For your consumption -- I figured it was germane to the earlier discussions about our party's anti-invasion/aggression character, and how that common-sense position (which was the genesis of the party over the situation in Vietnam) offers solutions to us today.
Cheers,
Brian
Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote: Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Remember also that Italy suffered through major acts of terrorism during the
1970s, and their own Prime Minister, Aldo Moro, was kidnapped and executed
by the Red Brigade Marxist group in 1978. It wasn’t until the 1980s that
the Red Brigade was brought down after they kidnapped Brigadier General
James Lee Dozier, NATO Deputy Chief of Staff in Europe. Italy did not
declare war on the Red Brigade, and the United States did not declare war on
Italy despite the kidnapping of one of our highest NATO officials. A crack
anti-terrorist tactical squad of the Italian military known only as the
“Leatherheads” rescued General Dozier from an apartment in Padua, captured
the top leaders of the Red Brigade and by the mid 1980s, the group fell
apart and is no longer a threat to anyone.
Of course, they did manage to assassinate the mayor of Florence and another
military general in Rome in 1984 before they finally collapsed, but it was
not as a result of a massive war effort. It was done simply by a small
squad of highly trained intelligence experts who identified the leaders and
took them out, one by one. Perhaps we should have outsourced the hunt for
Osama bin Laden to these guys!
Terry Floyd
(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)
(Attachment image002.jpg is missing)
Italy/Ireland/Basque != Afganistan
political assassination != 3K civilian casualties
Reason to invade Iraq != hunting for terrorists
Of course, none of these non-identities justifies compromising any of our
civil liberties, or staying in Iraq longer than was needed to achieve the
goals of the invasion.
1) What's this about Afghanistan? People keep shifting the bar. First it's about Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Iran, then somewhere else.
2) The IRA killed more Britons than al Qaeda has killed Americans.
3) What was the reason for invading Iraq? I still have yet to hear a factual argument for it that hasn't been proven as either a calculated lie (i.e. Powell's testimony at the UNSC), or an emotional appeal about the nasty terr'ists who want our wimmenfolk to wear burquas.
Cheers,
Brian
Brian Holtz <brian@...> wrote:
Italy/Ireland/Basque != Afganistan
political assassination != 3K civilian casualties
Reason to invade Iraq != hunting for terrorists
Of course, none of these non-identities justifies compromising any of our civil liberties, or staying in Iraq longer than was needed to achieve the goals of the invasion.
Brian Miller wrote:
BM) What's this about Afghanistan? People keep shifting the bar. (BM
Re-read the subject line. Iraq was not invaded to find bin Laden.
BM) The IRA killed more Britons than al Qaeda has killed Americans. (BM
Britain didn't oppose the IRA using only the tactics that Italy used against
the Red Brigades. "People keep shifting the bar." Also, Britain conducted
civilian and sovereign occupation of land that the IRA claimed wasn't
British, which is a far cry from U.S. forces invited to stand by at a few
bases in Saudi Arabia.
BM) What was the reason for invading Iraq? I still have yet to hear a
factual argument for it that hasn't been proven as either a calculated lie
(i.e. Powell's testimony at the UNSC), or an emotional appeal about the
nasty terr'ists who want our wimmenfolk to wear burquas. [And on cal-libs:]
I have yet to see a single credible, coherent explanation of how the
pre-emptive, unilateral invasion of the militarily insignificant Iraq had
any "defense" rationale whatsoever. (BM
You apparently haven't been paying attention. For Bush's invasion-eve
justification, see http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=62 . For an
even stronger argument for the invasion, see
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=428 . Neither mentions anything
like "Islamofascism" or fears that Jihadists will impose their religious
views on America.
I agree those fears are silly. The hysteria unleashed by 9/11 only proves
how secure Americans had grown accustomed to feeling. The losses of 9/11
were less than a month's fatalities on our highways. The hole in America's
air defenses that had been revealed in Lower Manhattan at 8:46am on 9/11 by
clever but not-quite-competent
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans&p=384> terrorists had already been
repaired by American patriots in the skies of Pennsylvania by 9:58am. We
will continue to exterminate al Qaeda like the cockroaches they are, and
burquas are the least of our worries. Jihadism only gets serious if there
is a prospect of a fission explosive being created by, or falling into, the
wrong hands. Biological, chemical, and radiological weapons pale by
comparison, except insofar as they create irrational fear and over-reaction.
