The official blog of the Libertarian Party
July 11, 2005
The Best Recruiting Sergeant for al-Qaeda?
Time Magazine recently published an article by Daniel Benjamin which began with thoughts by a British ambassador stating that George W. Bush was the "best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda."
Benjamin continued in his piece by somewhat laying blame for the London bombings on Bush and his invasion of Iraq:
Britain has been on al-Qaeda's target list since the group's earliest days in the 1990s; the country's appointment with terror was ensured. But now, because of the invasion of Iraq, it faces a longer and bloodier confrontation with radical Islam, as does the U.S. America has shown itself to be good at hunting terrorists. Unfortunately, by occupying Iraq, it has become even better at creating them.
Open for discussion is this: Has the so-called "War on Terror" created more terrorists or has it been a legitimate offensive campaign to protect America?
Posted by Shane Cory at July 11, 2005 12:09 PM
Reader Comments:
I believe that the invasion of Iraq has resulted in an increase in the number of terrorists.
H. Rearden
I think the first sentence:
"Britain has been on al-Qaeda's target list since the group's earliest days in the 1990s;"
shows it is not entirely our fault. There are bombings going on all around the world, not all of which are related to our presence in Iraq.
Do I think we should be there? No.
I also don't think al-Qaeda were some lovable muslim "practioners of peace" before the U.S. invaded, either.
"Britain has been on al-Qaeda's target list since the group's earliest days in the 1990s;"
Goes to show that whenever any county goes meddling in the affairs of other countries they become a target.
Has the so-called "War on Terror" created more terrorists or has it been a legitimate offensive campaign to protect America?
This question is clearly bait. "Legitimate offensive campaign" is an oxymoron. It is an impossibility to be offensive and legitimate in the broad scope of things.
If it's legitimate then it's defensive.
In response of the topic, I believe Bush's actions have directly resulted in an increase in terrorists, and therefore terrorism as a whole.
As an interesting aside, isn't it amazing (sense the sarcasm?) that any time the US declares:
The War on
The result *always* increases that which they sought to remove?
War ain't the answer, folks.
On top of all this, these attacks just give both U.S. and foreign politicians a vehicle in which to invade citizens' privacy and create a police state.
Well, one could argue that our war is not an offensive, but a defensive one. The U.S. was attacked first, and retaliated, first to remove the Taliban and secondly to remove Saddam Hussein. Hussein did not have many ties to terrorism, truly, though he did turn a blind eye to any refuge given terrorists in his country. He also made the mistake of trying to bluff out WMD. We now know he didn't have them, but he kept moving around inspectors and trucks as though he did. He wanted people to believe he had WMD and take him seriously, and it worked. The U.S and others invaded his country and kicked him out, in what I would call a very defensive war.
I think terrorism recruiting is up, but I do not think this is directly correlated to the presence in Iraq. Rather, I think this recruitment drive is due to the combination of recent successes by the terrorists and the radical media over there. Terrorists are striking more and more in Iraq not because of increases, but because that's where we are. They'll strike wherever it is easiest to get at citizens of countries they deem evil. Thank goodness the fight is currently not here on U.S. soil.
I hate writers like Benjamin who like to pin more blame on the U.S. then he does on these terrorist killers. Somehow we're the bad guys because we dare to actually fight these people instead of appeasing them and hoping they go away?
Another who thinks that you can stop terrorism by sitting down with the terrorists and talking it over. HA.
I believe that story is ridiculous. It's just another example of a third grade mentality that we so often see in politics. Blame it on the other guy. We as libertarian should be above mud slinging.
"I hate writers like Benjamin who like to pin more blame on the U.S. then he does on these terrorist killers. Somehow we're the bad guys because we dare to actually fight these people instead of appeasing them and hoping they go away?"
so it seems you are still denying that our training of Al-CIAda or arming Saddam had anything to do with what we are dealing with today. You have these ideologists in power thinking if this certain bad guy helps us out then it will be good.
but now we know the truth....IT ISN'T. We trained Al-CIAda, they now strike back either with our knowledge or without, regardless, we made them who they are and now we are dealing with the fall-out.
Writers like Benjamin have every right to criticize american foriegn policy because it IS the reason why people hate us and want to kill us.
It all starts with an action, followed by reaction. Our ACTIONS cause their REACTIONS. Stop the imperialist foreign policy and maybe we stop others trying to kill us.
historical perspective is the only way to truly see what is happening today.
I agree that we may have had a hand at training them rayray, and I agree that we need to step back our foriegn policy. However, that is not the main reason they hate us. They hate us because they are jealous of our wealth, and they're religious beliefs tell them that we are living in sin. They feel that they should play judge,jury, and execusioner while most non-radical people just judge and let "God" handle the punishing.
Posted by: no name at July 11, 2005 03:50 PM
Another who thinks that you can stop terrorism by sitting down with the terrorists and talking it over. HA.
TerryResponds:
Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 50:
Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?
The Historical Record by Ivan Eland,
then director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute
at http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html
USA presence in the Persian Gulf helps extremists to recruit for the
holy war!
Said US Rep Ron Paul (R) in Congress Sept 25, 2001:
"The hatred has been suppressed because we are a powerful economic
and military force and wield a lot of influence. But this suppressed
hatred is now becoming more visible and we as Americans for the most
part are not even aware of how this could be. Americans have no
animosity toward a people they hardly even know. Instead, our
policies have been driven by the commercial interests of a few. And
now the innocent suffer"
MoreAt http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm
If someone keeps poking a stick into a hornets nest but then manages to duck out of the way as
the hornets swarm upon YOU in defensive etaliation
would it make sense to deal ONLY with the hornets?
The USA has been meddling around in the affairs of other countries for years and years. We wouldnt be having a War on Terror right now if we had minded our own damn business. We have been going to war on trumped up BS and "manifest destiny" since the early 1900's. I think there has only been two legit wars fought by America since 1900: WW2, when we were attacked by Japan on our own soil, and going after Osama Bin Laden, wherever he may be on the globe.
The rest of it was crap designed to fatten the pockets of the military industrial complex, just like Dwight Eisenhower warned us would happen. This war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with the legitimate search for Bin Laden and his Taliban supporters, and everything to do with global corporation greed and avarice.
However, the US has invaded a soveriegn nation under false pretenses, wrecked it's society, and destroyed it's ability to protect itself FROM it's own people. We bare a special burden to the people of Iraq, becuase we trashed their country for a PACK OF LIES. Such a burden demands we try to right the wrong we have done them and restore some semblance of honor to ourselves. The Exit Strategy does this. As we now know from a deliberate leak of secret info over the weekend, the Exit Strategy is far more libertarian that anything both government have planned for the future.
The War on Terror is only that becuase of our miserable foriegn policy over decades of meddling all over the globe. We cant remove history, but we can press for a libertarian future where we will have no more Wars on ANYTHING.....DRUGS, GUNS, ETC....becuase we will be able to effect our principles through the political process and actually GET SOMETHING DONE instead of waiting until the US collapses under the weight of 12~15 trillion dollars of unplayable DEBT....which is a FAR greater threat to us all than any kind of terrorism save nuclear terrorism.
In other words: WAKE THE HELL UP, LIBERTARIANS! WE DONT HAVE MUCH TIME LEFT to debate about what 'force' means or how principled we all are or are not! The debt clock is almost 8 trillion and counting......
