Apologies are due for my short sabbatical away from the Samizdata but I’m afraid the prosaic concerns of keeping a roof over my head required attendance.
Having returned this evening, I have had an opportunity to scroll through the items posted since my last visit and, also, the comments appended thereto. It is among the latter efforts that I discovered this outpouring of hysterical claptrap:
“You are evading the fact that the United States Government is the foremost terrorist organisation in the world at the current time and its war plans are not designed to protect yours and my liberties but rather to extend its own power at the expense of me and you in terms of our money, liberty and increased risk of attack and at the expense of the lives of the innocents in Iraq who are about to be bombed.
For a moment, I thought we had been honoured with a visit from Noam Chomsky, but the actual author turned out to be Paul Coulam who I had, until now, credited with a bit more common sense. I won’t go as far as to say that I am shocked but I am disappointed; not because Paul is clearly against any attack on Iraq but because he has elected to employ the ludicrous rhetoric of the far-left in order to express that opposition.
If Paul honestly believes the things he has written then there is probably nothing I can do or say that will serve to change his mind but I am inspired enough to conduct a little Q&A session in which Paul and everybody else is invited to participate.
- America is indeed on the warpath. Is this because:
- They just decided that they want to dominate everybody in the whole world and enslave them for ever and steal all their resources?
OR
- They might just be trying to prevent another 9/11 type terrorist attack on their country?
- They just decided that they want to dominate everybody in the whole world and enslave them for ever and steal all their resources?
- Paul is quite right to be outraged at the erosion of his civil liberties and the plundering of his wealth but are these processes occuring because of:
- American warmongering and ‘bloodlust’ for power?:
OR
- Because the majority of his (and my) fellow Brits keep electing socialist kleptocrats into Westminster and they, in turn, are only answerable to even bigger kleptocrats in the EU?
- American warmongering and ‘bloodlust’ for power?:
- Thousands of Saddam’s ‘Republican Guards’ will be deliberately targetted by allied forces in any attack on Iraq. These are the men who have tortured, murdered and terrorised a nation at the behest of their tyrant boss. Should they be regarded as:
- ‘Innocent’ Iraqi victims of the American terror machine?
OR
- About as deserving of our sympathy as the Waffen SS?
- ‘Innocent’ Iraqi victims of the American terror machine?
Of course, I have my own answers to these questions (can’t you tell?).
On a slightly different tack, I also note that Paul chose to play the ‘Switzerland’ card in his arguments with US foreign policy>
“If the US had followed a similar foreign policy to that of say Switzerland we would be much safer, freer and richer than is currently the case.”
Excuse me, Paul, but did you put even a jot of thought into that statement before you posted it? Had the US followed the foreign policy of, say, Switzerland then we would now be living under the shadow of either a Nazi or a Soviet Europe. ‘Safer’ ‘freer’ and ‘richer’ are not exactly the three words I would use to describe that state of affairs.
Besides which I assume it’s the internationally-recognised Swiss neutrality that is actually at the heart of the matter and I do wonder why Rothbardians are always insisting on such neutrality for the USA? Swiss neutrality has been respected largely because of its geography and unique position as a small country in the heart of a continent. Neutrality is no defence against war (both Holland and Belgium declared neutrality at the outbreak of WWII) and is not a realistic model for a huge trading country like the USA (or even Britain for that matter). Swiss neutrality is, I’m afraid, uniquely Swiss.
And let me turn to another ridiculous, but widely echoed, assertion:
“Would Saddam or Osama or any of the rest of them be remotely interested in us if our governmnets hadn’t sought to continually intervene in their affairs.”
Spoken as if the Middle East was some tranquil oasis of civil society and free trade before all these meddling ‘Gringos’ showed up, and not an imperial playground or a tapestry of super-power client states. Still, let us not get bogged down by the sorry history of that sorry corner of the world because when Paul appeals for an end to ‘intervention’ in the affairs of the region he undoubtedly means a withdrawal of all the soldiers, spooks and subsidies.