Fusion weapons are much more serious than fission, but luckily they are much
harder to acquire. (I know a little bit about these things, and have
accepted an invitation to join the "scientific advisory board" of the
Lifeboat Foundation, dedicated to evaluating extinction risks to humanity.)
As for "calculated lie", I've challenged antiwar libertarians multiple times
to quote what they think is the single most blatant lie contained in an
official Administration statement arguing before the invasion in favor of it
-- keeping in mind that a lie is defined as a false statement that the
speaker knows is such. Maybe you can be the first to identify such a
statement and demonstrate that the Administration knew it was false when
they said it.
Iraq was not invaded to find bin Laden.
That's news to me! The right-wing case for war invoked al Qaeda over four-dozen times in the day when Bush announced invasions were commencing. In his speech to Congress, Bush spoke bin Laden's name over a dozen times in a single speech.
Britain didn't oppose the IRA using only the tactics that Italy used against the Red Brigades.
Nor did Britain declare "war on Irish terrorism" and bomb the hell out of Dublin, Londonderry and Cork, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians in "collateral damage." And lo and behold, the IRA cause -- which was far older than any al Qaeda cause -- is dead and gone.
Sorry, the pro-aggression Libertarians are still being inconsistent and muddle-headed on this.
Cheers,
Brian
Brian Miller wrote:
BH) Iraq was not invaded to find bin Laden. (BH
BM) That's news to me! (BM
It's not news to anyone who listened to the invasion-eve rationale given by
the guy who ordered the invasion. I guess you didn't read the link
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=62> I gave you quoting his
entire rationale. His conclusion was: "The danger is clear: using chemical,
biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the
terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or
hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
BM) The right-wing case for war invoked al Qaeda over four-dozen times in
the day when Bush announced invasions were commencing. In his speech to
Congress, Bush spoke bin Laden's name over a dozen times in a single speech.
(BM
You fail to quote the Bush Administration saying Iraq was invaded to find
bin Laden. As the invasion-eve speech makes crystal-clear, the primary
point of invading Iraq was to make sure that terrorists like al Qaeda would
not end up armed with Iraqi WMDs.
BM) Nor did Britain declare "war on Irish terrorism" and bomb the hell out
of Dublin, Londonderry and Cork, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of
civilians in "collateral damage." (BM
As predicted, I can answer you by quoting a previous posting of mine, in
which I said: "Iraqi deaths by violence since the invasion would are
100,000 to 150,000. That's less than 40K/yr, which is well under the 60K to
80K deaths per year that Saddam caused over his 24-year tenure. Also, only
a fraction of violent deaths in Iraq since the invasion began have been
inflicted by American use of weapons. The highest estimate I've seen of
that fraction is less than a third and running now at one quarter."
Also, re: "bomb the hell out of" cities, I've pointed out: "The total number
of bombs/missiles dropped in the 2003 air campaign was 28,000, compared to
227,000 in 1991. 68% of the 2003 ordnance was precision-guided, compared to
7% in 1991." It's ridiculous to suggest that America has killed "hundreds
of thousands of civilians" by "bombing the hell out of" Iraqi cities.
BM) China has threatened, in the past, to destroy the value of the US dollar
-- and also to attack Los Angeles with nuclear weapons. North Korea has
test-fired missiles that have landed in Alaska -- US territory. Why aren't
the pro-aggression Libertarians calling for all-out war against these far
more credible threats? (BM
The regimes in China and North Korea don't satisfy the criteria I gave you
at http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=428 . (They also don't satisfy
the criteria in the invasion-eve speech of the non-Libertarian Bush.)
BM) Sorry, the pro-aggression Libertarians are still being inconsistent and
muddle-headed on this. (BM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion. I pointed you to my
arguments at http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=428 . You can either
answer them, or you can't. If you can't, it doesn't necessarily prove I'm
right, but it does constitute a reason you'd be well-advised not to
continuing issuing untenably sweeping dismissals like the above. You seem
blissfully unaware of the serious debate among libertarians over the
decision to overthrow a genocidal totalitarian terrorist-supporting
WMD-using war criminal whose ouster 61% of his people said a year later in a
BBC poll "made it worth any hardships". You could start educating yourself
by consulting my 2005 bibliography
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=213> of notable libertarian
arguments for and against the invasion, including the debate sponsored in
late 2004 by Cato and Reason.
