It seems under that philosophy:
The US was previously a credible threat to Iraq;
About any nation announcing the ability to defend its sovereign
independence is a credible threat to about any other;
Aggression has nowhere to stop.
How far back do you go? How far ahead?
The most aggressive people are often those who misperceive that
others are often a credible threat to them. They confuse offense
for defense. Often these types usually have their roots in the
cycle of violence, and also perpetuate it; thereby creating
violent roots for others. It is a self-supporting feedback-loop,
or if you wish "a vicious cycle". Of course one of the most
common manifestations of the vicious cycle is personal/political
profit via aggression / war. Libertarian principles are sound for
the psychology of the individual and the nation, AND sound for
the beginning of the end the cycle of violence and the age of
conquest.
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
Since I have never advocated war, accusing me of warmongering is
merely another ad hominem attack.
It is irrelevant what payroll Saddam was on as well as where he
got
WMD. That is a Red Herring of the Left. Just as it does not
matter
that Iran has or is developing nukes. What does matter is what
governments actually do and the threats they make, e.g. using WMD
in
battle or threating to drive sovereign nations into the sea.
Saddam did have an obligation to disarm based on the cease fire
his
governemnt agreed to. The US is also a signatory to UN treaties
for
which we have obligations. The wisdom of these treaties is quite
questionable, but, these are the agreements this country has
entered into.
This repeated statement that one must wait for American soil or
ships
to be attacked is suicidal. There is absolutely nothing; noway,
nohow; in Libertarian philosophy or the Constitution which
requires
that any nation wait around for an attack rather than act on a
credible threat. Obviously, you, Paul Ireland, believe there
never
was a credible threat. Many other leaders, thinkers, and
citizens
disagree. You could have just as easily said that the Taliban,
Osama
bin Laden, and extremist Wahabbis were no credible threat on
9/10/01.
You would have been wrong. Taking action against a dictator who
has
used WMD in the past is not unreasonable nor un-Libertarian.
A contract at gunpoint is illegitimate. A cease fire agreement
between an aggressor and a victor is.
The rest of the contries with men fighting and dying in Irag
would
disagree that the US is 100% responsible for the war.
It would absolutely matter if Saddam took over the entire Middle
East.
It is simply suicidal and isolationist to watch an expansionist
dictator go rampaging and think 'Its not my problem.' It didn't
work
when Hitler did it. It didn't work when the Soviets did it. It
only
leads to larger body counts and delays the inevitable reaction
required. It is like liveing in Compton and watching the Crips
and
Bloods trashing the neighborhood and saying, "They haven't come
to my
house." It is only a matter of time.
None of this is justification for the way Bush has specifically
handled foreign affairs. I have many problems with what he's
done. I
am merely refuting the suicidal propaganda which keeps being
repeated.
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