That may be a good idea but it would not be an end to ‘intervention’ because commerce is also a form of intervention, especially when it is commerce between developed and undeveloped countries. Whenever Coca-Cola open a canning plant in Damascus, that is ‘intervention’ in the region; if BMW open a dealership in Amman that is ‘intervention’ in the region, especially when the ‘white men in suits’ start showing up with suitcases full of cash ready to power-broke with local potentates. Rothbardians may not see MTV Satellite broadcasts as a provokation but people like Osama Bin Laden most certainly do.
So, when people like Paul call for the West to stop intervening in the region let’s be clear what is actually being called for: not only does the military hardware have to be pulled out but Exxon, Shell, BP, IBM, Hewlett Packard and Britney Spiers etc all have to be pulled as well. Who knows, perhaps Western governments would have to sanction their own corporations from doing any business in the region at all.
Is this what the Rothbardians want? Somehow, when push comes to shove, I rather doubt it.
Well said.
It’s amazing how uniform this anti american, pro saddam view is in the media. The BBC seems to act as nothing more than a mouthpiece for Saddamite propoganda. The only people you can denigrate are amercans. The only view you can have is that ‘war is wrong’.
Just once I’d like one of those reporters living in a five star hotel in Bagdhad spewing out Baath propoganda to talk about the destruction of the marsh arabs and the great ecological crime that has been Saddam’s draining of the southern marshes. Just once i’d to hear someone say that the moral thing is to rid the world of a viscious evil mass murdering dictator.
Give the inspectors more time is the siren cry, they’ve had twelve years. Give diplomacy a chance – a chance to keep Saddam in power. Have i gone crazy here? Is it just me? Maybe i’m living in the wrong country.
Why is ‘Europe’ always portrayed as a homogenous entity ruled by France, when in reality twenty european nations have pledged support to the U.S. Why is America slated for undermining the U.N. when it’s actually the main force in wanting the U.N.s mandate carried out? Why is it never acknowledged that the only reason there are any inspectors in there at all is because of American and British pressure? The anti war lobby seem to be arguing that you can’t take out Saddam because he hasn’t used his weapons against us, and you can’t take him out after he’s used them against us for fear of him using them again.
If only we’d had the courage to destroy Saddam’s regime at the end of the gulf war twelve years ago. I used to be very confident that the west would have the confidence and force of will to defend itself against those forces which would seek to destroy it, but if we’re rotting from within to this extent i worry we’ll end up destroying ourselves. France is a much bigger threat to NATO right now than Saddam. Is there any mass murdering tyrant the anti war lobby wouldn’t support before they supported America? I feel that i’m living in 1937.
The example of Swiss “neutrality” is an odd one. Switzerland maintained its neutrality by allowing Germany supply trains through its territiory unmolested and by providing a safe haven for certain Nazis ill gotten gains. Swiss “neutrality is much the same as the Irish “neutrality” which provides a refuelling post for American weapons and troops.
I think you are making the legalists mistake again though with your A and B questions. This might help you score points but it doesn’t get you to the truth, except by accidents. The answers to most of of your boolean questions should actually be C, can you rephrase the question please.
For example
They just decided that they want to dominate everybody in the whole world and enslave them for ever and steal all their resources?
Of course they didn’t, however, they are more than a little interested in Iraq’s oil for the simple reason that oil is the single most valuable commodity in the world and it is running out. By running out I don’t mean that the barrels are about to dry up. By running out I mean that oil is a stock. An irreplaceable fossil fuel that is finite. Eventually it will run out. Without oil there is no global economy, because there is no longer any cheap, fast transport. Given the developed worlds absolute dependence on petroleum for trade and defence and power generation, I would say that the control of Iraq’s oil fields is of paramount importance to the US. Just as France has an equally great desire to keep Saddam in power in order to have some control over the flow of Iraqi oil.
As for the other option
They might just be trying to prevent another 9/11 type terrorist attack on their country?
There is no, and has never been, any proven link between Iraq and September 11. Colin Powell, when asked to provide proof, merely came up with more unverified accusations. Other countries yes. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Germany, Yemen, Algeria and Afghanistan. But not Iraq. In geo-political terms saddam Hussain was never interested in anything other than his own back yard. He might not be that way inclined now. If this is part of the war on terror then it seems like a lot of effort spent on an irrelevant target. saddam was a paper tiger the first time around. He ‘s a pretty tattered paper tiger now.
eamon
Eamon:
“He ‘s a pretty tattered paper tiger now.”
