Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 10/8/2001 11:34:13 PM EST
Hating America and Other Libertarian Crimes by John Keller "If you hate it here so much, why don’t you just move somewhere else!" This is the final shout in the screaming match born of the debate born of political discussions between libertarians and nearly anyone else. It’s been a while since I responded with "No! I was born here, why doesn’t the government move!" Realizing that political ideology makes poor dinner conversation, especially after a few drinks, is one of the signs of a mature libertarian. That and your wife glaring across the table with the old "don’t even start" look when some well-meaning, but historically ignorant acquaintance chimes in about a current event, framing the issue in the latest terms of Cokie Roberts or Oprah. Then her equally well-meaning, but slightly better "informed" husband corrects her by telling you about Bill Buckley’s latest. So fellow libertarians, as you grin, wishing a meteorite would hit you to end the misery, realize that you’re not alone. The "why don’t you leave" argument, as puerile as it is, can be turned around, and I’ve found just the opportunity. I recently pointed out that the three things that lead to the WTC attacks are: our 10 year assault on Iraq, our troops in Saudi Arabia, and our financial support of Israel. Thank you very, much, that is exactly the list Osama bin Laden released in his video taped tirade yesterday. No, I don’t write his speeches, as some of the email I’ve been getting claims. The standard argument over Israel and foreign aid goes something like this: Libertarian: Why do they take my tax money and give it away as foreign aid? Neo-Conservative: We have to do that, otherwise Israel would be wiped out by those hateful Muslims. Libertarian: Didn’t Israel win the 1967 six day war without our foreign aid, and attacked one of our ships to boot? Neo-Conservative: We must defend Israel! They are our only ally in the Middle East. (cue smoke from ears) page 1 of 2
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 11:35:56 PM EST
page 2 of 2 Libertarian: I’m fine with individuals freely writing a check to the Israeli government every year, just don’t take my money at gunpoint and give it to them. By the way, how much oil does Israel sell us every year compared to those other countries? Neo-Conservative: YOU JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND. The hostile MUSLIMS that SURROUND ISRAEL don’t even RECOGNIZE it’s RIGHT TO EXIST!!! (Smoke billowing profusely as dogma and learned rhetoric collide with fact, history, and logic) At this point, the normal mild-mannered libertarian will sigh and find some way to end the conversation without getting branded an anti-Semitic black helicopter nutbag. The other crime libertarians get branded with is a lack of a proper sense of rage over the attacks, and the ensuing lack of patriotism. For daring to point out that we’ve had ominous warning that something like this was going to happen, we’re branded a know-it-all. For daring to point out that the terrorists, while using mass murder of civilians – a completely illegitimate means – have legitimate problems with our euphemistically called "foreign policy" of grab-the-oil in the middle east, libertarians are branded terrorists sympathizers. Let me state for the record, once again, the now standard libertarian disclaimer: The attacks on 9-11 were absolutely, completely, 100% morally despicable. Killing innocent people is never right. Now ask yourself. If killing 7,000 innocent people in one fell swoop is wrong, what’s killing more than a million innocent people in 10 years? That works out to 274 people a day, mostly the very young and the very old. That’s a lot of blood on the hands of the United States military, foreign policy planners, and politicians. Did you know we’ve bombed Iraq several times between 9-11 and today, 10-7? Probably not. It barely even hits the wire. We’ve become so inured to the killing in our name, it’s not even newsworthy. It made me laugh to watch a report on Afghanistan, and hear the reporter talk about how the people have become so desensitized to war and fighting. I wonder when was the last time he went to a Rated R movie here in the US. But, there I go again, hating America. So, fly the flag, and sing with Lee Greenwood, but also do a little reading and realize that part of being a patriot is to know what your country has been doing in your name; know your history. Part of being a patriot is standing up and telling it like it is, good and bad. Part of being a patriot is realizing that this is a great country, but as citizens we have a responsibility to speak out and act out against the illegitimate actions of our government. October 9, 2001 John Keller is an Internet networking and security professional about to be unemployed in Atlanta, GA. Email him for details. Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 7:57:13 AM EST
I agree with the article wholeheartedly.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 6:50:09 PM EST
