Lots of religions "aim" for a world theocracy, and lots of their
adherents (and texts) advocate similar methods. By "stopping",
what exactly are you suggesting we do to them? Should we go to
their lands and apply military aggression? Should we kill them or
just convert them?
Seriously:
Is this "political Islamist movement" a credible threat to
America? No. Aims are one thing, but means are another. I didn't
even think communism turned out to be a really credible threat in
hindsight. Sure theocratic ambitions are pretty unlibertarian,
but not nearly as unlibertarian as the real physical force of
unwarranted military aggression. And likewise, a cold war is not
nearly as unlibertarian as an unjustified real one. I don't
believe I have ever heard of initiating a real war in order to
preempt a cold one; and I think there is something very wrong
with that logic - let alone the ethic. IOW since when was
military action defended on the grounds of preventing
non-military action?
Besides, if you want to use military force to fight theocracies
and their aims, you better be deploying troops right here in
American to fight all the Christian elements in our own govt; all
drug and consensual crime laws to begin with.
Lots of things are setbacks to liberty, but unjust military
invasions are the worst.
-------------------------
The "political Islamist movement" aims to have government run by
the religious laws of Islam. In accordance with principles in
the Koran and Hadiths, it is necessary to impose this on any and
all people whenever practical. It can be achieved by violence or
through the ballot box ("one man, one vote, once").
What is your point?
Are you able to define the "Marxist movement" that screwed up the
world for most of the 20th century? The initial Western reaction
to that included much apathy and even admiration. It turned out
to be very deadly and a huge setback for liberty. Political
Islam has a similar potential for loss of life, liberty, and
property.
-----------------------------
Define "political Islamist movement". Do they have a website?
----------------------------
Deterrence was a Cold War policy. It led to the deaths of 50 -
100 million people worldwide during those years, as well as two
generations of people living under totalitarian regimes. It cost
the US $10 - 15 trillion to maintain its deterrent military
force.
It would have been better to take care of the Soviets in 1946,
BEFORE they had nuclear weapons. If that were done, the world
today would be richer, safer, and FREER.
Stop the anti-libertarian political Islamist movement now, before
we get another deadly cold war.