You might be right, and you might be wrong. Those WMD are very scary. Give us the benefit of doubt, and kill that tiger, wether tattered or not.
By the way – do you have proof he is only “a tattered paper tiger” ? I mean – proof more credible than Powell’s ?
David, nickmallory,
Well said.
Especially that “foremost terrorist” paragraph should not go unanswered in reasonable society.
I did once hear a Green friend in the 1980s rant that Thatcher’s period in power made him feel that finally Satan was walking the earth.
I asked him if that didn’t sound a bit potty in the century that Hitler and Stalin [I left the list at those two] had lived and ruled?
He blinked for a second, and went quiet and puzzled. Odd, unbalanced ideas do have a sort of energy of their own independent of the believer. If anyone, he, not Thatcher, was the one who had been briefly possessed and then recovered himself.
Two thoughts- Switzerland is by far the most heavily armed nation in Europe per capita, judged by % of GDP spent on defence, total amount per head spent on defence, and “objective” defence ability per head (i.e. the Swiss have a genuinely dangerous,albeit strictly defensive military, rather than an expensive crowd of conscripts for parades). In fact by these criteria, Switzerland is one of the most heavily armed nations on Earth. That kind of neutrality I can handle.
Secondly it’s worth reading Gabriel’s recent posting on why Saddam is a threat, and why it is about oil- if not for exactly the reasons “Eamon” thinks.
There’s “left,” and there’s “left field.” And there’s also “sentient gas clouds from Pluto are controlling the President’s brain by sending microwaves through his fillings,” but that’s for another day.
Paul is “left field.” He believes so many things that are counterfactual that no one could argue with him usefully. The first job is to realign his beliefs and perceptions with reality — and it’s a job I would not care to tackle.
Just a reminder that we should pick our shots, rather than spraying our ammo all over hellangone, trying to hit targets our arguments cannot possible penetrate.
David, very well said. nickmallory, ditto.
“Foremost terrorist organization” is not the phrase I would use for the U.S. That said, the U.S. has been involved in quite a few shady dealings, many of which involved lots of civilian deaths (Timor, Turkey, SE Asia, Central America, etc.) Its behavior on the Iraq issue has not exactly been clean or consistent either.
Again, if Mr. Hussein is so horrible (and he likely is), why did the USG accept him as a client state for so many years, when his army was larger and more dangerous? Why did our ambassador not strongly discourage Mr. Hussein from invading Kuwait when he discussed the matter with her? Why did State publicly announce that we had no defense agreements with Kuwait?
Other inconsistencies in the USG position are more serious. One of the claims for Gulf War I was that Iraq was massing on Kuwait’s southern border to invade Saudi Arabia. The USG told the Saudis that it had secret sat data indicating this was so. One of our journalists got her hands on some commercial Russian sat data, and had is analysed by an ex-DIA sat analysis guy (not a wimpy peacenik). The results: no Iraqi troops, just sand dunes.
There are several possible explanations for the above (and other) inconsistencies, but none of them cast the USG in a particularly favorable light. “Inefficient and stupid bureaucracy” is perhaps the most optimistic of these.
My concern is that this Iraqi liberation project is Yet Another Government Program. I can’t trust that there exists a real threat to the US here, not just because Iraq is so much weaker, but because USG data is no longer trustworthy. (The “oil weapon argument” has been thoroughly dissected by Jerry Taylor at CATO — I recommend everyone go check him out.) I would like to see the Iraqis free of Mr. Hussein, but given that the Iraqi people will have little or no say in what the USG does, I’m not convinced that the new puppet government will be enough better to justify the body count. The history of U.S. puppet governments (esp. Suharto, the Shah) is not encouraging.
I suspect that those who really want to see the Iraqi people free (including myself) would be better off forming a revolutionary organization independent of the USG.
Quick patriotism check: If the new puppet government of Iraq IS oppressive and exploitive, will we as US/UK citizens take action to rectify the situation? Note the effective and prompt citizen response to client state horrors in Iran, Indonesia, Turkey, Central America, Lebanon, etc.