The current version of the LP 'exit plan' must be either altered or abolished due to its violation of party platform planks on military intervention and forign aid!
A possible rough draft of plan alteration:
ALL troops returned to USA soil ASAP (within 90 days?); park some near Iraq to cover evacuation.
Half of money saved via ASAP troop withdrawl ($25 Billion?) to be evenly divided amongst ALL Iraqi people (not govt)
Other half of that money (another $25 Billion?) to be rebated to USA taxpayers WITH a 'check-off' option to redirect some or all of one's share back to Iraqi people (not govt)
Terry, if you dont quit using "abolish" so much, you'll go blind. :D
Actually, I dont think you can move 140K troops in a orderly manner in 90 days with equipment. I like your other idea - except how are you gonna figure out the foreign fighters from the regular Iraqi joes? You'll wind up funding their continued war after we leave.
Terry, I keep saying this, but you're not listening. Let's try again.
I rate the Exit Strategy about a B-, mostly due to foreign aid concerns. I am for the Exit Strategy not becuase I think it is the greatest plan ever, I am for it becuase your LP leadership FINALLY started to understand what political parties exist for....to appeal to voters who are not libertarian WHOM WE MUST WIN THE VOTES OF to elect our candidates. There is not a majority libertarian district in the entire USA that I am aware of.
Since that is true, you will never elect libertarians without large amounts of independent and small amounts of both Republican and Democrat voters. Thats where we have to go to win elections. Without winning elections, none of this will matter a whit. You'll be proud of yourself for keeping your principles intact as you haul a wheelbarrow of worthless US currency down to the store so you can make some potato soup for dinner.
:D I love potato soup.....but paying $10,000 a serving would be nasty.....
I think our actions have caused a general increase of what we dub to be terrorist (islamic radicals) because of our offensive nature and actions toward the middle east. As for setting Britain up for the fall... no. They brought themselves into the war, and we've made ourselves the prime target.
Can I be the first person to say that I knew an attack on London was going to happen?
Spain joins us, they get attacked. (They get wise and pull out though)
France stays out of it, they are not attacked.
Germany stays out, they are not attacked.
Britain joins us, and they are attacked.
Do we see a trend here?
The Philippenes have a couple of hostages taken, so they pull out of Iraq, now the hostages are safe and unharmed, and I bet the Philippenes will never be messed with again by these people.
However, if an American gets kidnapped, his or her family might as well get funeral arrangments ready, because the Dumbya administration is never going to do the one and only thing these people want: PULL OUT OF THEIR LAND!
The Dumbya bung-hole sniffers think somehow that the kidnapping and terrorism will mount on us if we start conceding, when it won't.
Everybody needs to read Harry Browne's "When Will We Learn". It's a great piece of literature. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24444
Jonathan Lentz-
The fact is the people that make up the insurgency in Iraq are made up of "foregin fighters" and Sunnis who make up around 10% of the population that has killed,toutered and raped the majority of the Iraq's populace. I agree that we need a non-interventionist foerign policy but it is not Their land and I would not put these people on the same moral level as neo-cons (who I find very immoral) they target innocent people and kill them. Let us keep pespective on these cowards who target childern and women even their own. They are evil and I never saw people who deserved to live less.
You guys have got the classic symptoms of battered women's syndrome:
"I must have done something wrong."
"It is my fault!"
"He is just misunderstood."
BS!!!!
At some point appeasement begins to look like cowardice.
Karl
in response to...
Posted by: Karl at July 11, 2005 09:36 PM
TerrySez:
Wrong role, US have been playing the batterER who takes great umbrage at his victim finding some way to fight back and defy his abuse!
There's even a 'co-dependence' by the extremists who's power is greatly enhanced by US abuse of the middle easterners.....
USA presence in the Persian Gulf helps extremists to recruit for the
holy war!
Said US Rep Ron Paul (R) in Congress Sept 25, 2001:
"The hatred has been suppressed because we are a powerful economic
and military force and wield a lot of influence. But this suppressed
hatred is now becoming more visible and we as Americans for the most
part are not even aware of how this could be. Americans have no
animosity toward a people they hardly even know. Instead, our
policies have been driven by the commercial interests of a few. And
now the innocent suffer"
MoreAt http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm
Karl (hopefully your last name is not Rove),
WE are on THEIR land! If WE get off of THEIR land and leave THEM alone on THEIR land, then that is not cowardice! If they were on OUR land, and we game THEM what THEY wanted, THEN that is cowardice on our part!
Understand now?!
I don't doubt that there have been a lot of good intentions and raw gut instincts behind our "War on Terror", but unfortunately I fear that the voting public is largely uneducated about the realities and dynamics behind this "War".
If I were the ruler of the land (God forbid), here is the strategy that I would implement:
1. Withdrawl foreign aid (read: welfare) from Israel - or at least suspend all aid until Israel has demonstrated a realistic, results-driven approach towards eliminating its centuries-old conflict with the Arab world. This alone would do a world of good towards reducing anti-American/anti-Western aggression around the world.
2. Withdrawal all American military presence from other nations, unless circumstances demand a clear, obvious need for our being there. This should be especially the case for well developed nations with whom we compete against economically and technologically (such as Japan and most of Europe).
3. Concentrate more of our military's might towards securing our borders and refining our intelligence and defenses.
4. Continue to hunt down and destroy any group or nation that executes acts of violence against us, and we should do so without mercy. However, the application of steps 1 and 2 would probably make this part largely unnecessary.
5. Establish a "blind" foreign policy, based strictly on friendly, free-market relationships.
As Matt earlier pointed out, it is not their land, as the majority of attackers are "foregin fighters".
Every soldier that I personally know that has, or is serving in Iraq has told me that the Iraqi people appriciate our help. I agree that it was not our business to invade Iraq in the first place, but now we have made a promiss to these people and need to see it through. We should only leave when we feel the Iraqi army is fully staffed and trained (which it is not), or when the Iraqi government asks us to go.
As for future attacks on other countries such as N. Korea or Iran, we should not, unless of course they attack first.
Jedi, I agree completely, and at this time I would say that there is a "clear, obvious need for our being" in Iraq, if only to keep a promiss.
I would like to note that your point on Israel is a very imortant first step.
SLIGHT CORRECTION, there were live TV reports, during the Iraq invasion about mustard gas released into the tigris river, in addition there were report isolated chemical warhead (GB)even though the number of shells was limited the potency of these weapon is serious, 10 if not 100 of thousands of people by the right method of delivery. It is documented that one of Saddem Intelligent officers met with Al Quaida in addition Saddem had a mock-up of a Jet Airliner at a desert training camp. I guess it was just providing shade. If all of the above wasn't enough to justified enforcement of the armisist that Saddem signed to end the Gulf War, Saddem attempted assasination of Bush-I justified his removal.
I want to add an example of something, I don't mean to uncessary anger some with this next statement, but:
If think negotiation and appeasment are the correct way to deal with evil violent people, then try pretending your a Jew and it is World War II in Nazi Germany and see if that works for you. As far as the radical terrorist muslim are concerned what they are trying to do is exterminate the non-believer
James, US soldiers in Iraq told you that the Iraqi people appreciate them being there? Wow! That's as surprising as DEA agents saying that the American people appreciate their efforts to create a drug-free America.