Can Invictus or Imbroglio clue me in on the million innocent people they're speaking of? I'm serious, I must have been in a coma for the past 10 years and missed it. Please don't tell me you're quoting Saddam's claims about the embargoes. As far as bombing Iraq, we've been doing that since the Gulf War ended. A "10 year assault on Iraq"? Hardly. The article conveniently omits the fact that we're not bombing civilians. Our aircraft patrol the southern Iraq "no fly zone" and attack anti-aircraft positions attempting to shoot them down. "Why are our planes there?" the sniveling liberatarian might ask. To keep Iraq from projecting its power to re-invade/re-attack its neighbors. Why the embargoes? We know Saddam is still developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and we know he will use them. He has already gassed 5000 Kurds, used chemical weapons against Iran and launched missles into Tehran, Riyadh,and Tel Aviv with the explicit aim of murdering as many civilians as possible. All he has to do is let the inspection teams in, and the embargoes will be lifted, but he won't. You guys go ahead and cry for Iraq. I'm disgusted with your "America had it coming" bullshit.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 7:00:24 PM EST
Invictus, why don't you go out and experience life some more. Than come back and tell me what [i]you[/i] believe in instead of quoting some guy. All your post reak of being manipulated by others toughts instead of your own. It gets old.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 8:09:22 PM EST
Ugh!
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 8:36:02 PM EST
Libertarians believe in a very small military. Enough said. If the libertarian party gained ground, the U.S. would be history. Most of the libertarian views on laws and freedoms I tend to support, but not their idea of a small neutered military, and little or no money for military research and spying. Isolationism doesn't work as a foreign policy either. It makes a country continuously poor like the U.S. was for most of its existance. And if somehow you make money from resources or technologies, then isolationism will not work since someone will attack you trying to take those resources or technologies. Also, a lot of pacifists and hardline libertarians believe that there would be no middle east violence if we didn't buy oil from them, and if isreal didn't exist(palistine would be in its place). This assumtion is WRONG. Osama has talked about Israel and Palistine, but he really doesn't care about them. He hates the U.S.A. and noone else really matters to him. He uses others' causes for excuses. He is a person who was raised wealthy and priviledged. He also has spent tons of time abroad in western countries. He was educated by a western style school in Saudi Arabia. After all this, he hates the U.S. He personally should have no complaints about his life, he could be living the high live like other wealthy saudi families, but he wants POWER. Also, most middle eastern people are poor and starving, and have been for centuries. This breeds hate and fanatical religion. But just giving food and money won't fix it. Money is stolen by leaders, and food does nothing since they see it as hand outs from big rich nations who keep them down, or are misinformed by their leaders as to the source of the food donations.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 9:09:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2001 9:18:22 PM EST by zazou]
More or less, exactly right...... The middle east has been at war with some part of the European West for 1000 years. Literally since the Crusades. The modern Statist view, often defending the actions of this country, usually look back no more than 25 years to justify actions. They remember. The Arabs(et al),they are a people who do not forget. We have been messing around in their politics for Centuries. Crusades, English and French Colonialism, Russia and the 'stans, Israel, Iran, wait now it's Iraq. The list is actually much more detailed. They want us gone! I guess we have the right to be there to protect our interests at gun point. I'm looking forward to Chinese Navy vessels in the San Francisco bay to ensure their economic interests, whatever they may be. It's the same logic, right? The fact is, most Americans, those with the Statist view are not willing to acknowledge or misdeeds. Now, I am not sure about a million, but you have to be nuts to think we have not caused civilian damage. Zaz
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 9:49:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By Hoople: Can Invictus or Imbroglio clue me in on the million innocent people they're speaking of? I'm serious, I must have been in a coma for the past 10 years and missed it. Please don't tell me you're quoting Saddam's claims about the embargoes.
View Quote
No, we're quoting EVERYONE's claims -- Saddam, the international relief agencies, and even our own government's acknowledgements of the facts.
"Why are our planes there?" the sniveling liberatarian might ask. To keep Iraq from projecting its power to re-invade/re-attack its neighbors. Why the embargoes? We know Saddam is still developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and we know he will use them.