Brian H.,
Thank you for reminding people that Saddam Hussein's regime caused more deaths per year on average than the annual number of people killed on average in Iraq since the U.S. invasion. I know it's been said it before, but it seems to be an often forgotten fact.
To the anti-interventionists, I realize that there are various libertarian arguments why the invasion should not have occurred (a rise in anti-U.S. sentiments around the world, the cost to U.S. taxpayers, etc.), but saving lives is not one of them.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild wrote:
SC) there are various libertarian arguments why the invasion should not have
occurred (a rise in anti-U.S. sentiments around the world, the cost to U.S.
taxpayers, etc.), but saving lives is not one of them. (SC
That depends. While it's important to keep Saddam's average annual death
toll in mind, we can't just say that any policy in Iraq that results in
fewer violent deaths per year than Saddam averaged is preferable on that
metric to not overthrowing Saddam. It could be that Saddam and his sons
weren't going to need to kill very many more people to keep their grip on
power, and that maybe their continued tyranny was better than the deaths
that could have been expected from a U.S. invasion. However, the Iraqi
people themselves apparently didn't think so, since 61% of them said in a
2004 BBC poll that overthrowing Saddam "made it worth any hardships" from
the invasion. According to an extensive
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans&p=418> investigation I conducted,
there was an even starker vacuum of Cassandras about the Iraqi civil war in
America before the invasion.
On the other hand, GMU libertarian econblogger Tyler Cowan
<http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/08/iraq_and_conse
q.html> points out that if an Iraqi civil war was in fact inevitable
whenever the reign of Saddam and his sons ended, then the current civil war
there doesn't make the case that invading Iraq was a mistake. He points out
that you have to judge the invasion by its marginal product -- i.e. by
comparing the consequences to what would have happened otherwise. If the
likely alternative was just a Sunni-Shia civil war postponed after a couple
decades of Saddam and his sons pursuing a nuclear arsenal, then the current
civil war wouldn't make the invasion a mistake after all. So the key
question is whether the Sunni-Shia civil war was permanently avoidable under
some alternative US plan that had acceptable negative costs in terms of what
evils Saddam and his sons committed or abetted (both in the region and
against the West) during the rest of their tenure.
This "statistic" ignores the fact that most of the deaths during Saddam Hussein's regime were caused by the US embargo -- and not Saddam Hussein.
The United States could have reduced the number of deaths quite easily by allowing medicine and food to enter Iraq again -- the invasion had zero impact in "saving lives" and has likely resulted in a much-higher death toll as a result of the chaos (and "collateral damage") than before.
When Madeline Albright (another pro-aggressionist) was asked about the 500,000 Iraqi children who had died as a direct result of the US embargo, she declared "the price is worth it." I think that statement says a lot about the questionable morals of those who architected the Iraq policy over the last 20 years.
Cheers,
Brian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote: Brian H.,
Thank you for reminding people that Saddam Hussein's regime caused more deaths per year on average than the annual number of people killed on average in Iraq since the U.S. invasion. I know it's been said it before, but it seems to be an often forgotten fact.
To the anti-interventionists, I realize that there are various libertarian arguments why the invasion should not have occurred (a rise in anti-U.S. sentiments around the world, the cost to U.S. taxpayers, etc.), but saving lives is not one of them.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Brian Miller wrote:
BM) This "statistic" ignores the fact that most of the deaths during Saddam
Hussein's regime were caused by the US embargo -- and not Saddam Hussein.
(BM
Wrong. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/498
BM) When Madeline Albright (another pro-aggressionist) was asked about the
500,000 Iraqi children who had died as a direct result of the US embargo,
she declared "the price is worth it." (BM
http://www.reason.com/news/printer/28346.html
One idiotic off-the-cuff statement by a Democrat doesn't change a single
fact I've presented.
Your facts don't paint the picture you're trying to create, which is that the invasion "reduced deaths."
The situation is very clear.
First, the US government initiated an embargo of all food, medicine and other necessary goods into Iraq. Over 1 million people died as a result.
Then, the US invaded and bombed the place into smithereens, and then lifted the embargo. The invasion and bombing killed lots more Iraqis, just not as many as the embargo had killed. However, it was neither a source of solace nor a "liberation from death."
If I was to pursue your view of "liberation," first I'd embargo you so that you cannot get any food and medicine. Then, after 2 of your 4 children die from treatable diseases, I'll come in and bomb your house, killing your spouse in the process.