JOHNATHON LENTZ, SO we should just sit here in spite of 911 yea right, so we bend over three times a day and do what the terrorist wants, ooohmmmm ohhhmmm oohhhhmmm
USA & BRITISH BUILT the middle eastern oil fields that made those people filthy rich. Did they appreciate it NOOOOOO.
To: JEDI of Zen, OK I get it, we going to blackmail Isreal, our most reliable ally in the region and how would it look to other allies around the world. Are you planning to go at it alone in the world here on out? What Goverment could ever possible trust us again?
What I do agree is with you on, is the borders should be tighten, because we have too many people here, and with the Eminent domain issues and other issues arising that are taking more of our freedom, things like this can cause havock in our own country due to people being angry and overcrowed. What do you think happens if a cage holds to many rats that are overcrowed?
Posted by: FOR FREEDOM at July 11, 2005 11:02 PM
SO we should just sit here in spite of 911 yea right, so we bend over three times a day and do what the terrorist wants, ooohmmmm ohhhmmm oohhhhmmm
TerryResponds:
Made soon after 911; includes ABC-TV Austin affiliate (KVUE) street rally interview with Terry Liberty Parker in first few minutes in which the LIBERTARIAN response to 911 is briefly described
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/austin/lll01100.rm
PaulP says: The U.S. was attacked first....
How absurd. The United States has been using both overt and covert operations in the Mideast for over 50 years including military, economic and political means to prop up dictators in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and even Iraq.
US taxpayers have spent billions in the Mideast and aren't even aware of what the government has been doing there. The US and UK overthrew the leader of Iran in 1953 and then backed the Shah for years. Carter's Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan started the backing for Islamic extremeists there to destabalize the USSR.
According to Jane's Defence (UK) and the Times of India, the US was assisting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against the Taliban as early as March 2001.
Giving Israel about $2 billion a year in vouchers for military equipment has also not endeared us to other nations in the region.
Of course, the US has only been causing trouble in the Mideast for 50 years or so. The UK started about 100 years ago.
I think if any Mideast country had sent hit squads to the US, overthrown leaders in the US, armed our enemies, propped up tyrannical leaders in the US, imposed crippling economic sanctions on the US, etc., the US would consider these acts to be acts of war.
The US has the power to end this so-called war on terror. Simply leave the Mideast. Over and over and over this has been the reason given for the terrorist attacks. In almost every case of terrorism throughout history, the goal has been to get a foreign presence to leave.
We have a choice. Some would call pulling out of the Mideast appeasement and isolationist, but it is the US presence in the Mideast that is causing the trouble.
Over the years, and I am no young pup. I have expience talking myself one on one to numerious of middle eastern, and what I have heard was the same thing, The implication I got was this country should be like their country.
Some of the women have been nice to me, however the men have shown dictator personality to certain ethic groups and especially women. I have worked around some of them. I also have seen a hostile work enviroment with them. There is no getting through to these people.
YOU HAVE TO REALIZE, it is different to read, to speak and to have the EXPERIENCE before you actually understand. The old timers understand more then any of us new timers could ever imagine. They paid for their freedom in blood. If we hadn't been there fighting World War II, those countries would be under German Rule today. They would be under Nazis rule.
Responding to
Posted by: FOR FREEDOM at July 12, 2005 12:25 AM
Balony!
I'm over 60, and among others, have, and have had, numerous Muslim friends (including a lover for a few years in the early 1980s who had worked in the 'Queens Office in Iran before the Shah fell). Most regard American IDEALS with admiration, while being critical of US govt policies. In other words, just like most libertarians.
SeeAlso....
Libertarian national Muslim figure, Dean Ahmad
of http://www.minaret.org
publishes 'Islam and the Discovery of Freedom'
on the 50th anniversary of
the creation of the modern state of Israel;
and takes live unscreened calls from viewers
on this 1 hour TV show.
RealMedia Download/Playback at
http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/LL980502.rm
I don't disagree with the argument that our foriegn poilcy was a big part of the base of the current terriost groups but I think if we pulled out of the middle east we would still face the same terriost bent on our destruction. Long term the libertarian approach would take away a big bulk of their recuritment base. Short term we would have to hunt down and kill or capture all terriost who have attacked,attempted to attack , or conspired to kill american citzins in attempt to spread terror. That would be a "war on terror" I could support. Not the sloppy ineffictive, liberty stealing one that our presidents been running.
I totally agree with Matt. Covert and overt interventionism are a source of the US and the rest of Europe's enmity with much of the Middle East. It is not the only reason, yes some of the Islamic fundamentalists want nothing less the complete destruction of our way of life, (something they will never achieve BTW) but it is quite significant. Why dont the right-wing listen to people like Pat Buchanan on this topic. He has been screaming for years that the US should adopt a more isolationist strategy, and he is ended up being ignored and overtaken by a bucn of neo-con idealists who are trying to do good things, yes, but through the might of the US military. It is impossible to generate a civic and civil duty while you are killing in droves. It simply doesnt work.
I am reminded of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was resolved by what many might consider an act of cowardice on JFK's part. He said, I will take back the Jupiter missiles in Turkey if you take back the missiles in Cuba. He understood that the encroachment of US might was pushing the USSR to more and more extreme measures, and tried to stop the source of the problem. Neo-cons might argue they are doing the same. But you simply cannot spread democracy through military engagement. This is nothing more than unrealistic, idealistic claptrap.
PS. I have been thinking. Why dont Russia catch as much hell for all their meddling in foreign affairs, comapred to the US and GB?
The answer I came up with, is that they, were just so much better at it than we were.
FOR FREEDOM (or lack of it):
Check your history books. We've been meddling in the middle east for over SIXTY YEARS! We threw out the democratically elected leader of Iran for the Shah in 1954. Why? The other guy wanted to nationalize IRAN'S oil. Oh we couldn't have that could we? (Hell bowlingfortruth.com even admits it.)
A person like you would obviously try to shove all those attacks on Americans and American servicemembers that happened over there since the 70s, which has you wishing we had just gone to war against them the moment they looked at us the wrong way. In TRUTH, we were attacked because we were somewhere that we weren't WANTED! ALL THIS TIME no less.
You, my friend, just don't get it. We've been killing innocent people over there for years, but if they kill a handful of our people, suddenly THEY are the barbaric ones?
Karl, James, and other belligerant authors on his blog:
Let's look at the few public opinion polls that have come out of Iraq. There are great differences of opinion over there, but one thing is fairly clear...there is no great love for America's continued presence. Thus, there is very little basis for your claim that we have an ongoing obligation to stay there. Iraqis have a love/hate relationship with the American-led government there. What do you "anti-appeasement" types think about that?
By the way, as one who believes in a saner foreign policy (which you call mistakenly call appeasement) I guess I'd rather be an "appeaser" than an "imperialist".
http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing056.htm
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/04/new-poll-from-iraq.html
http://www.comw.org/pda/0501br17append.html
"http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/regime-libs.html
Enough said."