View Quote
So why don't we go in and kick his ass? We didn't starve Japan for ten years; we nuked two cities and then dictated terms.
I'm disgusted with your "America had it coming" bullshit.
View Quote
It's not "America had it coming", it's "here's what we shouldn't have been doing so that it wouldn't have happened in the first place." There's a difference, but you're apparently too much of a "dump pork on Afghanistan" type to understand it.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 9:49:45 PM EST
"The modern statist view"??!!! Just when I think I've heard every corny statement, you Libertarians/apologists pull another one out your asses. I'm still waiting to hear about all these murders. Can you tell me about them zazou? If you Libertarians had your way, yes, the Chinese would sail into SF Bay, but you know what? They can't do it. They can't do it because us "statists" believe in a strong military that enables us to project power overseas. So as much as you're "looking forward" to seeing Chinese ships invade America, it's not gonna happen as long as we "statists" have a breath left to fight. And zazou, we too have long memories.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 10:22:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2001 10:37:39 PM EST by Hoople]
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed: No, we're quoting EVERYONE's claims -- Saddam, the international relief agencies, and even our own government's acknowledgements of the facts.
View Quote
Our government has admitted we murdered a million people in Iraq? Where did you read that, The Democratic Underground? You got a reputable source for that? So let me get this straight, we won't let Iraq sell its oil until it agrees to allow international inspection for possible nuclear/chemical/biological weapons development and its our fault he continues the programs at the expense of his own people.
So why don't we go in and kick his ass? We didn't starve Japan for ten years; we nuked two cities and then dictated terms.
View Quote
So we should nuke them,huh. Wow, we actually agree on something. But I don't think your lberal friends would be very happy with us.
It's not "America had it coming", it's "here's what we shouldn't have been doing so that it wouldn't have happened in the first place."
View Quote
It's already happened. With 7000 American men, women and children murdered now is not the time for obfuscation. Or,obscenely,for blaming America first. At a time like this, those ,like yourself, who search for shades of evil, for root causes, for extenuations are plain wrong.
There's a difference, but you're apparently too much of a "dump pork on Afghanistan" type to understand it.
View Quote
No, I'm more of a lifelong military "type". You know,the type who defends this country.
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 1:50:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By Hoople: "The modern statist view"??!!! Just when I think I've heard every corny statement, you Libertarians/apologists pull another one out your asses.
View Quote
Modern statist view, kinda like "projecting power overseas". Yeah it appears that is what you cling to. I am sure that George Washington would be so proud.
I'm still waiting to hear about all these murders. Can you tell me about them zazou?
View Quote
I take it you have never even heard of the television interview with Madeline Albright? She frankly admitted to the embargo/sanctions costing about 500,000 Iraqi (mostly the elderly and children) lives to that point. (1997-98 I believe) This of course doesn't even consider all the people killed by US/UK bombs dropped after the coalition withdrew from Iraqi soil. Her statement is an admission of culpability. I suppose you will be denying this little gem, or at least rationalizing the withholding of medical/hygiene/nutritional supplies from dying babies.
If you Libertarians had your way, yes, the Chinese would sail into SF Bay, but you know what? They can't do it. They can't do it because us "statists" believe in a strong military that enables us to project power overseas. So as much as you're "looking forward" to seeing Chinese ships invade America, it's not gonna happen as long as we "statists" have a breath left to fight.
View Quote
Not quite "H". You see even if the Chinese were to invade, the constitutionally addressed militia, armed and trained (at their own expense) with the latest and greatest in military hardware would cut them to shreds. Oh wait a minute, you statist's have kept us from even acquiring new class 3 weapons since '86. But the forces of the state may have as many as *I* and all the other taxpayers can supply them with. Sweet little set up you statists have: Effectively disarm the populace, then claim that we need a strong centrally controlled military since the people are not equipped to defend the country, then while this large army is out cavorting around the world pissing people of with amazing regularity, some jack-asses fly commercial jets into large permanent structures, exposing to all the universe that the military isn't really protecting the country as much as it is doing the bidding of the elite. This embarrassing exposure is excuse enough to justify the creation of a whole new department that looks like the American version of the NKVD/KGB, so "IT" can defend the country, as the military is too busy bombing civilians on the other side of the world. Of course all this comes to a lot more expense than the Founders version of national defense. BTW- The founders were not opposed to a strong defense. Large standing armies are the bane of freedom, Navies on the other hand are not occupiers like an army.
