Posted on 03/09/2003 7:22:31 AM PST by dennisw
Llewelyn Rockwell, the leading intellectual influence of the paleo-libertarian right, was interviewed last night by Bill Moyers on PBS, and if any doubts had remained about the character of Rockwell and movement he leads, they were settled by this program. Asked his principles of when war is justified, he gave as an example of an unjustifiable war the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which he said was carried out for no other reason than to strike out at somebody, anybody. Asked if he thought Saddam Hussein was evil, Rockwell said, of course he’s evil, he’s a politician. Asked if he feared nuclear weapons in the hands of Hussein, Rockwell pertly replied that he also feared nuclear weapons in the hands of George W. Bush. Asked what he would advise President Bush to do about Iraq, Rockwell answered: “Read a book.”
So, if were directly attacked on September 11, 2001, was the action in Afghanistan the only action that was justified? How about invasion in Iraq? How about Saudi Arabia or Iran?
No.
Iraq? Not sure. I don't see any solid evidence that Al Queda is related to 9/11. However, we don't need any such evidence. Iraq signed a cease-fire with terms. They are violating the terms. Thus a state of war actually already exists. (Something I hope North Korea is taught very soon as well). Saddam is a direct threat. Search the archives here on FR about some of the intelligence reports covering what his operatives were doing.
Maybe there is evidence that Al Queda is directly related to Iraq, but frankly I couldn't care. He's a danger, and he's trying to get WMD.
At what point are we no longer in imminent danger from the geopolitic instability of those nations that appear to be linked with terrorist groups?
When there's no Islamists left alive. Or when there are no Islamists left alive that can think about attacking an American with so much as a rock without soiling himself.
We're not dealing with a Western Nation that has the philosphical background of the Renaissance and Reformation that allow for the Rule of Law, and more or less follow treaties. (This is the same problem we face in Asia.)
As such, the only thing they understand is overwhelming force. Fine. Give it to them.
Make their grandchildren remember what happens when you attack us.
Nuke France !! :)
Well, if you are going to insist on those terms, it would more accurate to say I am demanding we make a DIFFERENT mistake as opposed to the "third way" mistake we make all the time.
The only people who could actually make a profit off of a measly $20 million and deliver Osama would be Osama's own--they don't have to spend money looking for him.
I think you may have missed my post on this point where I compared and contrasted the price Osama paid to escape Tora Bora with the price we could have paid to capture him. There are some general examples in public domain where a form of ransom or bounty hunting worked well enough to reward the adventurers who undertook the task.
Ross Perot managed to personally rescue his employees from a kidnapping somewhere in the Middle East. I want to say Afghanistan or an Afganistan-like country.
I agree that Osama is a completely different order of magnitude. Even so, Johnny "Taliban" Walker Lindh managed at least one audience with him. Where there is will there is a way.
The devil is always in the details and any operation must balance costs against opportunities.
Correct. My estimate is that your method fails this analysis.
I certainly won't argue with your right to make your own estimate. I must say I have a different estimate, though.
By your intrepretation the most motivated individual at Tora Bora should have been General Tommy Franks and as we see, he refused to pull the trigger when he had a chance.
You're confusing two separate events to make a specious point.
Really,I posted on this around #49 in this thread.
And, of course, at the heart of it all is the phrase rejected by many: "avoid entangling foreign alliances"
George Washington's remarks were addressed at the specific situation facing a young republic trying to rebuild its economy after a devastating war for independence--he was telling us to stay out of the French Revolution.
Only the ignorant try to make that one line into some form of sacred writ for all time.
There is just a little hint of ad homeniem in that last comment. If you have a point to make, make it, if not then we have no basis for discussion.
I happen to think General Washington's comment was good advice then and good advice now and good advice for all time.
Best regards,
Even if true, it's utterly irrelevent to anything. Only the most brain dead Democrat or Republican robot can imagine that either party actually stands for anything, or has any relation to what it may have stood for even 100 years ago.
That said, Lew Rockwell is wrong about the Confederacy, but right about much else.
Well if you want to get technical, you could argue that the "Capitualtion" was a "contract of adhesion" and thus null. They signed because the US put a gun to their head.
Whether the US had a right to put a gun to their head is another question. And whether the US bore responsibility for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait (April's hinted open invitation to invade) is another question still.
Of that, even I am not sure. But it seems to imply a culturally & economically Right libertarian, one whose emphasis is on such things as Constitutional history and the gold standard. As opposed to a culturally Left libertarian who may be more concerned with drug legalization and sex policy (gay rights, porn, abortion).
I think paleo-libertarians are also more likely to see statist restirctions of abortion rights a valid.
And the LewRockwell.com site sees Murray Rothbard as their guide (although they claim to be more influenced by Ludwig von Mises). The March 2003 issue of Liberty accuses Lew Rockwell of downplaying Mises's critiques of Rothbardian views.
However, Rothbard himself did not refer to himself as a paleo-libertarian, but rather, as an anarcho-capitalist.
Is your handle a reference to Atlas Shrugged?
If so, I'm not surprised to hear you use the term "towl head." In the libertarian/LP circles I travel in, Ayn Rand cultists have gotten a reputation for being Islamo-phobic racists.
Yes, I know Ayn Rand stated her opposition to racism. And the Soviet Union claimed to be a democracy. But the Soviets were totalitarians, and today's official "mainline" Objectivists are for the most part, racists. (I saw Leonard Piekoff fulminating on C-SPAN about the US's right to invade third world countries for their natural resources -- he would have done Lincoln Rockwell proud.
You defend the Confederacy, and talk about towl heads. I hope you're an Objectivist rather than a fellow libertarian.
Did the black Southern people get a chance to vote for seccession?
White Southerners were willing to fight a war for independence. What if Lincoln had said, "I'll grant you independence, if you exchange places with your slaves." Would white Southererns have paid that price for independence? No?
Yet it was the price they demanded of black Southerners.
I'm sure France and Germany has fingerprints on weapons used by tyrants all over the world. So does the US. So does Israel and China and Russia and ...
What will the US "find" in Iraq? Whatever they want to find.
I'm no cultist.
Fear? No. Hatred is more like it.
(BTW, Islam is a religion, not a race).
I am not a racist. I am an ideologue. I hate evil ideologies.
Just because you don't have a clear understanding that Islam is a death cult masquerading as religion doesn't mean there aren't some of us who do.
Look at their history and look at their borders.
They cannot play nice and get along.
It is extremely advisable to destroy them before they get the weaponry and delivery systems to destroy us - because they will.
And told the villains to drop their weapons. Now it looks like they've decided to make our day.
Until 9-12-01.
A lot of useful idiots were woken up about Islam on 9-11. I was woken up about Lew Rockwell.
Liberty is still a great idea. But when they come to kill us, we kinda have to stick together.
Exactly. That's how conflict works. You put a gun to their head and sometimes you pull the trigger. It is sad, somewhat groteseque, and occasionally necessary.
The alternative is for someone to put a gun to my head, a condition I find unacceptable.
Best regards,
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.