out the futility of it all.
All you Top Dogs out there can count on differently-clad fighters who will fight against occupation in Iraq as fiercely as we would if America was occupied by foreign forces. And what you consider as victory will never happen. How is it that people who otherwise seem so wise can ignore this:
If the rest of the world, at this point in time, decided that the Top Dog was out of control, it could wreak havoc economically, start conflicts that would stretch military and financial resources to the point of breaking, and make us more vulnerable than we have ever been in modern times. Consider how possible this scenario was before 9-11-01.
In America, we cannot decide if Republicans, Democrats, Neoconservatives, Libertarians, and others have all the right ideas. This is a good thing, a line made famous of late. Things get better when people are searching for ideas. So how is that the Top Dog has suddenly figured out how things should be all around the world, that it will keep everyone in line, and teach a harsh lesson to those who do not obey?
I have to resist laughing hysterically when I read or hear about how planning the economy by “liberals� is so disgusting. Yeah, planning an economy is counterproductive and in the end will be disastrous, but where is the outrage at the highly sophisticated and finely-orchestrated planning of not only the economy but the militarily-controlled foreign policy of the neocons?
Those who are pro-Iraq invasion are unable to see the forest for the trees and are endangering the rest of us.
Published: September 27, 2005 11:43 AM
Mr. LR,
Very fine written speech - I would enjoy observing the delivery in context.
I can think of one valid "moral" reason for removing Saddam (I have only heard it mentioned several times); the US put Saddam in power therefore the US was responsible for removing him. Of course that does not quite justify the murder of upwards of 100,000 Iraqi (not to mention the dismemberment of tens of thousands of foolish Americans, several thousands of whom are now eligible for nomination to compete in the upcoming Darwin Awards - http://www.darwinawards.com/) Thus, those that put GW Bush in power are also responsible for removing him.
Today, the US is merely an arms (and drug btw) cartel in drag given the US sells and exports more arms than all other industrialized nations combined.
The US Constitution provides for the national defense. Inspite of all the propaganda to the contrary WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, et alii, ALSO had nothing to do with national defense and little to do with America's interests, Prescott Bush's trading with Nazi Germany notwithstanding.
Live by the sword, . . . .
Bjorn Rafto
Fmr US Naval Officer
Published: September 27, 2005 11:45 AM
Bjorn indirectly makes my point - if we were serious about removing Hussein, we had any number of opportunities to do so, including not supporting his coup in the first place. We chose not to, to our shame, then compounded the sin by launching this pointless, illegal war. A handful of well-placed bribes could have effected the removal of Hussein without all the bloodshed.
Published: September 27, 2005 12:13 PM
Bjorn Rafto,
Well said, sir. Excellent points.
You know, your post has caused me to reread this entire thread. It’s amazing to me, but right here in this very thread I find all the information I need to put together a scenario that makes me feel safe and secure and hopeful.
a) An America whose defensive capabilities are second to none and that is updated on a constant basis, but with the application of economic laws that make the best possible productivity the standard, and that does NOT generate revenue by selling its defensive equipment to other countries.
b) An America that finally operates as any other business out to make a profit by production and marketing that generates proper return on capital employed.
c) An America that is the leader in technology and economic model that all other peoples of the world can emulate, but who leads by example in lieu of force.
Obviously, the list could go on and on, but these 3 are at the top of my list of requirements that could generate an atmosphere of contentment.
Published: September 27, 2005 1:10 PM
For anyone who hasn't yet, I suggest reading Major General Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket". It lays out quite neatly the case that commercial interests are key motivators of war;
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Published: September 27, 2005 1:30 PM
Bob A,
You are correct in stating that the sarcasm did nothing to advance the meaningful discussion. No one advancing the "Iraq posed a threat" argument advocates that Iraq's military posed the threat. It was Saddam Hussein who had the ability to provide willing terrorists with weapons (be they chemical, biological, or nuclear) and means to attack the U.S. Do you argue that Saddam would never assist the enemies of America? The terrorists who attacked America on 11 SEP 01 proved to the world that it is not the large and powerful army that can successfully strike America, but the terrorist who belongs to no state, but an ideology. Is it inconceivable that Saddam would capitalize on this vulnerability using terrorists (any attack which he could deny responsibility)? I believe that this debate boils down to whether or not you believe that pre-emptive use of force in self defense is moral. Then, if you believe that it is moral, do you believe that the U.S. attacked Iraq in the true belief that Iraq posed a threat that could be dealth with using that pre-emptive strike.