Then, when you complain, I'll point out that I've lifted the embargo and although your wife's death is "regrettable," it was only 1/2 as many deaths as the deaths of your children -- and thus things are "improving" and you should hail me as a liberator for bombing your house and providing less death than my embargo provided.
Something tells me you wouldn't.
And not surprisingly, the Iraqis are reacting in a similar way to the same treatment!
Cheers,
Brian
Brian Holtz <brian@...> wrote:
Brian Miller wrote:
BM) This "statistic" ignores the fact that most of the deaths during Saddam Hussein's regime were caused by the US embargo -- and not Saddam Hussein. (BM
Wrong. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/498
BM) When Madeline Albright (another pro-aggressionist) was asked about the 500,000 Iraqi children who had died as a direct result of the US embargo, she declared "the price is worth it." (BM
http://www.reason.com/news/printer/28346.html
One idiotic off-the-cuff statement by a Democrat doesn't change a single fact I've presented.
Brian Miller:
BM) Your facts don't paint the picture you're trying to create, which is
that the invasion "reduced deaths." (BM
You skill with quotation marks is on par with your reading comprehension.
"Reduced deaths" aren't my words. Re-read my message to
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/12877> Starchild until
comprehension sets in.
BM) the US government initiated an embargo of all food, medicine and other
necessary goods into Iraq. Over 1 million people died as a result. (BM
UNSC Resolution 706 of 1991 offered to allow Saddam to sell oil to buy food
and medicine for his people while he was under UN Security Council
disarmament sanctions for his blatant war of aggression. He refused for
five years. Reason magazine says that the estimate of 1 million deaths is
inflated, but whatever the number, Saddam was responsible for every single
one.
BM) Then, the US invaded and bombed the place into smithereens (BM
Hollow puerile rhetoric. Thanks for not addressing the facts I cited
earlier about the unprecedented level of precision used in the 2003 Iraq air
campaign.
BM) and then lifted the embargo. (BM
You have your facts wrong yet again. No, food and medicine started flowing
to Iraq in 1996, when Iraq finally signed a Memorandum of Understanding with
the UN. Saddam could have got the food and medicine any time he wanted. He
refused.
BM) The invasion and bombing killed lots more Iraqis, just not as many as
the embargo had killed. However, it was neither a source of solace nor a
"liberation from death." (BM
Yet another fabricated quote. Meanwhile, you've never addressed my repeated
citing of the 2004 BBC poll showing that 61% of Iraqis thought the ouster of
Saddam was worth any hardships suffered since America invaded.
BM) If I was to pursue your view of "liberation," first I'd embargo you so
that you cannot get any food and medicine. (BM
No, first you'd need to show that I
* killed over a million people,
* invaded one sovereign neighbor,
* annexed another by force,
* fired ballistic missiles at two more,
* defied UN nuclear disarmament mandates that I was bound to obey as
a UN Charter signatory,
* used chemical WMDs in a war of aggression, and
* used chemical WMDs in genocidal attacks on his own citizens.
Good luck showing that.
BM) Then, after 2 of your 4 children die from treatable diseases (BM
It's inane to suggest that half of Iraq's children have died -- even as a
result of what after all was Saddam's defiance of sanctions from the UN body
that he was treaty-bound to obey.
By the way, I had a son who died in my
<http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/BlakeLessons.html> arms, so I don't
need you to paint -- well, crayon -- pictures about how horrible it is for
children to die.
There are probably others on this list following this discussion with
interest as I am. Good points are being made on both sides. While I
personally lean towards the anarchists side of Libertarianism...Brian H
is making credible statements I personally respect. Unfortunately for
him he has to present his points within the context of a disastrous
situation in the Middle East. This makes it very tough on him but his
consistency and energy in the discussion are appreciated. And gradually
I'm becoming more intellectually understanding sympathetic to his view
without changing my own opinion of the Middle East situation around
which much of the discussion has focused.
Rolling Stone had a great article this week called
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swind
le/
The Great Iraq Swindle - How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit
Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury
It closes with the following statement...
