State of the Union: A Libertarian Response

myself

[Undecided]

This isn’t the first time in our history that we’ve had the possibility of dangerous weapons in the hands of a leader we didn’t trust, and this won’t be the first time we’ve responded to this possible threat with a military assault.

In 1992, the U.S. federal government conducted a military siege at Ruby Ridge, ultimately killing Randy Weaver's dog, son and wife. Mr. Weaver was suspected of being a cult leader, hording weapons and ammunition for anti-government purposes.

The government was never able to prove their allegations, but ends-justify-the-means justice was the explanation for the loss of life.

Did we learn from this tragedy? Ask the surviving members of the Branch Davidian conflict. A short eight months after Ruby Ridge, Americans watched the siege at Waco, Texas. Again, anti-government beliefs and the possibility of dangerous weapons were offered as justification. When some people questioned this justification, accusations like rape and torture were thrown in for good measure.

Does this remind you of anything? That was essentially our President’s message in his state of the union address. A bad person with cultish followers might have or might be trying to obtain dangerous weapons. If this was good enough evidence to justify the slaughter of our own citizens, surely it must be good enough to justify wiping out some Arabs.

Does anyone remember the Oklahoma City bombing? It was a direct retaliation for Ruby Ridge and Waco. If unjust use of military force can inspire one of our own, Gulf war veteran Timothy McVeigh, to become a terrorist, just what do we expect to come from unjust use of military force on a sovereign nation? Think about it.

Granted, Saddam Hussein is an unstable person with dangerous beliefs. But that alone doesn’t justify military assault on Iraq anymore than it did on Ruby Ridge or Waco. The ends don’t justify the means, and the process of justice is more important than the result.

If Hussein really is a threat to us in the future, a terrorist waiting to happen, then wait for it to happen. Recognizing evil doesn’t make one holy, but dealing with evil actions does make one justified – dealing with evil thoughts, ideas and aspirations is God’s work.

In a world where one long range hunting rifle can be enough to bring our nation’s capitol to a halt, weapon’s of mass destruction aren’t nearly as terrifying as are mass numbers of individuals with weapons and the means and desire to use them. Regrettably, that is exactly what an unjustified use of force on Iraq would give us unless we can show tangible evidence that it is unquestionably necessary.

[wideawake]

If Hussein really is a threat to us in the future, a terrorist waiting to happen, then wait for it to happen.

Brilliant. I'll pass on the brainless fatalism, thanks.

[donozark]

See jaynadavis.com

[SandfleaCSC]

Comparing Ruby Ridge to the situation is the Gulf is so riduculous that words fail me.

[biblewonk]

Sadam is an asset poor Adolf Hitler. How long do you want to let him build up assets?

[biblewonk]

I wonder if you represent the majority of libertarians. How did you feel about W's anti drug stand Tuesday?

[mhking]

If Hussein really is a threat to us in the future, a terrorist waiting to happen, then wait for it to happen.

Are you willing to risk the lives of millions within the US and elsewhere around the world on that statement? Are you willling to risk your family's lives? Are you willing to risk this country on that statement?

Or are you one of those who sits back after the fact and wrings his hands, complaining about how we knew and didn't do anything? Make up your mind.

We're in this thing too far now. I'd much rather deal with disarming a pre-nuclear Saddam before going after Kim, than to wait until we have two rogue nuclear states in different parts of the world ready and willing to blow up Kansas City or Indianapolis or Pittsburgh or Des Moines or Sacramento on a moment's notice; to say nothing of the terrorists and Al Qaeda wannabes across the globe.

The sand is over there in the corner. You are welcome to hide your head in it.

[Redleg Duke]

More libertarian drivel from a driveling libertarian!

[rolling_stone]

And here is an unknown author's take on the liberal and conservative stand (joke):

Subject: The Liberal and Conservative

The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" Over The
War On Terrorism:

Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and
daughter. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes
around the corner and is running at you. In your hand is a Glock.40 and
you are an expert shot. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man
look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is
inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think?
What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and
knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this
situation? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some
friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:

BANG!

Texan's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...
(sounds of clip being ejected and fresh clip installed)

Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving."

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Daughter: "Nice grouping Daddy!"

[truenospinzone]

Well, we can do a head count. I'm a "small-l", and these views aren't representative of my own.

[NetValue]

"If Hussein really is a threat to us in the future, a terrorist waiting to happen, then wait for it to happen."

Why do I intuit that you would be the first to blame the government for not preventing an attack?

Why do I sense that you would critize the US government for striking back?

[r9etb]

Comparing Ruby Ridge to the situation is the Gulf is so riduculous that words fail me.

Well, he did call it a Libertarian response -- what further warning did you need?

[mhking]

Well, we can do a head count. I'm a "small-l", and these views aren't representative of my own.

Ditto.

[Liberal Classic]

The LP has pretty much ceased to speak for me anymore.

[abnegation]

Listen, I live in Idaho and remember Ruby Ridge quite well. However, Weaver never shot at his neighbors nor killed members of his own family. AND Weaver never supported terrorism or PAID suicide bombers for killing innocent Israelis, women and children to name a few. I do not support what our government did at Ruby Ridge. However those with your attitude actually support the polices of Saddam Hussein and his despicible regime. 'Nuf said.

[Cultural Jihad]

They are welcome to self-marginalize themselves all they want to. Hopefully the UberPatriot brownshirts will let us know how it is marching arm-in-arm with the Stalinists to denounce America, Americans, the American way of life, American laws, and American institutions.

[sticker]

Thank you for your comment Mr. Sheen, we'll call when we are ready for you on the set.

[Digger]

Here's one for you libertarians. Read about the increased spending by the Republican Congress. See this article by Jane Chastain. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30766

[CyberAnt]

Puhleeeeeesssse!!

This is a comparison of Ruby Ridge and going after Sadaam ...??

How ignorant can you be ...??

[BlueLancer]

"I wonder if you represent the majority of libertarians."
Let's do some polling ..."

Well, that shouldn't take too long to poll all Libertarians. A dozen marched in the last "anti-war" protest in Washington DC. That's ... what ... almost half of their entire membership, isn't it?