Published: September 27, 2005 2:53 PM
David White
“ is evidently not aware that Hitler was popularly elected. It is precisely this kind of blind allegiance to "democracy" that gives such tragic meaning to Hitler's remark: "What luck for rulers that the people do not think."�
Hitler was not popularly elected in the sense that the Nazi party received more than 50% of the popular vote in any fair election. The best they did was to get 37% of the popular vote. After a series of elections in 1932 and 1933, Hitler became Chancellor after forming an alliance with von Papen after von Papen had used his influence with Hindenburg to force Schleicher to resign. Goebells then had access to the resources of the state to fund the Nazi propaganda machine. When the Reichstag caught fire in February 1933, Hitler blamed the fire on disgruntled communists, and persuaded Hindenburg to declare marshal law. This allowed Goering to use the SS to intimidate and eliminate political enemies. This concluded with the Nazi’s, still in a minority, coercing the Reichstag to endorse the “Enabling Act� and transfer its powers to the Reich Cabinet for a period of four years. This, effectively, made Hitler a dictator.
Published: September 27, 2005 3:10 PM
DMI,
No, I don't agree with you that there are those who did not suggest that Saddam was a threat with his forces. It's riduculous to suggest such a thing, but it was suggested and even now is still suggested in other forums as well.
You can boil it down to morals if you want to or ask others to do so, but it has nothing to do with morals as far as my opinion. There are lots of nations and groups with much more capability than Saddam. If preemption is the method for dealing with all potential threats, we've got far bigger problems than anyone in this thread has realized up to now.
No, I absolutely do not agree that it was necessary to attack Iraq as a potential threat. And your question uses the words "in the true belief," words that have meaning only to those who desire to use force and worship it as the answer to problems they are unwilling to solve with creative solutions that do not require murder. Bin Laden wanted to force a disaster by murder and we have complied with his wishes for a disaster using more murder.
Haven't we just become the most wonderful of world leaders? More sarcasm; sorry.
Published: September 27, 2005 3:18 PM
David White said;
"Hitler was not popularly elected in the sense that the Nazi party received more than 50% of the popular vote in any fair election. The best they did was to get 37% of the popular vote."
Not to be too pedantic, but the last few elections in this country have turned on something less than a majority...
Whether that says something about our system, and / or the current or recent occupants of the White House is up for the reader to decide. But the parallels are unfortunately strong. A big enough blow to the economy could make us as vulnerable as Weimar Germany to the wiles of those who lust for power.
Published: September 27, 2005 3:44 PM
The problem with the pre-emptive doctrine is that it begs the following questions:
Which nations fail DMI's plausibility test, i.e. Is it inconceivible that nation X will use some sort of terror apparatus to detonate WMPs?
Who carries out this plausibility calculation?
How is it calculated?
At what percent chance is it understood that nation X is a plausible threat?
The answer to all these questions must be "It depends" because there can be no objectively correct answer. Seriously, its plausible that France and Germany, who are at this moment not too thrilled with our military adventures (not to mention they have openly suggested that another power is needed to counterbalance the U.S.) may someday use terrorists to attack us. Should we preemptively attack them too? Thus, the answer must be arbitrary and may very well differ not from generation to generation, but from administration to administration. And if these answers depend on who is the current president, then it is plausible that just about any nation could be attacked simply by changing the procedures used in answering the above questions. Every 4 years we could have new criteria for determining who maybe, just maybe willing to send a suitcase nuke, or dirty bomb, or whatever over here.
Published: September 27, 2005 3:47 PM
Sorry - GW Bush's last election was technically a majority. But neither his first, nor either of Clinton's were absolute majorities.
Published: September 27, 2005 3:55 PM
this blog page is unreadable on my iBook because the background is too dark. best stick to black and white.
my comment: interesting history and viewpoint, but as usual from libertarians and lefties, no answer regarding what to do about terrorism if not fight back.
