Posted on 02/09/2003 6:17:12 AM PST by Richard Poe
The one thing that struck me (a disinterested observer) was that your argument didn't address his arguments, at least in the initial post, but was an ad hominem attack on his motives. No matter how well justified the attack, it is still a logical error to use that to undermine his arguments.
I, frankly, am astounded that the moderators didn't pull the thread. Why? Because a similar ad hominem attack by HIM, with a viewpoint contrary to that on this board, would have been jerked immediately.
That said, the anti-war shibboleth about "just war" is just a smokescreen. The United States has never hesitated to take the battle to the enemy, even if the threat was far removed from our own shores. We warred with the Barbary pirates, the Puerto Ricans, the Cubans, the Filipinos, and the Mexicans -- all of which could be considered "wars of conquest" if you broaden the definition enough. So American economic expansionism, backed by American military might, is nothing new.
Even if we concede that our interest in Iraq is petroleum-based, so what? We didn't compel Saddam Hussein to gas his Kurdish countrymen or pillage Kuwait. We allowed him to retain his throne in Gulf War I by establishing monitoring guidelines under a UN resolution whose provisions he promptly defied. Although there is no evidence he has them, there is little doubt he is bent on developing nuclear and biological weapons. Justin seems to think the sole target will be Israel, but it's just as likely that Kuwait, Iran, and the US will fall in his crosshairs.
A war against Iraq, aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein, is perfectly legitimate morally and politcally.
Shouldn't the thread be locked, whacked or moved to chat? That's the normal fate of duplicate posts.
In fact, when the guy who posts a duplicate thread notices it's a dupe, the guy personally alerts the thread moderator and begs that the thread be removed.
Actually it wasn't. This is a new blog entry which I wrote and posted on my blog site this morning.
It does seek to continue a discussion that began on a different thread, but it is not the same thread as yesterday's. It is a commentary on yesterday's thread, and a continuation of yesterday's discussion.
If I erred or in some way violated some FR code of conduct or etiquette, I apologize.
The large number of FReeper responses to my ongoing exchange with Raimondo suggested to me that there was some level of interest here in the discussion. Perhaps I erred in my interpretation.
My posts have always been welcome on FR in the past. If that has changed, for some reason, I will be happy to cease posting.
It is the latter.
I have no conflict with Raimondo personally, only with his views on the war.
I question Raimondo's motivation because I believe that his motivation -- or, to use an analogous term, his ideology -- provides the key to understanding Raimondo's highly selective treatment of the evidence surrounding the Iraq Question.
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.
I thought my entire exchange with Raimondo dealt with substantive arguments, and that a man's beliefs, motivation or ideology are fair game in a political discussion.
I have been posting and lurking on FR, under various handles, for nearly four years, but perhaps there are still some unspoken rules around here that I have failed to grasp. I will try to be more attentive in future to these subtleties.
Why is that? Have you been banned or your account deleted before? Why do you need various handles? Won't one do?
Why? He's got a right to an opinion too, doesn't he? And to the degree his opinion is well-reasoned and thoughtful, it may have more validity than many that are less cerebrally founded.
And the opinion is not the man. Defending the right to an opinion isn't the same as defending that opinion. This forum is not much good as an echo chamber.
Justin Raimondo brings a cogent, respectable argument in favor of his stance. A WRONG argument, to be sure, but one that bears scrutiny, if for no other reason than to overturn it with the same deliberation that went into its construction.
At issue is Richard Poe's smearing of anyone who disagrees with his wacked-out theories of who is "really" behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
He claims he wants to discuss my "ideology" -- but that is hardly a secret. I'm a libertarian: I believe that we cannot have an empire AND a constitutional republic. And my view is being confirmed even as Ashcroft prepares what Drudge calls "Part II" of the "Patriot" Act: secret arrest, stripping Americans of their citizenship, government spies everywhere. To call my patriotism into question, in this context, is to virtually call for my arrest by our war-maddened leaders.
To that, I can only reply, as I did in my original column on this subject: Go ahead -- make my day.
Well, because originally I had a handle and my wife had one. Sometimes I would use my wife's handle, when I was on her computer.
Recently, I decided that I would start posting under my own name, and so I no longer use my former anonymous handle.
My wife still has her handle, though.
Is that okay? And is there any particular reason for the uncalled-for sharpness of this interrogation?
Well, I am a libertarian too. But that hardly settles the issue, does it? Obviously that word doesn't mean much anymore.
I used to think that libertarians opposed "imperial adventures" abroad but regarded an attack on the U.S. homeland as a clear casus belli. Since 9-11, I have learned that many self-styled "libertarians" have developed a nearly infinite capacity to oppose action -- even in the face of 9-11.
This I cannot understand. It makes me wonder if I was a fool all those years to wear the name "libertarian." It makes me wonder how many people who bear that name really love this country, and how many just use the word "libertarian" as an excuse to justify their fence-sitting on a host of vexing issues.
Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie have "cogent, respectable" arguments too. But as many times as I have raised their arguments, Raimondo refuses to discuss them or accord them any respect.
I fail to understand why Raimondo alone should be accorded a fair hearing, and why he should have license to dismiss others' opinions in the most arrogant and high-handed manner, using such dismissive phrases as "tin-foil hat" material and so forth.
So, why not drop the crap about my alleged lack of "patriotism" and start discussing the more substantive issues?
Go for it. Or is this just more of your "legend in his own mind" stuff? Like you calling people chicken hawks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.