And zazou, we too have long memories.
View Quote
Too bad you can't remember the advice of George Washington in his farewell address. You are not the only one who needs to memorize it. rDAm
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 2:02:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2001 2:00:29 AM EST by Invictus]
Originally Posted By Hoople:
View Quote
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed: No, we're quoting EVERYONE's claims -- Saddam, the international relief agencies, and even our own government's acknowledgements of the facts.
View Quote
Our government has admitted we murdered a million people in Iraq? Where did you read that, The Democratic Underground? You got a reputable source for that? So let me get this straight, we won't let Iraq sell its oil until it agrees to allow international inspection for possible nuclear/chemical/biological weapons development and its our fault he continues the programs at the expense of his own people.
View Quote
So why don't we go in and kick his ass? We didn't starve Japan for ten years; we nuked two cities and then dictated terms.
View Quote
So we should nuke them,huh. Wow, we actually agree on something. But I don't think your lberal friends would be very happy with us.
View Quote
It's not "America had it coming", it's "here's what we shouldn't have been doing so that it wouldn't have happened in the first place."
View Quote
It's already happened. With 7000 American men, women and children murdered now is not the time for obfuscation. Or,obscenely,for blaming America first. At a time like this, those ,like yourself, who search for shades of evil, for root causes, for extenuations are plain wrong.
View Quote
[red]Is it still plain wrong to complain about the Kent State shootings or has enough time passed that we won't be accused of being America-bashers???[/red]
There's a difference, but you're apparently too much of a "dump pork on Afghanistan" type to understand it.
View Quote
No, I'm more of a lifelong military "type". You know,the type who defends this country.
View Quote
Hmmm...Now something is starting to make sense. You sound just like Lt. Calley, a career minded military man. I would hazard a guess you are a member of his fan club with what you post. You wouldn't have ever been assigned to Charlie company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division would you? Especially back in '68. You just gotta love the results of our interventions! rDAm edited for quotational errors
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 2:50:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2001 3:28:38 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Well, first off, George Washington never even conceived of the day when mankind would travel faster than horseback. Nor did he ever conceive of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Nor any weapons of mass destruction. When George Washington speaks on political matters, on patriotism, on matters of faith, we should all listen. We should not be hamstrung, however, by his views on American foreign policy which have become obviously and hopelessly outdated. I am certain even he would agree with that. You need to review the debates between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson regarding the question of the young Republic's response to the Barbary Pirates. George Washington's advice doesn't appear to have survived his own term in office if you look at any of his successors, much less should it bind us two centuries later! So, with all that we hear now concerning the Libertarian Party, I for one, curse myself for ever having voted for those reptiles! Who would ever imagine that they would feel remorse at having NOT voted for Gerald Ford? Hey, we'll call you guys when the fighting's over! Eric The([u]l[/u]ibertarianRepublican)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 7:29:17 AM EST
Ok, here is a quick lesson in Libertariansim. If they believe the US Government should do one thing it is defend the nation. Visciously. The US should have the largest, kick-ass, nuke 'em if they step-up, melt them down to glass and ashes military . And we should use it fully if someone attack us, here or while we are participating in [b]free[/b] trade. (Do not insert 'our internationl interest' here, that is not what I mean and you know it). But to use that power to bully foreign nations into giving us a price [b]we[/b] like on gas is just nothing short or being a thug. And just for starters on our association to the death toll. Saddam and his gang of thugs used VX gas on the Iranians, killng thousands, and we knew it, yet still we funneled them money. And I never personally said it was a million. But you know what? I don't care if it is a million, I don't care if it is one or two. How many deaths can you justify, directly or indirectly so you get to pay 1.68 at the pump? Anyone, how many? And, Hoople, the 'Modern Statist' View. Sorry you don't like the term, but what else would you call the present day apologist for the US who justifies all our actions and meddlings in foreign countries as being in our best interest? An Interestican? For the record. It is probable that nearly all Libertarians love this country as much and then more than most. Not only do they cherish their freedoms and love their Liberties, they choose to embarce and practice that ideal and believe it should be applied to everyone, Everywhere on the globe. The same commitment can not be said of most others. Every other form of Government is Force at the point of a Gun. Yes they love their country, but almost always so far as it serve their self-interest. If you can name any other form of Goverment that applies this ideal, let me know, I am Interested. Zaz
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 7:42:41 AM EST
Invictus - Excellent article. Dead bang baby.