The fact that leftists speak and act irrationally about these issues doesn’t make them go away, nor does it make the victims of previous USG warfare/client states any less dead.
T.J.,
“My concern is that this Iraqi liberation project is Yet Another Government Program. ”
That’s a justified concern.
But what do we do ? The WMD are there and are menacing. What do we do ? Do we wait for the next 9/11 before undertaking that “Yet Another Government Program” to get rid of Saddam ?
Do you have some private, sleek, efficient and scrupulous army ready to to the job of removing Saddam and establishing in Iraq a just and free regime, all this for a fraction of the body count and $ cost of that “Government Program” ?
“But what do we do ? The WMD are there and are menacing. What do we do ? Do we wait for the next 9/11 before undertaking that “Yet Another government Program” to get rid of Saddam ?”
You, along with the US government’s official line, are ignoring the *utter* lack of evidence linking Saddam with 9/11, or any other attack on the US for that matter. Personally, i believe invading Iraq certainly wouldn’t make another terrorist attack on the West less likely; if anything, it might make it more so.
“Switzerland is by far the most heavily armed nation in Europe …”
That is surely true, especially given the reluctance of Europe to spend on defence.
However, Switzerland’s military might is only partially responsible for it’s peaceful existence. After all, Switzerland is a small country, and it’s absolute strenght is limited.
The truth is that Switzerland enjoys, along with many other small countries, the fruits of a global security arrangement (imperfect as it may be) established by the Great Powers (US).
That the US or Britain do not have the option of being Switzerland, has already been pointed out.
“the *utter* lack of evidence linking Saddam with 9/11, or any other attack on the US for that matter.”
Let’s assume, for the sake of the argument, that, maybe, indeed, Saddam has no intention of attacking the US and no intention of assisting terrorists. By the way: do you have *proof* of this ? Don’t you accept Saddam’s declarations of intentions, or the fact that he is shooting at US and British planes ?
Suppose all his threats are directed only at his neighbors, such as Iran, Kuwait, Saudia, Turkey and Israel. Would an attack on any of these be of no concern to you ? Or an WMD arms race in the region to contain that threat ?
Usually, the burden of proof rests on the party which is demanding action.
Either Saddam’s planning attacks on the West and has weapons, and our governments know this, in which case they should present the evidence and get on with it, or else we’re left in a shaky place, where war is justified on the basis that someone *might* do something and *might* have something. This opens up a whole nasty can of worms. It’s popping down the road & taking out all the crackheads who hang out at my tube stop, on suspicion that they might burgle my house at some point.
Fact is, WMD or no WMD, if Saddam attacks another country, he knows we’ll be on him like a ton of bricks, (and quite rightly too!). So yes, those countries’ fate does concern me, but realistically, given the balance of power in the world at the moment, i reckon Saddam likes being in power in iraq more than owning a little extra land for a week or two before being bombed out of the universe.
A_T makes an interesting point by saying he thinks Saddam can be deterred, and is essentially a rational actor, albeit an evil one. My worry – and we can never be sure of this – is whether Saddam is amenable to reason or not.
Were these the actions of a rational man:
Invasion of Iran.
Ditto Kuwait.
Gassing the Kurds.
Scud strikes on Israel.
Attempted murder of George Bush snr?
Probable involvement in 1993 attack on WTC
Financial backing for terror attacks on Israel
Too many acts of brutality to mention against his own people
Let’s be honest with ourselves. Ultimately, judging the situation before us is, I think, something where totally verifiable evidence and justification will be impossible to get. My deep fear is that by the time we have found out just how evil this man is, we’ll be glowing in the dark.
Let’s hope not.
There is no, and has never been, any proven link between Iraq and September 11.
That’s correct but you also have this:
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB:
Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters
by Laurie Mylroie
ACCORDING TO THE presiding judge in last year’s trial, the bombing of New York’s World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 was meant to topple the city’s tallest tower onto its twin, amid a cloud of cyanide gas. Had the attack gone as planned, tens of thousands of Americans would have died. Instead, as we know, one tower did not fall on the other, and, rather than vaporizing, the cyanide gas burnt up in the heat of the explosion. “Only” six people died.
