Libertarians Join Anti-War Protests

Libertarian Party website ^ | January 21, 2003

[CWOJackson]

Darn...thanks for the correction. I wouldn't want to offend anyone though I'm not too sure who would be offended; old French traitors or our own current day traitors.

How about Quisling? Is that spelled correctly?

[AmishDude]

The primary goal, IMHO, in Iraq is to "build democracy" in Iraq thus and thus create a counterweight to the Saudis and take the heat off Israel.

You begin with a strawman premise. The primary goal is to get a repressive nutcase away from his own weapons and the oil money to fund others to do his dirty work. Everything else is gravy.

[AmishDude]

Oh, yes. For example, when Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize, I wondered. Is that the

• Peace in our time Prize
• Peace of Saladin Prize or
• Quisling Peace Prize?

[CWOJackson]

Was that the award they gave him in Dumbaskiss, Syria?

[Austin Willard Wright]

Well...we disagree. I think that the Wolfowitz memo (now down the Orwellian memory hole) is the real reason.

Also, neither you (nor anyone else) has provided any evidence that Saddam is planning such a thing. There have been plenty of evil people in history with WMD, Stalin and Mao being prime examples. Neither used them, though they had plenty of opportunity. It is certainly possible that various nut cases and ideologues might one day control nukes in places ranging from Pakistan, to India, to Brazil. The "preventive war" approach of endlessly going to war to prevent "mights" is a recipe for even greater trouble.

Speaking of "mights," what about the "mights" entailed in the consequences of a long term occupation of Iraq?

[AmishDude]

No libertarian would vote Workers World, but the LP has a long history of issue-based coalitions with Republicans, Greens, and whoever, when the issue is right.

So libertarian philosophy is just a statement about how one votes, huh? What one does after voting is irrelevant.

If you vote for X and X forms a coalition with Y you are supporting Y. And the WW folks are not just Dems or Reps with whom you disagree on policy. They're Stalinist and they're measuring curtains for your room in their gulag.

[CWOJackson]

Well I must give the libertarians some credit. It's kind of refreshing to see them posting something else beside their same old make my meth legal threads. This move to include numerous threads selling the nation out does show a streak of diversity within their platform that could expand their humour appeal.

[Zviadist]

Please don't buy into preemptive war if you choose to live here. It has never, NEVER been an idea of this country.

Can you read? I have been the only one on this thread arguing AGAINST pre-emptive war. And you have been attacking me for my position. Can you explain what in the world you are going on about?

[Maelstrom]

I thought it was just Ron Brown's screed.

republicans still have a long way to go before they can be a party of principle...
...or even of just limited government

[AlGone2001]

I wonder if the Democrats patted their Libertarian comrades on the head at the end of the demonstration?

Yeah, all twelve of them. They were able to use the rally as National Convention.

[JCEccles]

Can you read? I have been the only one on this thread arguing AGAINST pre-emptive war

So what are you saying? The United States must absorb the first blow? Americans must first be slaughtered before we can respond militarily?

[AmishDude]

I think that the Wolfowitz memo (now down the Orwellian memory hole) is the real reason.

Now, I don't follow defense undersecretaries as much as you do, but I can only gather that Wolfowitz expressed a giddy optimism that his bosses don't share. Hey, I'd love it if Iraq actually became a Turkey-style democracy. Iran is the better bet for that, though.

Also, neither you (nor anyone else) has provided any evidence that Saddam is planning such a thing.

Yeah, well nobody had any plans that Hitler was going to invade the Sudetenland, but anyone paying attention couldn't have been too surprised. How much poor behavior (invasion, attempted assassination of presidents, paying off suicide bombers, breaking treaty after treaty after treaty, attacking whole regions of one's own country) are you willing to tolerate before you realize what's going on here? There's only one good argument against war in this vein, but suffice it to say that Kissinger would have been its greatest proponents and he's on board for action against Iraq.

The "preventive war" approach of endlessly going to war to prevent "mights" is a recipe for even greater trouble.

Again, this is a Kissinger-type argument -- sovereignty is absolute no matter what. The problem is the Gulf War Resolution. Saddam has broken that international agreement which makes that argument moot.

Speaking of "mights," what about the "mights" entailed in the consequences of a long term occupation of Iraq?

Okey-doke:

• Iranians might become inspired to overthrow their government.
• The House of Saud might split, turning Saudi Arabia into a dozen managable pieces.
• North Korea might keep its nukes on its side of the 38th parallel instead of lobbing them toward Seoul as it convulses in its final death throes.
• Terrorists (Abu Abbas trigger any memories) might lose a safe haven.

I like the "might" game.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Henry Kissinger? Wow...that hurts!

Your mights are unlikely. Given the historical record (both of recent interventions and the realities of the Middle East), these are far more likely:

1. Ethnic and religous conflict (held down for so long by Iraq's secular/dictatorial regime) breaks out throughout the country.

2. The Kurds press their claim for independent Kurdisan, the new Iraqi central government (backed by the U.S. state department types who hate secession) sends in troops and the conflict spreads to Turkey. Implausible? Read some Kurdish websites if you don't think that this is a very real possibility.