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 7:46:30 AM EST
Messy. I'm not for or against much of this here. That article has some flaws. Libertarians can't even agree with their own doctrine much of the time. I've heard both strong and weak military from so-called hard line Libs. They have some good points, yes, a lot of this shouldn't have been done. BUT, we're in it now and now we've got to deal with it. Are we going to just let wishful thinking protect us as we pull out and say "I understand their pain" -? Or are we going to to the place upside down until we shake them loose and exterminate them.
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 8:01:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 8:06:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By gunman0: Isolationism doesn't work as a foreign policy either. It makes a country continuously poor like the U.S. was for most of its existance. And if somehow you make money from resources or technologies, then isolationism will not work since someone will attack you trying to take those resources or technologies.
View Quote
You seem confused on this. First, libertarians believe in free trade, which is hardly "isolationism". Rather, they do not believe in interventionist forign policies. Further, the US was a remarkable success story throughout its history. We were not a poor nation, despite the fact that we were a young nation that started out with little industry. The US of 1900 would have been among the top four or five wealthiest nations today.
Originally Posted By gunman0: Also, a lot of pacifists and hardline libertarians believe that there would be no middle east violence if we didn't buy oil from them, and if isreal didn't exist(palistine would be in its place). This assumtion is WRONG. Osama has talked about Israel and Palistine, but he really doesn't care about them. He hates the U.S.A. and noone else really matters to him.
View Quote
I don't think there are any libertarians who believe we shouldn't buy oil from the Middle East. In fact, most "hardline libertarians" think that the US government should have no say in where oil companies buy their oil. Libertarians in fact are divided on the issue of [i]why[/i] there is so much hate for the US in the Islamic world. See what the libertarian Cato institute has to say on the matter: [url]http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/carpenter-011009.html[/url] [url]http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/dempsey-010925.html[/url] And a bunch of articles with slightly different perspectives: [url]http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/index.html[/url] I am not alone among libertarians in believing that Americans are hated around the world not primarly due to the forign policy of our government, but due to envy and resentment towards our success and economic power. Bin Laden hates us because our culture is dominate in the world, and we, not Islam, are the great success story. That said, I think the US does need to rethink its forign policy. Our government should act in our best interest, and that does not include getting involved in Somolia or the Balkins. We should go after the terrorists who have attacked us, but we should not go about trying to police the world.
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 8:08:37 AM EST
[b]Cato on Terrorism[/b] Crime or Act of War? by Gary Dempsey, Foreign Policy Analyst, Cato Institute A global coalition of human rights groups recently described the ghastly terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as "crimes against humanity." They added that the incidents proved the United States should reconsider its opposition to the creation of a standing international criminal court. Never mind that the international community has yet to agree on a legal definition of international terrorism or that a global court could open a Pandora's box of legal mischief--treating terrorism as a criminal justice matter is wrongheaded. Yet that is the way the Clinton administration chose to deal with the problem. Indeed, last year's bombing of the USS Cole (which killed 17 and wounded 33), the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in east Africa (which killed 224 and wounded more than 4,000), and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (which killed six and wounded more than 1,000), were all pursued as criminal justice matters. America's law enforcement agencies conducted investigations and eventually made some arrests. The result: 12 men involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were convicted in November 1997, four years after their attack, and four men involved in the 1998 embassy bombings were convicted last May, three years after their attack. The mastermind of the bombings, Osama bin Laden, remained at-large and was put on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. No one has yet been convicted for the Cole attack. According to a former Clinton administration official, the goal in treating international terrorism as a legal matter was to "depoliticize" and "delegitimize" it by defining it as criminal activity instead of warfare. Resorting to indictments, extraditions, and trials, it was argued, was the best course. "We are not a nation that retaliates just in order to get vengeance," exclaimed then-secretary of state Madeleine Albright after the U.S. embassy bombings. "America does not forget our own legal system while searching for those who harmed us." Such thinking continues today. University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle, for example, says that Osama bin Laden "is a fugitive from justice and this should be handled as a matter as other fugitives from justice of international law enforcement."
