Why do you see those as prejudicial statements? Why is doing nothing better for liberty than a military approach?
From: ma ni Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror Why would I infer that you were not advocating military action with your previous sweeping statements of prejudice? "It would have been better to take care of the Soviets in 1946, BEFORE they had nuclear weapons." "Stop the anti-libertarian political Islamist movement now, before we get another deadly cold war." "We now know that civilizing Middle East Muslims is as difficult as herding cats -- but more violent. They are culturally incapable of civilized government. The objectives with Iran would be ... Just bomb the hell out of them" "I would say there's nothing inherently non-libertarian about military aggression. A hot war to stop ... [a cold war] seems better for liberty. ... think of the lives saved and liberty gained had the Soviets been eliminated before they had the bomb." ---------------------------- As you seem to infer now, my criticism of a group or country is not the same as my advocacy for military action. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