2. The fundamentalism of the Shi'ite majority (long kept in check by the Sunni minority which now rules Iraq) spreads rapidly. The Shi'ites win the first "democratic" elections and demand the imposion of Sharia. The Sunni and Kurdish minories violently resist. U.S. occupying troops are faced with a choice.

I could go on with more "mights" but these are the two most likely ones.

[Austin Willard Wright]

It is one of the jobs of undersecretaries to fly trial baloons. He didn't do it without authorization IMHO.

[Ben Bolt]

I think not considering the White House has been soiled plenty in the past . The President looks like a wimp you say ? The fact that you would compare the current occupants to the previous occupants is so far over the edge .. Its laughable .

[Luis Gonzalez]

De los sus ojos tan fuertemente llorando,
volvía la cabeza, se las quedaba mirando:
vio puertas abiertas, postigos sin candados,
y las perchas vacías, sin pieles y sin mantos,
o sin halcones, o sin azores mudados.
Suspiró mio Cid, que se sentía muy preocupado;
habló mio Cid, bien y muy mesurado:
"grancias doy, señor padre, que estás en lo alto,
esto me han urdido mis enemigos malos."

[AmishDude]

Henry Kissinger? Wow...that hurts!

Sorry, he's the biggest proponent of sovereignty of nations.1. Ethnic and religous conflict (held down for so long by Iraq's secular/dictatorial regime) breaks out throughout the country.

So you would have advocated keeping Tito in power in Yugoslavia? If ethnic conflict is inevitable, then it would be advisable to keep a brutal regime in place indefinitely.

2. The Kurds press their claim for independent Kurdisan, the new Iraqi central government (backed by the U.S. state department types who hate secession) sends in troops and the conflict spreads to Turkey. Implausible? Read some Kurdish websites if you don't think that this is a very real possibility.

Wishful thinking from Kurds not withstanding, we are assuming a lot: (1) There will actually be an Iraqi central government. Maybe not. Maybe there will actually be three smaller states. In that case, Turkey would be in much less trouble because Kurds would rather simply cross the border than continue to agitate the Turkish government. (2) Kurds would be unwilling to live in a Federation. (3) Turkey would confront a "US backed" military exercise. (4) The US would confront Turkey. All in all, unlikely.

2.[sic] The fundamentalism of the Shi'ite majority (long kept in check by the Sunni minority which now rules Iraq) spreads rapidly. The Shi'ites win the first "democratic" elections and demand the imposion of Sharia. The Sunni and Kurdish minories violently resist. U.S. occupying troops are faced with a choice.

Yeah, well the Shi'ites in Iran are a little disillusioned with Sharia. Besides, the most radical form of Islam -- Wahabism -- is an offshoot of Sunnism.

---

It is one of the jobs of undersecretaries to fly trial baloons. He didn't do it without authorization IMHO.

Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere . . . . What kind of trial balloon are you talking about? We'd like to have a democracy (or rep. rep.) in Iraq? Well, Katy, bar the door, how dare he say such things? Let us assume for one paranoid moment that you are correct. This could not have been a trial balloon simply because there is nothing to try.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Of course, democracy is a good idea! Believing that it can be brought there by foreign fiat is naive. If Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia didn't prove that what will?

Conservatives are beginning to remind me of liberal defenders of the welfare state. Failure only wets the appetite to try again. It seems that conservatives on this issue are motivated by pure emotion on this issue rather than real life practicalities and historical experience.

When democracy comes to Iraq, it will be a gradual process determined by internal forces. Any attempt to impose it from outside will not "take."

Multiple states in Iraq? No way, is that state department going to tolerate that. The Turks won't either and they will expect pay-back for any help they give.

In any case, you will have your war....and we shall see. I hope that I am wrong and that a miracle will happen to prove you right....but it will truly be a miracle!

[AmishDude]

Believing that it can be brought there by foreign fiat is naive.

Duh. One more time: I don't believe democracy can be brought to Iraq anytime soon. It is highly unlikely. But there is no democracy in Morocco or Egypt or a whole host of other nations and that's tolerable -- it's got to be. This war is not about democratizing Iraq and it is the disingenuousness of erecting a strawman to declare it to be so.

Conservatives are beginning to remind me of liberal defenders of the welfare state.

Oh, here we go, the old conservatives=liberals gambit. You have got to get a different playbook. I've seen this one before.

Multiple states in Iraq? No way, is that state department going to tolerate that. The Turks won't either and they will expect pay-back for any help they give.

Yeah, the Turks would be really upset at several smaller, weaker Arab states on their border as opposed to one oil-rich monolith.

In any case, you will have your war....

It isn't my war any more than Hussein is your dictator.

In that light, maybe it is my war.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Normally, Turkey would not object....but you forget that Kurdistan extends deep into Turkey. The Turkish government would go ballistic if it had to worry about an expansionist Kurdish state on its border which could serve as a sanctuary for the Turkish rebels in Kurdistan. The Kurdish nationalists will not be satisfied with half a loaf (i.e. a Kurdistan limited to Iraq), nor do we have any reason to expect them to be.