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 8:10:22 AM EST
[b]Cato on Terrorism continued[/b] But defining what happened in New York and Washington as crimes misses the point. One of the primary constitutional responsibilities of the U.S. government is to defend the American people from external attack. It's striking, then, that the last administration and its defenders were so willing to use the U.S. military for social work and peacekeeping around the world-mostly on missions that had little to do with the direct security of America-but treated the slaughter of American citizens and destruction of U.S. property by international terrorists as a law enforcement issue. That approach has hardly proven a model of deterrence. It has neither held foreign governments sufficiently accountable for harboring, let alone sponsoring, terrorist organizations, nor confronted the root causes of what drives terrorists to target America in the first place. That said, the magnitude of the recent attacks on New York and Washington and the perpetrators' demonstrable willingness to keep escalating their efforts (perhaps biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons next time) make it clear that countering terrorism can no longer be primarily a matter for the law enforcement or even the intelligence communities. The prospect of jail time is not a substitute for defense policy. Sadly, even a radical shift in America's Middle East and Persian Gulf policies at this point is unlikely to reverse the built-up momentum of the terrorist threat. That means the United States has little choice now but to respond to the recent attacks as only the initial acts of war and to defend its citizens by taking the war back to bin Laden and whomever else supports him. It wouldn't be the first time the United States has gone to war against non-state actors. In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson went to war against the Barbary pirates, who preyed upon European and American shipping in both Mediterranean and Atlantic waters. James Madison supported Jefferson's efforts, which proved successful by 1805. Jefferson, unfortunately, operated without a formal declaration of war from Congress. He later admitted that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense," and that it was the prerogative of Congress to authorize "measures of offense also." Lamentably, Congress last week sidestepped its duty to formally declare war and instead granted the president the authority "to use all necessary force." Of course, formally declaring war would not mean that U.S. bombers must immediately
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 8:10:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By zazou: And I never personally said it was a million. But you know what? I don't care if it is a million, I don't care if it is one or two. How many deaths can you justify, directly or indirectly so you get to pay 1.68 at the pump? Anyone, how many? Zaz
View Quote
HOw many??? All of them. Every man woman and child. There is not a single person in the middle east that I know or care about. So If every last one of them died it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. So I would gladly trade all of thier lives for cheap gas. You can throw china, africa and south america in the mix to if you would like. These people have never hurt me personally but they haven't helped me either, therefore they meen nothing to me. Dead or alive I'll never know the difference. BTW I only paid 1.08 for gas yesterday. As far a 1,000,000 dead Iraqis who cares. The child or father of my enemy is my enemy. I would not folow a govt as corrupt as Iraqs, so by their inaction they support that govt. That makes them my enemy. You can argue that our embargo keeps them down but we were able to rebel without the help of anyone else. My heart only bleads when theres a hole in it. Never for a cause. To acccomplish a goal it is best to make others hearts blead.
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 8:11:27 AM EST
[b]Cato on Terrorism continued[/b] launch air strikes or that the Marines must eventually conduct a full-scale land invasion. Rather, it would signify that a profound threshold has been crossed that there are certain things Americans absolutely will not tolerate happening to their fellow citizens.
