Replies

Please, gold. Let's have fewer generalizations about "woolly headed libertarians." I'm a libertarian, and I support military action against Iraq. Most libertarians of my acquaintance do. It's a subject on which even conservatives are divided. Ask Joseph Sobran, Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan for their opinions.

Miss Mercer disagrees about the necessity of this particular war. I think she's wrong, but at least she's not one of the "No Blood For Oil" crowd. Nor does she compare the United States to Nazi Germany or say that Bush is a greater threat to "world peace," that pleasant illusion, than Saddam Hussein.

If we can't disagree about something this serious without having our intelligence, morals, or patriotism called into question, what's the point of ever talking to one another? What more will we learn from those who disagree with us than we learn from those who agree -- precisely zero?

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

And I'm a conservative who's opposed to the war. For the life of me, I cannot see why so many conservatives have bought into the dangerous precendent of undermining national sovereignty. Iraq is a sovereign nation headed, like so many other nations, by a brutal dictator who has massacred thousands of his own people.

So what? How does that make him any different from North Korea's Kim Jong Il? Or Communist China? Or a dozen African nations? Or, in some respect, our allies the Saudi's? When we're done in Iraq, are these countries next?

What gives the U.S. or worse, the U.N., the right to arrogate for itself decisions about what a sovereign nation - no matter how vile it may be - should or should not do? Do we realize that post-Kosovo and post-Iraq we've virtually conceded that the U.N. and the world community at large have the right to determine what goes on inside the borders of another nation?