Also, the allegation that the U.S. is responsible for deaths of thousands of Iraqi children is simply wrong.
b.williams
Published: September 27, 2005 5:16 PM
David White
Sorry David, the last part of my post was truncated. It should have ended:
This, effectively, made Hitler a dictator. Nevertheless, the rise of Hitler did occur in a country that had previously been a democracy. Therefore the main point of your contention is in fact correct. Democracy in Iraq in no way precludes the democratic election of a fundamentalist Islamic government. Similarly, in France, once the demographics change so that Muslims become the majority population, what is to stop a democratically elected Muslim government from declaring Sharia law?
Published: September 27, 2005 5:39 PM
I think it's pointed out numerous times in the above comments that the only way to deal with terrorism is to have no foreign policy. In other words, don't interfere with the domestic policies of other countries, because this will only create hate against your own country, and literately fuel terrorism. Of course this doesn't mean a pacifist policy, every country has a right to defend itself when its attacked. But allowing pre-emptive strikes will only result in a government seeing threads in every country, with the choice on acting on these threads(estimated by the government itself) left to its own discretion. Whether you agree or disagree with these points, they have been pointed out many times in the previous comments.
Published: September 27, 2005 5:53 PM
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." - Madeline Albright
---------------------
"...the allegation that the U.S. is responsible for deaths of thousands of Iraqi children is simply wrong." - b.
b: Do you mean it was worth it but it didn't happen? Do you think it was a hard choice, but worth it, but the deaths didn't happen?
Maybe it's easier to consider your meaning in light of the question posed to and answered by Madeline Albright; the question regarding the value of the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. Here it is:
-----------------
In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeline Albright, who at the time was Clinton"s UN Ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeline Albright replied "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
Published: September 27, 2005 6:22 PM
Bob A.
The reasons for going to war in Iraq were never that his Army posed a threat to the U.S. I don't think that our argument is really about this however, is it? I don't want to get into the who UN Resolutions, all of the intelligence agencies (not just US) who corroborated our intelligence, Saddam's history of killing his own people with Chemical weapons, etc. I do want to boil it down to morality and the moral use of force, for what is libertarianism if it does not seek that? You obviously do not believe that preemption is a plausible solution or a moral use of force. Although I would be willing to lay money on the fact that if you knew your neighbor plotted to break into your house and rob/kill you, that you would deem preemption a plausible or moral solution to your problems. Yes, of course there are numerous other states that pose a bigger threat to the US conventionally with their armies, however it can be argued that Iraq posed a more imminent risk due to our history with them, their ties to Islamic fundamentalism, their known possession of WMDs, etc. I believe that there was a threat posed. You obviously do not. I believe that I have an inherent right to be able to defend myself and that includes not waiting until someone has already committed the act to do so. I believe it to be moral use of force.
I would like to know what your response to the threat of terrorism would be? Try to peaceably coexist with these groups? We deal with those who do not believe in the inherent rights of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, nor do they believe in the market place. How would you like the state to deal with this threat?
Published: September 27, 2005 6:56 PM
Vince,
Just to set the record straight, I wasn't the person you quoted above. Rather, it was the person responding to my post.
In any case, with respect to Walt D's post, I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that the democratic state is subject to such failure.
But of course we are on the slippery slope dictatorship, as anybody whose eyes aren't wide shut can see.
Published: September 27, 2005 7:43 PM
DMI,
"I don't want to get into the who UN Resolutions, all of the intelligence agencies (not just US) who corroborated our intelligence, Saddam's history of killing his own people with Chemical weapons, etc."
Don't waste your time. They have all been thoroughly debunked. Nevertheless,
1. Iraq and the UN were the contracting parties to the resolutions. The UN, through the Security Council, declined to take action to enforce the resolutions. The US and its allies acted extra-legally. And as it turns out, none of the resolutions had been broken.
2. "Intelligence agencies?" You mean Ahmad Chalabi and the Iranians?
3. Atrocity porn. It was drift from Iranian nerve gas munitions.
For future reference, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, and freerepublic.com are government mouthpieces.
Published: September 27, 2005 9:56 PM
Doug,
Nice conspiracy theories. Dr