Few Americans are aware of the true scale of the destructive ambition behind that bomb, this despite the fact that two years later, the key figure responsible for building it–a man who had entered the United Stares on an Iraqi passport under the name of Ramzi Yousef–was involved in another stupendous bombing conspiracy. In January 1995, Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S. commercial aircraft in one spectacular day of terrorist rage. The bombs were to be made of a liquid explosive designed to pass through airport metal detectors. But while mixing his chemical brew in a Manila apartment, Yousef started a fire. He was forced to flee, leaving behind a computer that contained the information that led to his arrest a month later in Pakistan. Among the items found in his possession was a letter threatening Filipino interests if a comrade held in custody were not released. It claimed the “ability to make and use chemicals and poisonous gas… for use against vital institutions and residential populations and the sources of drinking water.” [1] Quickly extradited, he is now in U.S. custody awaiting trial this spring.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
I am amazed at the lightheartness and wilingness of some libertarians to “be on him like a ton of bricks” which suposedly means nuking Iraq and kiling several hundred thousand people. This is what you say you will do if nothing is done now, and later Saddam attacks some neighbor.
That Saddam might attack some neighbor is not improbable, he has done so twice in the past.
And how will you pour on him “a ton of bricks” if – as you advocate – the US army is retired to America? by ICBMs ??
And the several thousand hundred victims Saddam might kill in the country he attacks, before that “ton of bricks” lands on his head – these count for nothing ?
Would it not be much more prudent and humanitarian to remove the menace at a relatively low cost now, than face such horrendous scenarios ?
About “taking out all the crackheads who hang out at my tube stop, on suspicion that they might burgle my house at some point”
If you recognized a crackhead as the one who burgled your neighbor’s house a week ago, would it not be a good idea to “take him out” ?
I am amazed at the lightheartness and wilingness of some libertarians to “be on him like a ton of bricks” which suposedly means nuking Iraq and kiling several hundred thousand people. This is what you say you will do if nothing is done now, and later Saddam attacks some neighbor.
That Saddam might attack some neighbor is not improbable, he has done so twice in the past.
And how will you pour on him “a ton of bricks” if – as you advocate – the US army is retired to America? by ICBMs ??
And the several thousand hundred victims Saddam might kill in the country he attacks, before that “ton of bricks” lands on his head – these count for nothing ?
Would it not be much more prudent and humanitarian to remove the menace at a relatively low cost now, than face such horrendous scenarios ?
About “taking out all the crackheads who hang out at my tube stop, on suspicion that they might burgle my house at some point”
If you recognized a crackhead as the one who burgled your neighbor’s house a week ago, would it not be a good idea to “take him out” ?
A_T, you are ignoring some key logical realities here.
First, you state that you believe that an attack on Iraq would increase instead of decrease the likelihood of an attack on the United States. When did we get to this point where the strategy in fighting the war on terror became how we could make these terrorists like us again? Its plain that their demands are not worthy. They bombed a night club in Bali killing 300 because Australia came to the aid of the East Timorese. We need to accept that “how the terrorists feel about us” or how many there are is really not the issue. We will have to face the terrorist threat regardless, simply because their values clash so radically with ours.
It doesn’t matter whether there are 50,000 islamic militants in the world, or 75,000, or 100,000. What matters is the means they have to carry out an attack. The way to fight the war is to limit their capability to carry out massively destructive attacks against us. Iraq is one of the few places where a terrorist can aquire weapons of mass destruction. It matters little whether saddam has links to September 11th or even Al-Qaeda. sooner or later, those weapons will be used against the US because there are (and will be) enough people with their lives bent on doing just that.
Even if I buy the argument that Saddam is somehow ideologically constrained from dealing with islamic terrorists, which is an extremely specious assumption(Molotov-Ribbentrop, anyone?), you must realize that those weapons will outlast the Saddam regime. Can we extend those assumptions to Uday? or Qusay? or whatever tyrant climbs to the top of the greasy pole to succeed him? Is it really worth it to extend those assumptions? Its the weapons themselves, and their presence in a region that is also home to our enemies, where they have been allowed to move freely, and where associations are commonplace…that is the threat. Saddam is only the issue because of his refusal to disarm, and what that portends.