According to the most reliable -estimates, we have doled out more than
$500 billion for the war, as well as $44 billion for the Iraqi
reconstruction effort. And what did America's contractors give us for
that money? They built big steaming shit piles, set brand-new trucks on
fire, drove back and forth across the desert for no reason at all and
dumped bags of nails in ditches. For the most part, nobody at home
cared, because war on some level is always a waste. But what happened in
Iraq went beyond inefficiency, beyond fraud even. This was about the
business of government being corrupted to such an extraordinary degree
that now we all have to wonder how we will ever be able to depend on the
state to do its job in the future. If catastrophic failure is worth
billions, where's the incentive to deliver success? There's no profit in
patriotism, no cost-plus angle on common decency. Sixty years after
America liberated Europe, those are just words, and words don't pay the
bills.
Mike: Regardless of the points being made by the Brians...if the utter
failure of the Iraq war does nothing else but confirm in the minds of
citizens everywhere that the state is a silly place to place their trust
and hopes...then that will be this war's "silver lining" IMHO.
Mike
Brian:
I find it interesting that once again, you're descending into pedantry rather than engaging in the direct issue of the matter.
First of all, nobody, not even Saddam, is responsible for the activities of the US government other than the US government.
The US government, not Saddam or anyone else, decided to pursue a sanction regime that ended all food and medical supplies to the people of Iraq. It was officials of the United States government who know that over a million people would die, and a US government official -- Madeleine Albright -- who declared that it was the US government's position that hundreds of thousands of dead children was a "worth it" -- a price worth paying.
There's no getting around that fact. The Clinton and Bush administrations have had their apologists scramble to produce rationales that "Saddam could have committed suicide at any time and thus prevented us from killing his people at any time," but then again, I could make the same rationale in my earlier analogy (which you avoided addressing, obviously because it put the situation into such stark relief).
I am your neighbor. You try to annex another neighbor's garden shed. We beat you off and you withdraw.
I then declare that you may not enter your front or back yard nor use your driveway as punishment. Further, no food, water, electricity or medical supplies will be allowed into your house until you shoot yourself in the head or abandon your home.
Not surprisingly, you tell me to go to hell. As a result of the blockade that I imposed on your home, your children sicken and die -- and the entire time, I insist that all you have to do is go shoot yourself in the head and then everything will be A-OK. Your children are needlessly suffering! You are FORCING me to kill them! Their blood is on YOUR hands!
Then, I bomb your house, kill your spouse in the process, and then note that now that the rubble of your home is under my command during the bombing, fewer people have died than under your rule -- when I made the calculated effort to kill your kids to get you to comply with my demands.
Then, I proclaim myself a neighborhood hero for "liberating" your house -- well, until the neighbors across the street decide they want it, your in-laws living in the garage decide to attack your parents living in the attic, and your lodger living in a tent in the back yard decides that he wants his own parcel and will kill whoever he needs to get it (including me and the other neighbors who started the conflict with you).
Cheers,
Brian
Brian Holtz <brian@...> wrote:
Brian Miller:
BM) Your facts don't paint the picture you're trying to create, which is that the invasion "reduced deaths." (BM
You skill with quotation marks is on par with your reading comprehension. "Reduced deaths" aren't my words. Re-read my message to Starchild until comprehension sets in.
BM) the US government initiated an embargo of all food, medicine and other necessary goods into Iraq. Over 1 million people died as a result. (BM
UNSC Resolution 706 of 1991 offered to allow Saddam to sell oil to buy food and medicine for his people while he was under UN Security Council disarmament sanctions for his blatant war of aggression. He refused for five years. Reason magazine says that the estimate of 1 million deaths is inflated, but whatever the number, Saddam was responsible for every single one.
BM) Then, the US invaded and bombed the place into smithereens (BM
Hollow puerile rhetoric. Thanks for not addressing the facts I cited earlier about the unprecedented level of precision used in the 2003 Iraq air campaign.
BM) and then lifted the embargo. (BM
You have your facts wrong yet again. No, food and medicine started flowing to Iraq in 1996, when Iraq finally signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UN. Saddam could have got the food and medicine any time he wanted. He refused.
BM) The invasion and bombing killed lots more Iraqis, just not as many as the embargo had killed. However, it was neither a source of solace nor a "liberation from death." (BM
Yet another fabricated quote. Meanwhile, you've never addressed my repeated citing of the 2004 BBC poll showing that 61% of Iraqis thought the ouster of Saddam was worth any hardships suffered since America invaded.