Can't you come up with some commentary on that article for yourself, or do you agree with it all? I read it, and I'm not impressed. Stop being a sponge already, it's tired. Despite however much good Mr. Rockwell says, he turns it upside down with his underlying agenda. He's an anarchist, and is trying to create the next Revolution. It's either you're with us or you're against us. How sad that guy is to pervert a great philosophy and pretend its in line with his, all government is bad and must be uprooted agenda.
The libertarians looking for reform within the party I think would be MORE THAN HAPPY to model something after Cato's approach to politics. Is this the slippery slope you're afraid of? Would Mr. Rockwell say the people of CATO are "Regime Libertarians"? This guy is nothing short of a brainwasher feeding off of people's deep-seated hate for the state. Think for yourself already and stop idolizing a divider.
In response to
Posted by[no name]: at July 12, 2005 09:12 AM
TerrySez:
Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 50:
Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?
The Historical Record by Ivan Eland,
then director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute
at http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html
The current version of the LP 'exit plan' must be either altered or recinded due to its violation of party platform planks on military intervention and forign aid!
A possible rough draft of plan alteration:
ALL troops returned to USA soil ASAP (within 90 days?); park some near Iraq to cover evacuation.
Half of money saved via ASAP troop withdrawl ($25 Billion?) to be evenly divided amongst ALL Iraqi people (not govt)
Other half of that money (another $25 Billion?) to be rebated to USA taxpayers WITH a 'check-off' option to redirect some or all of one's share back to Iraqi people (not govt)
I wonder if advocates of the current plan are willing to 'compromise' or will some of them just be too 'pure' to even consider an alteration?
Terry, I take it you never served in the military huh? ALL troops sent home within 90 days? Aside from the massive loss we would take in infrastructure being left behind, where do we put all of those men when they get to the states? Should they sleep on the streets or do we setup camps in empty fields to house them.
Let's talk reality and propose something that could actually happen. Oh, wait, the LP has already done that.
I think I would consider alterations to the foreign aid part of the plan - those are the aspects I found most troubling.
But you guys keep focusing on the plan itself, and either dont care or seek to understand WHY the plan is a great step forward in how the party presents itself to the broader public.
We'll never convert enough people to bring about a libertarian America by conversion. It just isnt going to happen, and you've had since 1983 to get it done. If a freer America is to take place, the only way it will ever get done is through the political process, which by it's very nature demands compromise and negotiation in the methods used to reach your goals.
The Exit Plan is a toddling first step to do that.
The Party doesnt have the money to properly get the word out. The only advertising that has been done on it are coming out of bloggers individual pockets.
Why dont you guys drop the rhetoric and propose some specific compromise counter proposals for the plan? You come over to Liberty For Sale and I'll even give you the space to do it with. Submit a change to me directly at timothywest@adelphia.net
and as long as it's RESPECTABLE to me and those on the other side, I'll publish it.
Now whose compromising and whose not? For your part, try to see beyond the platform into the OUTWARD strategy involved.
Timothy West's retort to us to "try to see beyond the platform" really means "abandon your principles". I'm sorry, Mr. West, there are already (at least) two political parties which have abandoned their principles in order to get elected - the Republicans and the Democrats. If you desire a political party who's abandoned their platform and their principles, go join them.
My plan: GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW.
As oppressive as the Iraqi government used to be, without it America is a MUCH more dangerours place to be.
Why?
There are now 169,000 additional square miles of ungoverned territory in the middle east of all places, that previously was ruled by an iron fist and has now become essentially and anarchist paradise.
If people don't believe this, they're fooling themselves.
In a world with nukes, biological and chemical weapons, isn't it just a little risky to always wait and be attacked first? Especially when you have a madman acting like he has WMD who is not afraid to use them?
I'm with West.
[note: a bit off-topic]
Libertarians need to focus on issues that matter.
Drug legalization and gun rights are not mainstream issues Joe America can relate to
Healthcare, education, taxes, Social Security are issues Joe America can relate to.
However, people are scared like hell when you say "we're going to abolish social security". I talked to an older friend of mine at work and he likes the idea of having Social Security as a VOLUNTARY system.
Why can't we allow people to decide whether they want to 'cash out' of social security or stay within the system than pull social security out from under them?
Jonathan Lentz-
First I would say over 5000 people is not a "handful of people". Second if you can't see that calling these people barbians is letting tham off easy. These magots target childern. We are not talking about collateral damage by a foriegn poilcy that proped up any regime that would help us during the cold war. We are talking about tactics which are as stupid as they are evil. They are not attacking the USS Cole which at the time I said was a legitamte target. We are talking about attacking powerless citzins. It is mind boggling that you keep sticking up for these thugs.
As far as the terrorists, I'd like to add that we are not in "THEIR" land.
The terrorists are not elected political representatives in most cases, but rather radicals that work outside of the government. When it comes to nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar have governments that allow us there, and have given us land for our bases. The terrorist extremists are not representatives of their populous as a whole. I'm sure we're not exactly popular, but I doubt the vast majority or even vast minority of middle eastern countries' citezenry wants death to America. It is fringe extremist groups and America should not give in to fringe extremists.
We should be paying for the sins of our fathers, sure, but let us pay for those sins to God, not fundamentalist killers with a warped, mutated version of god.
To Johnathon Lentz, no actually you don't get it, your in denile.
1. First talk about history books, which there are things in the HISTORY BOOKS my good man, that is not entirely accurate or not included.
2. Again I have brought up certain important valid points in my past post which had been ignored, you are trying to create a diversion away from the issue of we do we do now.
The impression I get is you really hate our country, so why don't you go live in the Middle east for a while then get back to us, and see if your opinion have changed.
Our military goes to great expense and trouble, using multi million dollar precision guided munitions to minimize innocent loss of life. The terrorist on the other hand use human shield, specifically target innocent people using devices such as shrapnel bombs to maximize casualties. To equate our efforts to minimize innocent loss of life with their attempt to maximize is not only ludicrous, it's obscene.
To no name with BIT OFF TOPIC, I appalaud the post.
7-12-05 @10:42am
I want to see the federal government reduced to the Constitutional limits. That would be somewhere around a 80% reduction in federal government, with a corresponding reduction in taxation.
Thats pretty close to what I think most libertarians want. It's a lot more accurate to say that I DONT AGREE with such principles as government massively defaulting on debt and elimination of all taxation. I cant abandon principles I dont agree with and will never agree with - I'm not a anarchist, and I dont believe in NO GOVERNMENT. I want a greatly reduced federal government, greatly reduced taxation, and power sent back to the states and counties on a massive scale. Oh, and I want these thinig before I die or the US goes under the same way the Soviet Union did - from a unsustainable spending and debt load that bankrupts the nation.
The rub is how we do this. Where is the libertarian nation we were promised in fundraising letter after fundraising letter from the LNC in the last 20 Years? I dont see it.
I completely agree with Paul P. In a world with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, an isolationist policy is suicide. Should we wait for a radical dictator who as already demonstrated that he is willing to use chemical weapons on his own people to attack us? Should we wait until there is a giant mushroom cloud looming over New York before we decide to take action?