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 8:14:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2001 8:11:17 AM EST by raf]
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 8:23:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By Guncrazy223:
Originally Posted By zazou: And I never personally said it was a million. But you know what? I don't care if it is a million, I don't care if it is one or two. How many deaths can you justify, directly or indirectly so you get to pay 1.68 at the pump? Anyone, how many? Zaz
View Quote
HOw many??? All of them. Every man woman and child. There is not a single person in the middle east that I know or care about. So If every last one of them died it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. So I would gladly trade all of thier lives for cheap gas. You can throw china, africa and south america in the mix to if you would like. These people have never hurt me personally but they haven't helped me either, therefore they meen nothing to me. Dead or alive I'll never know the difference. BTW I only paid 1.08 for gas yesterday. As far a 1,000,000 dead Iraqis who cares. The child or father of my enemy is my enemy. I would not folow a govt as corrupt as Iraqs, so by their inaction they support that govt. That makes them my enemy. You can argue that our embargo keeps them down but we were able to rebel without the help of anyone else. My heart only bleads when theres a hole in it. Never for a cause. To acccomplish a goal it is best to make others hearts blead.
View Quote
OMG, I hope that is sarcasm. If it is true... I have a new enemy. You, Guncrazy223. That is [i]the[/i] most un-American thing I have ever heard. By your logic your could walk down the street unitl you come to a the house of someone you don't know, bust out the AR and kill them all for their toilet paper. And you are justified by having not known them. I don't even know what to say..... You are evil. Zaz
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 8:38:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By raf: Well, no offense intended to any Libertarians out there, but I'll start taking their Party seriously once they break the 20% of votes cast barrier. At the current rate of "increase", this will [i]never[/i] occur. It's a nice, pure, ivory-tower philosophy, which, like its antithesis, Communism, cannot survive contact with human nature. I've donated $ to the LP for years, and plugged its philosophy at every turn. And for what? Here's where my $ and time went[url]http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/[/url].
View Quote
That is sad. No man is infalliable. That said: 1) no one man makes the party. (I give you Nixon, Regan, Gingrich, Packwood, Clnton, etc) 2) Since when does the amount of votes at the poll alter what is morally right. At what percentage point does an opinion become valid? Ivory Tower, that is a elitism icon. Libertarianism is about everyone having full control of their own destiny. Zaz
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 8:48:47 AM EST
Libertarians don't agree with a lot of domestic laws we have either remember that, for not agreeing with those laws is equivalent of not agreeing with those who enforce them. In short, COP BASHING. Joining the LP is giving money to cop-bashers. If they had their way Americans would smoke pot, dance and skip church.
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 9:04:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 9:25:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2001 9:22:00 AM EST by Hoople]
Originally Posted By Invictus: [red]Is it still plain wrong to complain about the Kent State shootings or has enough time passed that we won't be accused of being America-bashers???[/red]
View Quote
Wow,so many crazy posters, I don't know where to start. Did you really bring up Kent State into this discussion? Careful there, "tin soldiers and Nixon's coming"!!! BWAHAHAHAHAA!!! Put down the pipe,take off the headphones and come out of your parents basement Vic. How about this next gem:
Hmmm...Now something is starting to make sense. You sound just like Lt. Calley, a career minded military man. I would hazard a guess you are a member of his fan club with what you post. You wouldn't have ever been assigned to Charlie company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division would you? Especially back in '68. You just gotta love the results of our interventions! rDAm
View Quote
Well gee Vic,if I'm Lt. Calley in your little delusional world, by your logic that would make you Jane Fonda now, wouldn't it. I'm the military boogieman and you're the champion of the rights of the enemy and their children(I know you're doing it for the children.)You haven't sat on an Iraqui AA battery lately have you?
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 10:15:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By Invictus: I take it you have never even heard of the television interview with Madeline Albright? She frankly admitted to the embargo/sanctions costing about 500,000 Iraqi (mostly the elderly and children) lives to that point. (1997-98 I believe) This of course doesn't even consider all the people killed by US/UK bombs dropped after the coalition withdrew from Iraqi soil. Her statement is an admission of culpability. I suppose you will be denying this little gem, or at least rationalizing the withholding of medical/hygiene/nutritional supplies from dying babies.