BM) If I was to pursue your view of "liberation," first I'd embargo you so that you cannot get any food and medicine. (BM
No, first you'd need to show that I
killed over a million people,
invaded one sovereign neighbor,
annexed another by force,
fired ballistic missiles at two more,
defied UN nuclear disarmament mandates that I was bound to obey as a UN Charter signatory,
used chemical WMDs in a war of aggression, and
used chemical WMDs in genocidal attacks on his own citizens.
Good luck showing that.
BM) Then, after 2 of your 4 children die from treatable diseases (BM
It's inane to suggest that half of Iraq's children have died -- even as a result of what after all was Saddam's defiance of sanctions from the UN body that he was treaty-bound to obey.
By the way, I had a son who died in my arms, so I don't need you to paint -- well, crayon -- pictures about how horrible it is for children to die.
If you're counting the Iraq-Iran war, you might want to research the role of the US in that conflict. If you're counting deaths due to the embargo, again, you may need to consider US involvement.
- Steve
BH) Iraqi deaths by violence since the invasion would are 100,000 to
150,000. That's less than 40K/yr, which is well under the 60K to 80K deaths
per year that Saddam caused over his 24-year tenure. (BH
SD) If you're counting the Iraq-Iran war, you might want to research the
role of the US in that conflict. (SD
If you think I haven't researched the US role in the Iran-Iraq war, you must
have missed it when five days before your message I posted this here:
I've been answering the anti-interventionist arguments of Libertarians here
in California for over two years, and by now I find it pretty boring. If any
anti-liberventionist thinks he has an argument I haven't answered before, he
might want to read
* my libertarian argument
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; for liberating Iraq [updated
here <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; ];
* my taxonomy <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; of
anti-interventionist arguments and why they're wrong;
* my unrebutted takedown
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; of Anthony Gregory and this
<http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/Anthony_Gregory/2005-08-25.htm>
example of the sort of messages that have sent him AWOL from our off-and-on
<http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/Anthony_Gregory/> Iraq debate;
* my evisceration <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; of
an anti-intervention speech by Lew Rockwell; and
* my debates
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; on
LPCalPeace, where I've answered every single response to my arguments, as
attempted by Bruce Dovner, Mark Stroberg, Paul Ireland, Jay Eckl, Michael
Seebeck, David Kocot, and Harland Harrison.
Do you want to talk Fahrenheit
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; 911? Saudi
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; Learjet? Downing
Street <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; Memo? the
158 <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; mentions of
Iraq in the 9/11 Commission report? April
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; Glaspie? Teicher's
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; affidavit?
Rumsfeld 1983 <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos;
Baghdad trip? American WMD
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; sales to Iraq?
Saddam's <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; support
for anti-American terrorists? Bush's
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; "lies" in his
pre-invasion speech? UNSCR
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; 1441? Saddam's
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; bodycount?
Halliburton <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos;
profits? Bush's sales
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; of Harken stock?
I've covered all this ground and more.
As I said only a week ago on cal-libs:
BH) Iraq was not an "ally", it was a pawn. When Iran's Shiite revolutionary
fervor was perceived as the greater threat to our actual allies (e.g. Saudi
Arabia) and was coming close in 1982 to winning the war Saddam had started
over American protests, the Reagan administration sought to punish Iran and
forestall Iranian victory by offering limited support for Iraq. The most
significant part of that support was battlefield satellite intelligence. The
role of the U.S. in the Iran-Iraq conflict was accurately summarized in a
PBS documentary:
PBS) "When Ronald Reagan becomes president in 1981, he endorses a policy
aiming for a stalemate in the war so that neither side emerges from the war
with any additional power. But in 1982, fearing Iraq might lose the war, the
U.S. begins to help. Over the next six years, a string of CIA agents go to
Baghdad. Hand-carrying the latest satellite intelligence about the Iranian
front line, they pass the information to their Iraqi counterparts. The U.S.
gives Iraq enough help to avoid defeat, but not enough to secure victory."
(PBS
The arms transfers to Iran were miniscule, totaling less than one planeload
and consisting primarily of about 1000 TOW tactical anti-tank missiles, and
18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles (which Iran sent back to Israel after being
unhappy with a test firing). The transfers to Iran were well after Iran's
flirtation with outright victory in 1982, and were intended to win the
release of hostages held by Iran's Hezbollah clients. They in fact won the
release of 3 of the 6 Americans taken by Hezbollah -- but some of the 6 were
taken after Hezbollah started freeing earlier hostages.