Isolationist policies didn't cause, but helped to foster what is arguably the greatest conflict in human history, WWII. If the United States, the UK, France, and maybe even Russia attacked Germany in the mid 1930s, while Hitler’s military was still under construction, WWII could have been a mere footnote in our history. Hitler began to defy the Treaty of Versailles almost immediately after coming to power. We should have attacked them the minute that treaty was violated. Instead we buried our heads in the sand while Hitler created one of the greatest military forces the world had ever seen, and then proceeded to use it which caused the deaths of millions and millions of people on both sides.
Apply this lesson to today's world and it should be clearer than ever. Today, a tyrannical leader doesn't need to develop a large army, an Air Force, or a Navy. They just need to develop a bomb that can fit in a van and park it in front of the White House. And don't be naive enough to think that these weapons are extremely hard to come by. Let us not forget that Saddam was giving us all sorts of signs that he had WMDs. He was toying with U.N. weapons inspectors daily. He used chemical weapons on his own people, the Kurds. He was in violation of the U.N. mandates imposed upon him after the Golf War, just like Hitler was in violation of the Treaty Of Versailles. Sure, we didn't find any WMDs there after we invaded, but he acted like he had them. We called him on it like we should have called Hitler, and now Saddam's kids are dead and he is sitting in a cell awaiting trial where he should be.
Another thing to remember is that with the breakup of the Soviet Union, weapons of mass destruction have become easier to get. I hope to god that these weapons don't fall into the wrong hands, however, I think that it's a good possibility that they already have or that they will in the future. Also, as technology advances, there will be advances in the way these awful weapons are made, making them easier for these tyrants to manufacture.
I don't agree with a lot of the foreign policies the United States has had in the past or has now for that matter. No doubt about it, our great country has made some big mistakes when it comes to dealing with foreign countries. However, to bring all of our troops home and sit on our ass while we wait to get attacked is just plain stupid.
We need to learn from history that people like Saddam and Hitler are cancers on this planet. And like cancer, they need to be destroyed early, before they can gather strength and do some real damage. I’ll acknowledge that this is a dangerous way of thinking. After all, who’s to decide who is worthy of being overthrown? Who do we qualify as being a cancer on this great Earth? This is the biggest weakness in my argument. However, I think that we can look in our history books, and realize that the tyrants of history are easy to identify. We just have to make up our mind that we will not tolerate these human cancers to live. A war that costs 10,000 lives today is better than a war that costs 1,000,000 tommorow.
Sorry people, I have some free time today so I'd like to respond to one more post from yesterday.
Jonathan Lentz: I suppose if the terrorists said to do a handstand or they'll blow up your house, you'd do a handstand before you shot them. To cave to the demands of terrorists leads us down a very slippery slope. I'll agree with you that the United States has meddled in foreign affairs when it shouldn't have. And I'll even concede that these terrorists may have a legitimate complaint in that the U.S. should mind it's own business in certain matters. However, if we say, "OK terrorists, sorry, maybe we shouldn't be in the Middle East we'll leave now", what are they going to demand next? That we give them money? That we all need to be disciples of Islam? Who knows what these people will want from us once they realize they can control us through terror.
Once they realize that they can influence us by terrorizing us, they have control over us. This is why our government doesn't negotiate with terrorists. If we did, it will cause more terrorist activity in the future. The governments of Spain and the Philippines have bowed to the demands of these animals and the whole world will suffer the consequences as a result of their cowardice.
Also in the article you link to, the author mentions something about the Swiss not being attacked because they mind their own business. I guess they were just minding their own business when Nazi tanks were rolling past their little country all over Europe too. If it weren’t for other countries defeating the Nazi's there would be no Switzerland. But pacifist, isolationist countries generally can do just fine as long as there are other countries around willing to do the dirty work.
From Melanie Phillips.com, July 11, 2005:
Some people think that the war in Iraq, where al Qaeda has regrouped after it was smashed in Afghanistan, has greatly inflamed Islamic terrorism and resulted in its export to Britain.
The first and most obvious answer to this is that 9/11 preceded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; indeed, America had been attacked by al Qaeda for a decade even before the Twin Towers were hit.
Iraq is indeed central, but for a different reason. Al Qaeda desperately wants the coalition troops to withdraw from Iraq, where the stakes for terror across the Middle East are so enormous, and has decided that the best way to achieve this is to put pressure on the public. Hence the bombings of Madrid and now London, whose aim was to destroy the alliance with America.
Those arguing that the Iraq war has put the coalition countries in danger are therefore doing the bombers? dirty propaganda work for them. The Spanish fell for it. But even though they withdrew their troops, this did not stop al Qaeda from subsequently trying twice more to bomb the Spanish people ? thus proving that for al Qaeda, the Iraq war is merely a side issue.
This is demonstrated time and again by its terror attacks across the world from Indonesia to the Caucasus, including in countries which were opposed to the Iraq war ? while in Britain, as in Germany and elsewhere, planned attacks were being tracked and foiled even before 9/11.
Nevertheless, despite this evidence of unprovoked attacks on country after country, radical imams teach that the very existence of western influence is an act of aggression. Any action against the west is therefore said to be a legitimate defence of religious principles ? and so any actual defence by the west against Islamic terror is presented instead as a further act of war to be avenged.
This lethal double-think means that the defence against terror has indeed inadvertently acted as a recruiting sergeant for that terror. But this is the terrible dilemma that terrorism poses. If its victims try to defend themselves by taking action against the terrorists (and Saddam was a godfather of terror) this feeds their warped victimology and recruits more to their cause. But to take the path of least resistance instead of fighting back is to signal a defeatism which spurs the terrorists on to their perceived and inevitable victory.
In other words, the choice is this: we take actions which may increase the immediate problem or, in the long term, we suffer total defeat.
Given such a choice, the only morally viable position is to fight terror with all the means at our disposal. There is no doubt that chronic American mistakes in failing adequately to respond to the nature and scale of the battle in Iraq have exacerbated the problem of Muslims flocking to the cause.
But to say that the fight against religious fascism should not be fought because it turns those who are fighting it into a target is a bit like complaining that the only reason London endured the Blitz was because Britain had declared war on Germany.
Now as then, appeasing aggression means cultural suicide. We are in for the long haul -- but we must no longer flinch from the truth, and from the means we must use to defeat the horror that we all face.
How about a link next time Kevin??
Kevin Bjornson: Bravo and well said.
Of course our invasion of Iraq has bred terrorism in the area. The larger target that we entail means more radical Islamists will want a piece of the action.
Oops, Kevin I thought you wrote that previous post. Bravo and well said to the author Melanie Phillips. Thank you kevin for posting it.
Lest we forget:
In 1983 the US participated in a multi-national peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives arranged suicide bomb attacks on our Marine Barracks at Beruit Airport as well as a French base nearby.
Pres. Regan favored an attact on IRG bases in Lebanon, but relented under pressure from Casper Weinberger because it might upset other Arab states. Instead, we withdrew from Lebanon.
Osama bin Laden later said that it was that withdrawal that convinced him the US was weak and was unwilling to fight a protracted, difficult war.
So, I guess what y'all are saying is...let's reinforce the little rat's ass's opinion and embolden him some more.
We are not at war with terrorism...just another thing the Shrub doesn't get. We are at war with fundamentalist islamic revolutionaries, whose goal is a WORLD governed under Shari'a, and who will not stop until they either win or are dead.
The Shrub is right about one thing, it's better to fight them there than here.
TO ADAM SILVERSTEIN, WELL SAID, BRAVO.