That is the link to September 11th. The problem is you are still thinking in a pre-september 11th world, where it makes sense to wait until something has happened before you think of a way to confront it. September 11th has forced the US to think like its enemies, confront threats imaginatively and proactively, and assume nothing.
“Invasion of Iran.”
If someone who wanted to expand his territory had no respect for the lives of his soldiers, a large store of chemical weapons, and a reasonable expectation of military aid from one of the two most powerful countries on Earth (with the other not caring very much), then yes, this might be the act of a rational man.
“Ditto Kuwait.”
Maybe. He could have misinterpreted signals coming from the U.S. state department, and thought that his generally good relations with the U.S. would give his some immunity (like he got with chemical weapons when the issue came up at the U.N.) This was obviously a miscalculation, but hardly indicative of an insane maniac.
“Gassing the Kurds.”
It’s difficult to think of a better way to instill fear in a population which is breeding dissent. If you’re racist, and you know you can get away with it (as he did for several years before it was mentioned substantially in the west), then why not?
“Scud strikes on Israel.”
This might have been an attempt to show that he really meant business about attacking Israel. That might scare the U.S., as the prospect of large numbers of civilian causulties in Israel wouldn’t play well at home. Once again, it very well might be a miscalculation rather than irrationality
“Attempted murder of George Bush snr?”
I have to admit, that’s sort of baffling. Then again the CIA repeatedly tried to kill Fidel Castro, though it would probably not have produced any change on the ground in Cuba. If he’d succeeded, then it probably would have meant an invasion of his country, so this one is harder to explain away.
“Probable involvement in 1993 attack on WTC”
Assuming he was involved in the ’93 attacks, then I can’t really come up with an explaination as to why.
“Financial backing for terror attacks on Israel”
This shouldn’t even be on the list. Financing these attacks gives him a whole lot of clout in the Muslim world, and destabilizes the region. Any attack on Iraq when there is substantial military retaliation against the Palestinians (as there almost always is after the terrorist attacks) would make the U.S. look very bad in the eyes of Muslim countries (whose airbases we need to run a war effectively). This is one of the most rational things he could do other than straightening up and flying right (regarding inspections and WMD programs).
“Too many acts of brutality to mention against his own people”
That’s a very good way to control a population–fear. The Nazis, Stalinists and Maoists alll knew it. I can’t see how this is irrational at all.
I’d like to join in.
The Swiss were not neutral, they were the bankers. A few historians have theorized that by the Swiss acting as bankers, the war went on 2 years longer.
Saddam is the largest money-launderer in the world.
Iraq might not have only been involved in WTC 93, but Iraqi agents might have been involved in Okla City. The FBI will not turn over the tape to the Senate investigating committee about John Doe #2 getting out of the truck right before the bombing.
It also seems that a Kuwaiti who disappeared during the Gulf War ended up in Okla City, but his height and appearance changed. His file was taken by Iraq during GW I. Jayna Davis has the coincidences.
Saddam would not attack us out in the open, he’d work w/others, like the French did until last weekend, Belgium/NATO excepted.
As another blogger on another site recalled, Chamberlain was surprised that the nazis and bolshies hooked up. Why would anyone be surprised if Saddam hooked up? The IRA’s hooking up w/FARC. Or were those 3 IRA members just on vacation in Colombia? Which was just hit w/2 car bombs, BTW, seems they were aiming for a BALI effect.
As to al queda/Saddam, at another site, someone wrote that he/she has a friend who’s an aide to Barney Franks, D-MA. They were arguing about the alleged link, the aide didn’t believe said friend. Said friend was going to write a post as to why, but decided to google instead. Said friend sent aide links from NYT & WP going back about 10 years about said links. Aide changed mind.
It’s not that why would al queda do business w/Saddam, but why wouldn’t they? They both want the same end for America, Saddam has the weapons and al queda has the money.
And, even some in the German gov’t think Saddam has smallpox and is starting to encourge the gov’t to think about stockpiling vaccine. That was just in the last few days.