Reagan's use of Iraq as a pawn in 1982 to stop the possible spread of Shiite
revolutionary fervor toward Saudi Arabia was quite reasonable -- though with
three decades of hindsight we now know that the Iranian revolution
translates very poorly from Farsi to Arabic. Reagan's attempt to buy the
freedom of hostages was incredibly stupid (and impeachable if Poindexter is
lying about whether Reagan knew). The only missiles sent to Iran for that
purpose should have been ones arriving armed and at terminal velocity.
Nothing we've discussed here about U.S. policy in the 1980s makes it
"hypocrisy" for me or America two decades later to include Saddam's use of
WMDs in aggression and genocide as two of the twelve factual predicates I
cited in my justification for taking him and his sons down. (BH
So Steve, do you still wonder whether I've "research[ed] the role of the US
in that conflict"?
SD) If you're counting deaths due to the embargo, again, you may need to
consider US involvement. (SD
Already have -- as recently as four days before your posting, again on this
very forum, where I wrote:
BH) UNSC Resolution 706 of 1991 offered to allow Saddam to sell oil to buy
food and medicine for his people while he was under UN Security Council
disarmament sanctions for his blatant war of aggression. He refused for
five years. Reason magazine says that the estimate of 1 million deaths is
inflated, but whatever the number, Saddam was responsible for every single
one. Food and medicine started flowing to Iraq in 1996, when Iraq finally
signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UN. Saddam could have got the
food and medicine any time he wanted. He refused. (BH
If you're going to steal my "you might want to ..." line, then you might
want to read the research I've posted on the topic in question only days
earlier to the very same forum. I've been citing the 2002 Reason
<http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html> magazine article on the Iraq
sanctions for over five years.
Mike Denny wrote:
MD) I hear what you are saying and can accept that there may be value in
what you are saying that others are missing. It would be easier to
understand the premise of the value of foreign intervention if there were
good examples of where this foreign policy has actually worked to the
benefit of the "people" and not just the parochial interests of global
mercantilists who run the game. Even if performed properly.in the end it
seems politics and the war machine always end up taking control with the
"intended good" left on the sidelines. That seems to be the case even with
all the "good wars" IMHO. So where's the beef? There may be good examples in
all the work you've done.could you steer me to those sections. I'd like to
review. (MD
It's refreshing to encounter an open mind among antiwar libertarians -- or
pro-libervention libertarians, for that matter. 
My standard list of places where America has used its military for the goal
of local democratic sovereignty includes: England, Italy, France, Belgium,
Luxembourg, Holland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Greece, Germany, Austria,
Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Kurdistan, Haiti,
Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Taken together with our half-hearted
efforts in Somalia and Haiti, these data points are inconsistent with the
notion that "the parochial interests of global mercantilists" are what
determines whether America conducts military intervention. America
certainly has done some dishonorable things in other places, and not every
one of these interventions has had optimal results, but it's just not
tenable to make the simplistic claim that American intervention is the
product of a U.S. "war machine" trying to build an American empire. When we
make such histrionic and self-marginalizing claims, we surrender the
credibility we need to criticize the many unconscionable mistakes that have
actually occurred in America's foreign policy. I examined the ideology and
psychology of libertarian anti-war absolutism in my recent article for
California Freedom: Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos .
MD) as much a fable and fantasy as the one about how the poor are going to
somehow beat the rich in politics (MD
Bruce Bartlett reports
<http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BruceBartlett/2005/12/06/who_pays_the_ta
on the 2003 data: "the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted
gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The
top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and
the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent". My annual tax bill runs in
the six figures, but my vote counts just the same as that of a welfare queen
or a senior citizen enjoying his Social Security pyramid scheme bonanza.
The first SS beneficiary, Ida May Fuller, paid in a total of $44 and
received benefits that over her lifetime totaled $20,934. I wish I got that
rate of return on the taxes I pay.
Thanks Brian...aside from a slight editorializing of my message (see
below)...you said "My standard list of places where America has used its
military for the goal of local democratic sovereignty includes: England,
Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway,
Greece, Germany, Austria, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Grenada, Panama,
Kuwait, Kurdistan, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
MD - Please show me where in your blog it discusses how our military
activities in these countries have "benefited the goal of local
democratic sovereignty". By the way, I'm especially interested in your
take on Taiwan...a place my wife and I lived for 6 years. We had many
discussions with locals about the local political scene. Again...we
found the military industrial complex to be the largest beneficiary of
our policy there. Despite all the saber rattling of politicians and the
military on all sides...the people will tell you there is completely
free movement of products, people, money and ideas going on between the
Straights every single day...and that they don't "need some paper from
city hall" to formalize the movement through the development of
government sanctioned airports or immigration stations to make it
happen. All you need is a boat or hire someone who has one.