ARE YOU RUNNING FOR OFFICE? YOU GOT MY VOTE.
someone who has a good historical perspective and a good political mind.
Adam,
Have terrorists bombed Canadians? Australians? The Swiss? The French? The Spaniards? The Germans? The list goes on and on!
When you do not mess with others, they do not mess with you back! End of story!
Before you give me something about the Spaniards getting hit again AFTER their initial attack that got them to pull out of Iraq, the second bombing was from the ETA and not Al Queda. The ETA is the Basque seperatist group, which is Spain's own problem!
At the same time, why do you think Israel gets bombed all the time by Palestine? Why do you think Chechnyans have taken Russians hostage?! Because Israel and Russia have bombed Palestine and Chechnya, respectively, into virtual holes in the ground! Hello?!
Our troops should be NOWHERE but HERE in the USA protecting OUR BORDERS, and we should have a missile-defense system in play on the east AND west coasts!
And YES, we SHOULD apologize to the world for our meddling in other countries affairs, and pull out of EVERYWHERE! We WILL be a whole lot safer for it!
To (s)he who has not the rocks to print his/her name and keeps botching up mine,
First of all, I do not hate this country. If there is someone I hate it's you neo-con freedom-grabbers who are doing everything to take away my freedom. I am a libertarian who is trying to save the freedoms that are in the CONSTITUTION!!! However, it is people like YOU who are out there passing garbage like the Patriot Act and trying to push through the TIPS program, BOTH which fly in the face of what this country is all about and are things Josef Stalin and Hitler could only have DREAMED of!
If you love freedom and this country, why do you have our troops halfway around the globe bombing a country that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 AND HAS NEVER ATTACKED US?! Why are you taking MY freedoms away every day with unconstitutional crap like the Patriot Act? Hell maybe it is people like YOU who should get the hell out of MY country since you are the ones trying to ruin it.
matt,
I am not sticking up for them! I hate the massive loss of life that they have done, but a total of 3000 or so people (only 2800 were killed on 9/11 BTW, not 5000) is NOTHING compared to the MILLIONS of women and children in Iraq and all over the middle east thanks to our foreign policy and bombings for no good reason! I'm going to say it again: when you keep pushing, people will eventually push you back!
BTW If YOU think I am giving the terrorists victories, just look what our OWN GOVERNMENT has done and is going to do!! The Patroit Act is one victory they gave the terrorists, and lets not forget Gen. Franks statement basically saying another terror attack will put us at martial law! Thanks! I guess the terrorists have already won!
Since the terrorists have already won, I'd rather give them the victory where our consolation prize is to be safe and secure in our own country with ALL of our freedoms intact and a foreign policy that does not meddle in other countries affairs then the one where they win and we lose ALL of our rights and it may as well be Stalinist Russia here!
Do you GET IT now! The terrorists have already WON!
TO JONATHAN LENTZ,
YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.
1. What exactly did kuawait do to Saddem, prior to the start of Gulf War I.
2. What exactly did Czechoslovakia or Poland do to Gemany prior to the start of World War II.
What do innocent victims do to mass murders to justify their own death. Your answer is neive and betrays a lack of a real understanding of power hungry individual. These people are not concerned with how many lives their ambition cost.
The policies you are advocating will encourage tyrants and terrorists to intmidate you into submission. Your statement that you'll find your courage at our borders isn't convincing to me.
I don't see why it would be convincing to terrorists and tyrants.
NO JOHNATHON LENTZ, NO YOU GET THE HELL OF MY COUNTRY, TALKING ABOUT HITLER THE WAY YOU DID, IF THIS WASN'T A POST WHAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU IN PERSON, YOU WOULDN'T even begin to comprehend.
Don't talk to me about freedom, and as far as my name goes, it NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I have nothing to prove to you,
You have blotch your own name with the foolishness you spouted and now you resort to personal attack. This is typical of the sort of weak, intellectionalism employed by those who are unable to successfully argue a case on its merits. Contrary to your assumption about the Patriot ACT, I have some very serious reservations about certain provisions of that legislation and I am also not a big fan of TIPS either. However to compare slaughtering of one own population with a little bit of Goverment over intrusiveness, once again illustrates your habit of overexaggeration. Tone down the hostility a notch this is a site for political discussion.
Jonathan-
No one here is saying that we want to keep our current foreign poilcy that mostly from sancations have caused massive death and poverty. I also agree that this foreign poilcy both though the death and the poverty is part of the reason that this evil movement has grown and allowed the perfect scapegoat for the dictators also destroying life and prosperty in these countries. But we must not be naive. Pulling out of foreign lands would take away from their recruitment base but the fact is the Islamic revolutionist has made their objective clear, the destruction of the west. We can't sit back here and wait for these people to attack.
Posted by: matt at July 12, 2005 07:10 PM
Pulling out of foreign lands would take away from their recruitment base but the fact is the Islamic revolutionist has made their objective clear, the destruction of the west.
TerryResponds:
By George, he's almost got it!
There are tin horn wannabe dictators in ALL parts of the world, even in the USA, who are impotent as most people won't join their authoritarian enterprises. But, they can get potentiated when the local populace feels unjustly abused and said tin horn wannabe dictator convinces said abusees that they can 'get back at' the abuser via joining his cause.
USA presence in the Persian Gulf helps extremists to recruit for the holy war!
Said US Rep Ron Paul (R) in Congress Sept 25, 2001:
"The hatred has been suppressed because we are a powerful economic
and military force and wield a lot of influence. But this suppressed
hatred is now becoming more visible and we as Americans for the most
part are not even aware of how this could be. Americans have no
animosity toward a people they hardly even know. Instead, our
policies have been driven by the commercial interests of a few. And
now the innocent suffer"
MoreAt http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm
Posted by: Kevin Bjornson at July 12, 2005 01:55 PM
Now as then, appeasing aggression means cultural suicide. We are in for the long haul -- but we must no longer flinch from the truth, and from the means we must use to defeat the horror that we all face.
TerryResponds:
Wow, you nailed it; the speech given to recruit for the Holy War against the 'Great Satan' US!
Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 50:
Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?
The Historical Record by Ivan Eland,
then director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute
at http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html
If someone keeps poking a stick into a hornets nest but then manages to duck out of the way as the hornets swarm upon YOU in defensive etaliation
would it make sense to deal ONLY with the hornets?
I wish:
- that the US Government didn't have so much (of our/my) money that it could build huge weapons systems it subsequently uses in an offensive oil-protection mode.
- that the US Government didn't have so much (of our/my) money that it can support and defend dictatorial regimes (Saudi Arabia, e.g.) in other countries, and send CIA agents to topple sovereign governments (Iran, e.g.)
- that the CIA wasn't linked to making money off tragedy (http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#trading)
- that the US government hadn't funded and equipped the Taliban/'Al-CIAda' (http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#funding)
- that 'al-CIAda' hadn't been able to tell NORAD to stand down (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911stand.html)
- that Larry Silverstien hadn't owned WTC 1, 2 and 7 (the only steel structured highrise building in history to ever fall because of fire). No other building in the entire complex suffered such a fate.
- that the Senate (100% of those idiots!!!) hadn't enacted the 'REAL ID' act.