We have a gaping hole in NY, all things are possible. Even a stopped clock is correct 2x a day.
Lucas Wiman,
The way you define “rational” even Hitler would qualify. Are mad people only those who climb on a roof and shout at the top of their voice ?
If “all” Saddam ever did was attack Iran, Kuwait and Israel – that is reason enough to go and remove him (kill him would be better). I wouldn’t wish to have such “rational” leaders for neighbors.
I agree with Jacob. Presumably, Lucas would have us believe that Hitler was “rational” to invade the Soviet Union in 1941. History tells us different.
Anyway, if we stand aside and let Iraq brutalise his people further and pose a greater threat to the rest of us, then hair-splitting over whether he is rational or not won’t seem very smart, will it?
However, I find debating the rationality of a bloodthirsty dicatator to be a fairly pointless exercise with people who have taken a hard-line isolationist foreign policy stance. We are back to this issue I broached a few days ago on the blog – which is whether libertarianism is about making actual changes to this world for the better, or not.
I am indeed honoured to be the subject of one of David’s fiskings, ‘If this is Rothbard then count me out.’ My views on this are all rather orthodox Rothbardianism, although I tend to be much more moderate in my expression of them than Rothbard himself, simply read any of his writings on war in any of his many books. To put David’s mind at rest I can of course assure David that few Rothbardians will have made the error of counting him in in the first place.
Just a couple of prosaic Rothbardian points though. Countries (States) do not trade with each other but rather engage in all manner of extortion, threat and violent attack which they pass off as trade often behind the cover of ‘corporations’ and trading nations do not require highly interventionist foreign policies, indeed they do not require states at all.
Side note on Hitler irrationality re: Barbarossa: you should check out this rather interesting primary source document, the transcript of a meeting between Adolf and Mannerheim of Finland in early 1942, the result of a tape recorder left on accidently.
http://www.wargamer.com/articles/bdvisit2.asp
There’s a difference between irrationality and making in errors in judgement as a result of limited information.
I think that the real goal of the impending invasion of Iraq is essentially strategic in nature, and that it is a necessary step in uprooting hte Islamic terrorists. No matter how many people on the “Arab street” wish to take up jihad against the West, not much will come of such sentiment unless it is backed by money and some infrastructure. You can’t just go into your neighborhood grocery store and pick up a kilo of C4 plastic explosive, nor can you get an anthrax culture kit. The plain fact is that such operations require money and means, which at the current time come from countries in the region that are, at best, ambivalent about such activities within their borders.
It is obvious that there are great difficulties in projecting force clear across the Atlantic. But what will happen when Iraq is occupied and controlled by 100,000 US troops? When the neighboring despotisms are “requested” to turn over certain individuals the “request” is far more likely to be granted when the leaders know that massive forces could be there within hours, rather than months or weeks, if they refused. When it appears that there will be a very heavy and terrible price to be paid for allowing terrorist organizations to operate freely in a country, I believe that such “tolerance” will cease, and that is the true key to wiping out the Islamic terrorists.
>>You can’t just go into your neighborhood grocery store and pick up a kilo of C4 plastic explosive, nor can you get an anthrax culture kit.
Gray1, use your imagination! Can you say “fertilizer + diesel fuel”? Can you say “disgruntled Pakistani grad student”? These things are much, much easier than is generally assumed. The limiting factor in terrorism isn’t opportunity, but motive.
First of all, Paul your positioning yourself in support of Rothbardian puppet propoganda is rather self descriptive of your personality. We live in a society where the loser gets the medal. The liar who is most believable wins the election. The one who best deceives his voters is the victor. How are any of us suppose to count on these people to be perfect? War is what built this nation. Sure we’ve made mistakes.. but I point out, if any one of those wars, (or all of them), have been sanctioned by the gods… wouldn’t the intentions be pronounced by victory?
We’re at war for several reasons, and my grandfather, my father, 2 brothers and uncle died in war to protect your right to voice your opinions without being slaughtered, (at least in the physical sense, because we all have the freedom to slaughter you verbally). So think about the propoganda you cluelessly spew my fellow news watcher. *smile*.