The war and power mongers on both side of the Straights are the ones
that benefit from the policy...the people who have heard it all couldn't
care less. It also goes to show that once economies, movement of people
and trade go "micro"...the state has less and less ability to intervene
and influence the private decisions of individuals....quite libertarian
if you ask me.
You then said
MD) as much a fable and fantasy as the one about how the poor are going
to somehow beat the rich in politics (MD
Bruce Bartlett reports
<http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BruceBartlett/2005/12/06/who_pays_th
e_taxes> on the 2003 data: "the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by
adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes
that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid
65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent". My
annual tax bill runs in the six figures, but my vote counts just the
same as that of a welfare queen or a senior citizen enjoying his Social
Security pyramid scheme bonanza. The first SS beneficiary, Ida May
Fuller, paid in a total of $44 and received benefits that over her
lifetime totaled $20,934. I wish I got that rate of return on the taxes
I pay.
Mike: The subject being discussed here in these posts is the use of the
military outside our borders. The primary beneficiaries of this policy
are in my humble opinion the likes of GE, Bechtel, Boeing, Lockheed,
Halliburton, Carlyle Group, World Bankers...etc....etc...as well as many
other multi-nationals who rely on our exercising foreign military power
to be used as their private police force to protect their interests
often at the expense of local democratic initiatives. Also...I don't see
much evidence now or in history where the performance of "democracy" has
been so remarkably good that it deserves to be supported by military
force...but I am open to your examples.
Regarding Social Security and other welfare programs...you are right. It
isn't a good deal for the tax payer...but it buys votes, silences the
mob and creates class warfare in the society. This keeps the masses
distracted so the welfare/warfare state can march on without
interference. And what do these interests care about a suckers who pay
taxes and get little to nothing for it like you and me? They are
definitely getting theirs from the racket and then some. It would be
interesting to know the percent of taxes paid by those companies who's
revenue stream is nearly entirely derived from Ill-begotten blood money.
Whatever it is...for them...it's just the cost of doing business.
Mike
Mike Denny wrote:
MD) I hear what you are saying and can accept that there may be value in
what you are saying...ADDED BY BH...(that others are missing). It would
be easier to understand the premise of the value of foreign intervention
if there were good examples of where this foreign policy has actually
worked to the benefit of the "people" and not just the parochial
interests of global mercantilists who run the game. Even if performed
properly...in the end it seems politics and the war machine always end
up taking control with the "intended good" left on the sidelines. That
seems to be the case even with all the "good wars" IMHO. So where's the
beef? There may be good examples in all the work you've done...could you
steer me to those sections. I'd like to review. (MD
It's refreshing to encounter an open mind among antiwar libertarians --
or pro-libervention libertarians, for that matter. 
My standard list of places where America has used its military for the
goal of local democratic sovereignty includes: England, Italy, France,
Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Greece, Germany,
Austria, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Kurdistan,
Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Taken together with our
half-hearted efforts in Somalia and Haiti, these data points are
inconsistent with the notion that "the parochial interests of global
mercantilists" are what determines whether America conducts military
intervention. America certainly has done some dishonorable things in
other places, and not every one of these interventions has had optimal
results, but it's just not tenable to make the simplistic claim that
American intervention is the product of a U.S. "war machine" trying to
build an American empire. When we make such histrionic and
self-marginalizing claims, we surrender the credibility we need to
criticize the many unconscionable mistakes that have actually occurred
in America's foreign policy. I examined the ideology and psychology of
libertarian anti-war absolutism in my recent article for California
Freedom: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=456
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=456> .
MD) as much a fable and fantasy as the one about how the poor are going
to somehow beat the rich in politics (MD
Bruce Bartlett reports
<http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BruceBartlett/2005/12/06/who_pays_th
e_taxes> on the 2003 data: "the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by
adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes
that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid
65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent". My
annual tax bill runs in the six figures, but my vote counts just the
same as that of a welfare queen or a senior citizen enjoying his Social
Security pyramid scheme bonanza. The first SS beneficiary,