- that we as a people would learn from history (http://www.oldright.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=409)
- that FOR FREEDOM would get a spell checker and use it before he fires off another rabid-sounding 'get out of MY country' piece.
- that we would get out of Iraq, and finally put into place a 'exit plan' for Germany, Japan, et. al.
Jonathan Lentz's Quote: "When you do not mess with others, they do not mess with you back! End of story!"
Mr. Lentz: The following is a list of events that you seem to have forgotten about or never knew of in the first place that completely contradict your ridiculous quote:
1) Japan attacking Pearl Harbor
2) Japan attacking China
3) Germany attacking Poland
4) Germany attacking France
5) Germany attacking Russia (after a non-aggression pact)
6) Germany attacking England
7) North Vietnam invading South Vietnam
8) North Korea invading the South Korea
9) The Soviet Union invading Afghanistan
10) Iraq invading Kuwait
11) Al Qaeda bombing the World Trade Center in 1993
12) Al Qaeda bombing the USS Cole in Yemen
13) Al Qaeda destroying the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon
Mr. Lentz, I'm sure you know of these events. You'd have to live under a rock if you didn't. However, you need to go the next step and apply the lessons of history to the present context. I agree that our country has done plenty in this world to make others angry with us. However, if you truly believe what you said: "When you do not mess with others, they do not mess with you back! End of story!" then you are completely naive and the history that you may or may not know is useless.
For Freedom: Thank you for the compliments. I plan on running for office in the future but I'm only 24 and I have student loans up to my neck.
On a side note: I also notice that some of the exchanges on this thread are getting kind of heated. Let's all agree on this shall we: The reason our country is so great is because we can sit here and disagree with each other about these things and about our government.
I think that most of us agree on the ends, it's just the means that we will continue to fight over.
The Shrub is right about one thing, it's better to fight them there than here.
Said by: John Shuey at July 12, 2005 04:28 PM
TerryResponds:
So the 911 retaliation for US interventions 'there' is 'better' ??!!
...than what?
Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 50:
Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?
The Historical Record by Ivan Eland,
then director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute
at http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html
Made soon after 911; includes ABC-TV Austin affiliate (KVUE) street rally interview with Terry Liberty Parker in first few minutes in which the LIBERTARIAN response to 911 is briefly described
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/austin/lll01100.rm
PS. I have been thinking. Why dont Russia catch as much hell for all their meddling in foreign affairs, comapred to the US and GB?
Posted by: Van Martin at July 12, 2005 04:50 AM
TerryResponds:
Well, we may not actually get all the info about that from Russia. But, their intervention into Chechnya(sp?) is as much fun to them as US intervention in Iraq/Afghanistan perhaps:
Playback streaming Audio/Video
Russian soldier beheading by Checan resistance
http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/chechclear.asf
Btw, that beheading audio/video is part of the 'RealWorld' of military intervention resistence.
How long did you want to leave those kids there again?
SeeAlso- LIBERVENTIONISM: Aggressors Promote LIMITED 'Libertarianism'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/38935
Adam Silverstein wrote: "This is why our government doesn't negotiate with terrorists."
This is false and designed purely to inspire fear by demonstrating bravado. It is not based in fact. America has a long history of negotiating with and even supporting terrorists. Among those on the list that the US government has either supported or negotiated with in recent years:
Osama Bin Laden (in 1980s against the USSR)
Yasser Arafat, former PLO leader (under various presidents)
Gerry Adams, Sinn Fein leader (under both Bush and Clinton)
Menachem Begin, former leader of Irgun (under Carter - Irgun was classified as a terrorist organization by the British government)
Libertarian TV is absolutely right.
The Reagan administration openly and phlegmatically supported the Contras in Nicaraguan, who used terrorist tactics to attack government targets and also killed civilians, as a tool to stop the Soviet-backed Sandinista government. Kennedy tried to use force to back a coup d'etat of Castro's Cuba, by helping exiles. Whatever your political complexion, I belive it is clear that much of what has happened in the post-Cold War years is what the CIA calls "blowback", (an unforseen consequence of a covert action abroad, back home in the US). There is absolutely no doubt that we backed the Shah of Iran when he was ousted in a pre-Khoemeni revolution. There is absolutely no doubt that the US has maintained the client-status of Saudi Arabia, much to the anger of Islamic fundamentalist in that country.
This is why the notion that the only reason we are attacked is because "...they hate our way of life", is completely inaccurate. Now, we must remember that the Soviet Union was doing exactly the same thing as well. In Vietnam, along with the Chinese and North Koreans, they gave material support to the nationalist terrorists in Indo-China (Vietnam), Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and even Western Europe.
So, to question the wisdom of continuing foreign covert (and even overt) interventionism is very proper. Myself, I think that while you cannot rule this out in absolute, (there may be some incredibly extrenuous circumstances that compel such intervention as a defensive move), it is certainly wiser to restrict one's interference in another nations 'natural' evolution.
Please dont think I am saying it is our fault. The act of mass murder cannot be justified EVER. But you can trace a link between actions of the past and what is occuring now in our war against al-Qaeda. Much of the training and tactics used by these terrorists were either taught to them through agents of the CIA, MI6 or KGB. Now, you can debate that the US had no choice but to engage in such activity as its enemy was doing so. But you can also say that if you take an act without thinking of the longterm consequence, you end up not only radicalising extremists, but indirectly training and arming them.
It is unfortunate, however, that in the political climate in the US today, we have not gotten round to having this debate, even in the abstract.
Your thoughts?
Another thing. Neo-cons thought that bombing large parts of Iraq would lead to its citizens embracing our troops as liberators, (see Dick Cheney on Meet the Press just before the war). But this is to overlook a very logical human response. In doing good, the West killed many Iraqi men, women and children. No matter that it is for the 'greater good', people will instinctively hate those who harm their loved ones. History tells us this over, and over and over.
Lets pay attention to the lessons of history.
Libertarian TV:
Thank you for correcting me. You are right in that our government has negotiated with and even sometimes supported terrorists in the past. Please let me amplify my point. Our government doesn't negotiate with terrorists THAT THREATEN US. The reasons for this I have outlined in my previous post. In short, when you cave to their demand once, they will undoubtedly try to influence you through terror again because it was successful before.
It may seem immoral and hypocritical that our government would have anything to do with terrorist activity since by it's very nature, to instill terror in innocent people, is immoral and wrong. However, when we were supporting Bin Ladin in the 1980s it was because we were more worried about the spread of communism than we were about any ramifications our support may have for the future. Even today, as we are paying the price for supporting these people in the past, I think that supporting them was the correct move. Kennedy's containment policy for communism was a great success. This is obvious because the there was no WWIII (thank god) and there are only a handful of communist governments left on this planet, and the ones that are still here are either going to fall real soon (North Korea, Cuba) or are beginning to make free market reforms (China). Had we let the communists spread unimpeded, the world would be a much different place than it is today.
I guess the question is: Would you rather have to deal with these terrorists like we are today or would you rather still be on the brink of WWIII and have to deal with a giant communist empire with thousands of nuclear missiles just waiting to annihilate every square inch of our great country? I choose the former.
Response to Brandon Garfield:
You have very good points and as I have said before, The United States in some instances has meddled in other countries affairs when we should not have.