View Quote
Oh,dying babies,oh the horror of the cruel US to murder innocent Iraqui babies. But there is one little problem there Vic old buddy-it's a lot of BS. First off, Albright never "frankly admitted" that the embargoes cost 500,000 lives. That was a number put out by the Iraqui government and disputed by agencies such as UNICEF. Nobody really knows the human toll because the figures are all supplied by Saddam's propoganda machine. That figure was thrown out by the 60 Minutes journalist (Leslie Stahl if my memory serves me right). Albright said something to the effect that despite the human toll, the embargoes were worth it. Cold? Yes. True? Yes. As the world (read libertarians,et al) blames the U.S. and UN sanctions for the hardships of the Iraqui people, Saddam happily spends millions which could be used to buy food and medicine for his people on weapons. The more he allows his people to suffer,the more he can blame the U.S. and sanctions. In 1992 for example, U.S. Ambassador Edward Perkins pointed out that the embargo of food ended in April 1991. Large quantities of food, over 18 metric tons of medicine and antibiotics,114,300 metric tons of seed and 500 agricultural tractors had been shipped to Iraq. Yet Baghdad still complained that the sanctions it agreed to under the cease-fire were responsible for human suffering in Iraq. The Irqui regime had callously manipulated food distribution as an instrument of repression. Does anybody doubt Saddam is capable of doing this? Saddam has always had a goal, to make Iraq a world power,a power to be feared. He has purchased 1500 cooling systems from Ukraine for Iraqui T-55's and T-72's main battle tanks. Iraq also produces its own main battle tank, a T-72 Russian copy called the "lion of Babylon." Since 1995 Iraq has been purchasing missle guidance systems from Russia. They were sold as scrap metal. It has more than 13 different types of cruise missles, 4 of which it produces, the FAW70,FAW150,FAW200 and ABABIC. Iraq has signed a $480 million deal with Russia to upgrade their SA-3 systems and buy SA-10's. Iraq may also have acquired TAMARA, an advanced Czech air defense system which can shoot down aircraft without the use of radar. And of course we all know of his interest in setting up an ICBM system with the help of N.Korea. The list goes on forever. Money spent on military expansion rather that the "starving millions" being "murdered" by the U.S. Even when offered the opportunity to export oil under a UN plan for the benefit of his people, Saddam has refused. And why not, with many in the U.S. falling for his crocodile tears he will probably win in the end.
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 5:26:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By raf: ZAZ, the situation is TOO grave for us to debate the finer points of the Libertarian philosophy. Anyway, in all the YEARS I've followed the party's debates, damn near NOTHING has been solved in never-ending debate. The LP conventions are a laughingstock precisely because the participants are devoted to impossible-to-achieve ideals. Politics is the art of the PRACTICAL, not of the IDEAL. I, and others like me, will man the barricades, while most members of the LP debate how many civil rights can fit on the head of a pin. And it IS too bad, because I fimd much attractive in the Libertarian philosophy. But as I said above, and repeat here, Libertarianism is no more a real-world political system than its antithesis, Communisn, and for the same reason: Neither can survive, unaltered, contact with Human Nature. No offense to any Libertarians, and esp to you, ZAZ.
View Quote
You know, we should grab a beer sometime. I agree. I think the problem with the Libertarian party is that so many dislike government that good candidates among them is next to impossible. Libertarian Politician, an oxymoron. As for me... i think I am the reverse of your position. I started out conservative, doing the Republican thing. I just became so frustrated with the 2 party system that I decide it was time to focus on the ideal. I believe in much of the Libertarian platform but do recognize there will proabbly never be a Libertarian in a major office in my lifetime. Still, I have my honor. And that is a very hard thing to live up to. It is not easy to say I recognize my nation has done things that I can not condone...and even more so in my name without my support. It is not easy to effectively cast my votes in vain to live up to my ideal. But I have to live it. I am lying to myself if I act counter to what I feel is right. And even I, with the ideals I have, compromise. I voted for Bush. How'd you say it....Reality, not Ideal? This is a point I was willing to bend, though I was not pleased with myself for it. Cheezy, but here comes the truth. So let me leave you, and the others, with that. I don't claim to speak for Imbro, Invictus or others. But I can say our views are unpopular to most. It is my postition, it is my honor. And to it I must be true. And if and when it comes to that time when you man the barricade I will not be in a debate. It will be I who has your back. I stand with anyone who stands for Liberty Zaz
Top Top