Unfree Republic

Lew Rockwell ^ | 9/24/01 | Jeff Elkins

[Aurelius]

BUMP

[JAWs]

The case for US entry into WW1, IMO was always debateable. (Don't get me wrong, Kaiser Billy was the bad guy, but was making the world safe fro French and British imperialism so good?) However, once the U-Boats killed all those Americans, we had no real choice.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Actually no. When Harry and the gang outright refused to involve the national party further in local politics in Florida when the party had an opportunity (and some open seats that were winnable) some of us questioned the strategy. The response was that the national party was more important and it was more important to try to get the matching funds to get the party's voice heard. At that point, I determined, as did some of my friends that the party was clueless about party building. I do NOT endorse mindless attacks on libertarians or their policies. I do find stupid the paranoia to excess of worrying about having a FBI agent in your closet to monitor your activities. There is a fine line between civil discourse and tin-foil paranoia. Many of my brothers on the libertarian ideal have crossed that line. Thankfully not to the point of the loony left though.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The management of FreeRepublic has instituted a "loose lips sink ships" campaign, with new moderators patrolling the forum to delete posts that in their opinion are detrimental to the "war effort."

You've intentionally mis-characterized this policy.

[Abundy]

In this atmosphere, why bother?

Good point...the FR I came to know and love is falling apart.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I care! And I am disturbed by much that is happening in MY country because of people like you.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

And since you obviously have not read ANY or all of my posts, I am quite glad you are not in charge. I have never posted any nuclear detonation photos, nor advocated the use against of nuclear weapons against civilian targets. I only propose using tactical nukes against hardened military targets to save American soldiers from the trap of fighting in the mountains our enemies call home. If you're that sensitive to my screen name, obviously you have not read the thousands of others similar to and thinking the same way I do.

[Aurelius]

"...I have to brush up on my history."

While at LewRockwell.com, go to Last Week and click on Tuesday; read: "A reign of terror in defense of freedom" by Joseph Stromberg.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

I'll take both. But there has been alot of opinion posted questioning every move up to the point of including blaming the government for wanting this to happen to increase it's power (the shortwave radio loons believe this one). I agree with civil discourse. I do not believe in the two extremes. This is not the time for it. Nor is it the time for our government to be forced to back down from a fight because we have concerns that at this point in time are unfounded.

[tonycavanagh]

re : nor advocated the use against of nuclear weapons against civilian targets.

Except Kabul but to be fair to you, you did believe it was the C&C center for the Taliban.

Tony

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Agree or disagree, Sinkspur, their writings were always far more interesting than yours. You will not be missed. There are more than enough ignorant airheads here to take your place.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

You need to reread some of my other posts. I am NOT looking to stifle debate, but agree with Jim Robinson's posts earlier. There is a fine balance which must be struck. The "national ID card" is a fallacy which people will shoot holes through soon enough and shoot down soon enough. If a schmuck who wants to commit a terrorist act can steal ID's, uniforms, etc. from airlines to pull this off, how hard will it be for them to create a fake national ID card? Before I get excited about those rights being abridged I want some proof that they are seriously going to be enacted as it's all speculation now.
Now as far as the Germany comment, I guess I had that coming for the tinfoil reference. But I do not, have not, and never will agree to nor surrender my rights, especially the 2nd amendment. So you are quite wrong on that arguement my friend as I would never ask you to give that right up either.

[alpowolf]

there are quite a few libs calling for the same and even more

True. I read a column by Mark Shields the other day, and he was calling for those things, and higher taxes as well. Some things never change.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

You have to re-read all my posts. In the threads others have convinced me to restrict to hardened military targets and I concurred.

[x]

Freedom of speech is important and does become threatened during war time. But there is no parallel between Creel and Ridge. Creel was a government propagandist. Ridge will have more substantive policy making responsibilities. Nor is the parallel between Wilson and Bush. Bush's America has actually been attacked with great loss of life, and Bush is trying to prevent the kind of panic and mob repression that Wilson's government fueled.

Rockwellism is an armchair philosophy. The lonely Rockwellite sitting comfortably in his den assumes everyone else is as secure as he is. Unfortunately this hasn't always been true throughout history. There are moments of crisis when action is necessary. The Rockwellite in his barcalounger presumes that if you leave things as they are and do nothing, then nothing will change. This belief is preferable to the conviction of some that they must always be doing or changing things. But some times not to act is to lose everything. Patience and negotiation are advisable, but the patience of a nation isn't infinite and there are moments when it is finally broken. And it isn't just that our government wants power and manufactures crises to get it. There really are people out there who do mean us harm.

Rockwellism traces its roots back to Cobden and other idealistic or utopian 19th century economists. You can see parallel developments in Charles Beard and other turn of the century radicals and in the New Left of the 1960s. The central tenent of Rockwellism is that one's own government is to blame and that with it out of the way things will all run much more smoothly. Another assumption is that nobody wants to get us because we are rich, or free or arrogant.

Sooner or later these assumptions are called radically into question. For Norman Angell and other latter-day Cobdenites, it was 1914. For Beard, Barnes, Nock and their generations it was 1941. For the New Left, it was Afghanistan. For the Rockheads, it is now. Some of these people rose to the challenge, others did not. Neither course -- involvement or isolation -- is a priori right or right in all cases. Sometimes the crisis may not be real. I don't regard WWI as anything we should have got involved in. But I think the crisis and the need for action is real and serious now, as it was in the 40s, and as I thought it was in the 80s.

In any case, I wouldn't assume such moments never happen. Rockwellism really doesn't engage with history or with the present. The guy in the pannelled den with his drink and his bust of L von Mises could be a great person, the salt of the earth, but he doesn't have much of a clue about the real passions and dangers that nations and peoples confront over time.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Agreement bump to you sinkspur.

[rb22982]

demidog a liberal? LOL

[Nuke'm Glowing]

What's scary is that the liberal ilk is looking to further restrict freedom of movement. I can see the day wear only the wealthy have the right to air travel if they gets their way...

[rb22982]

You seem to equate libertarians with liberals. Strange, libertarians fit the FR mission statement to a tee.

[blackie]

"We are at war and like the man said, you are either with US or with them. Which will it be?"

Right-on Jim!!