I also agree with you completely in that if any country for whatever reason bombed my house and killed my family, on purpose or not, I would do everything in my power to get back at them like some of the insurgents in Iraq are doing now.
However, I have a problem with your quote: "This is why the notion that the only reason we are attacked is because "...they hate our way of life", is completely inaccurate."
Please don't think dichotomously (Either A or B). The reasons terrorists hate us is undoubtedly a COMBINATION of our presence in the Middle East AND their utter hatred for our way of life. Al Qaeda training tapes and manuals we have found prove both of these.
I truly believe that even if we pulled our entire military presence out of the Arab world, there would still be many terrorists out there wanting to destroy us because through their perverted interpretation of Islam, we are all infidels and we should be killed in the name of Allah.
TO ADAM SILVERSTEIN: I would love to talk to you one on one, do you go to any meetings, or what state are you in if you don't mind my asking.
Thank you.
TO FOR FREEDOM:
I live in Minneapolis. And no, I haven't gone to any meetings. Unfortunately, My participation in politics and this party is limited right now because I am busy working and I am studying for my LSAT to try to get into law school. I'd be open for one on one discussion anytime though. My email is: adamsilverstein@hotmail.com. Pretty clever address huh. That goes for anyone wanting to speak one on one.
Adam:
Thanks for your clarification. You finished by writing, "I guess the question is: Would you rather have to deal with these terrorists like we are today or would you rather still be on the brink of WWIII and have to deal with a giant communist empire with thousands of nuclear missiles just waiting to annihilate every square inch of our great country? I choose the former."
In other words, you think American foreign policy should be based on choosing between a poke in the eye with a sharp stick on the one hand and being shot in the kneecap on the other. That's a very fearful view of the world you have.
Did it ever occur to you that our previous support for Bin Laden might have brought Bin Laden against us later on? Or perhaps that our support for Saddam made Saddam Bush's greatest nightmare a generation later?
Instead of basing it on fear, I think our foreign policy should be based on reason, good sense, and libertarian principles of defending and respecting individual rights, rather than trying to appease and coopt political strongmen and wild-eyed reactionaries when they're not actively working against the U.S.
It's funny, in a macabre sort of way. Those of us in the LP who have argued against heavy foreign involvement have been accused of being appeasers, yet in a much more real sense its the hard core hawks who are the real appeasers. The difference is that they try to appease by buying support for the U.S. via military assistance and macho adventures, while our "appeasement" is actually nothing more than respecting individual rights around the world. The result of the former form of appeasement has been an ongoing catastrophe that grows worse every decade. Let's be honest...could the alternative be all that much worse? I doubt it!
Libertarian TV:
Your Quote: "Did it ever occur to you that our previous support for Bin Laden might have brought Bin Laden against us later on? Or perhaps that our support for Saddam made Saddam Bush's greatest nightmare a generation later?"
Yes it has occurred to me and I agree with you 100% that it did. As I said before, the U.S. has unjustly meddled in foreign affairs when we shouldn't have. I think that arming Saddam is one of those instances. That was a mistake. But arming Bin Ladin to fight against the Soviets was justifiable, even though we are paying for it now.
The cold war had the world on the brink of nuclear annihilation for many years. At the time, Kennedy and his administration thought that the best way to fight that war was not to take on communism head on but to contain it. And that's exactly what we did in Afghanistan, Korea, and tried to do in Vietnam. Today's world is evidence that it worked. Even in the midst of terrorism today, the world is safer now than it was during the cold war.
Libertarian TV et al,
Yes. I am belligerant against my declared enemies who wish me harm.
I am not against leaving Iraq. However, on the day all those Iraqis risked daeth and dismemberment to vote, marking their fingers to show what they had done, we incurred an obligation to help a fledgling democracy as long as they want help. Sure they want us to go home. Evem the ones who need us to stay. Sooner would be better of course.
That said, I have serious doubts about the Libertarian party's willingness and ability to protect its citizens in the real world, based on what I see here.
I love you guys domestically but the blame America first will drive me away.
Karl,
You're not just belligerant against people who wish you harm. You are also belligerant (at times) against people who disagree with you.
Adam: if you think the world is a better place today because we tried to contain communism, then you've drunk too much Reagan koolaid.
Communism didn't fail because of American containment. It failed because of its own internal contradictions. American containment didn't amount to a hill of beans, and the evidence suggests--if read IN FULL--that it was a harmful policy at least as often as it was helpful...probably even more often.
Libertarian TV:
Please give show me the evidence about the failure of the containment policy you speak of (or a link to it).
Also, sorry to everyone in that this seems to have strayed a bit off topic. However, I still like the discussion.
Libertarian TV,
Consider it more of a challenge to the readily accepted thought here.
Questions I pose to anyone in the party:
Under what circumstances would you order military action against an "enemy" of the United States?
How far would you be willing to go? Killing 1? 100? 10,000?
Would you execute a covert opertion to prevent a general war?
How many U.S. casualties would you be willing to absorb in accomplishing the strategic objective?
Do you even believe that it is necessary to maintain that military capability?
These are serious questions that I believe the Libertarian Party has been able to ignore while surrounded by their cloak of unmuddied, self-rightousness. If you become politically viable, or expect to, you need some answers.
To think that because we are fighting terrorists increases the amount of them is in one sense, true. Now they have a place to go and fight, so it seems as if there are more of them. In reality, this is a completely predictable conflict, and historically inevitable. To fight it as we are is simply incredible, given the amount of resources as a whole both in men and material. For the whining and rending of garments being carried on you'd think we were all about to die tomorrow. I have to ask what the Libertarian answer would be when the whole country is under attack, instead of the extremely small segment of the population fighting this war in a totally foriegn country, suffering the lowest casualty rate in history, and advancing liberty to those who have yearned for it for years. Is not the goal of Libertarians to have others enjoy the same freedom we want, or do we allow horrible governments to slaughter people in the name of "liberty"? Where do you draw the line as Libertarians and stop others from oppressing people? To say that Bush is a "Recruiting Sergeant" while ignoring the obvious and lethal threat of Islamic radicals is silly. If Bush is evil, then what are the Madrassas that educate the hatred of all things non muslim from the age of 4? I find the historical ignorance in the national debate both shocking, and quite sad. Anyone with half a brain can see that we are fighting a global conflict on a variety of fronts that went ignored for years. I suppose that only we in the U.S. get to have liberty and everyone else should suffer.
I think President Bush made the proper move to remove Saddam. Post war strategy is poor. I don't think Bush expected the backing he received from the American public and now he is confused about how to leave. Similiar to Viet Nam exit.Again we only hear what is leaked, so history will be the judge.
That depends on how you define "terrorist". I consider anyone who threatens the constitution to be a terrorist. If one accepts that definition of "terrorist", then this country harbors more terrorists than any other in the world and not only do we have more, we put them in public office by the thousands. America, in essence, is a terrorist nation. It has become one because the people have become stupid and lazy. They have failed to do their civic duty to keep their government under control. Instead, they have chosen to take the easy way out by electing along party lines and resorting to all sorts of different copouts to avoid doing their part.
| 
I believe that the invasion of Iraq has resulted in an increase in the number of terrorists.
H. Rearden
Posted by: HRearden at July 11, 2005 12:13 PM