David:
If and when Canada sponsors or give safe haven to terrorists that kill
thousands of Americans or our allies, then I would be be in favor of
military action.
Remember, this is the country that inflicted Celine Deon upon us.
-Derek
Derek, Washington said the goal of our
foreign policy should be nuetrrality. His
elegance, wisdom, and foresight illuminate
even the dullest pc ponitor. I urge everone
to read his farewell address.
http://tinyurl.com/tw92
Had the leaders of the country heeded his
advice and warnings, we never would have
gotten into world war one and would remain
a nuetral country far away in the eyes of the
mainland old world powers.
Without our interference wourld war one
would probably have ended in an
wxhausted stalemate, and the disasterous
humiliation and desreuction of Fermany
through the frear inflation would never have
occured. Had the US maintained a strict
policy of nuetrality, the Japanese may not
of felt that thier natural resource supply
was endangered, and may never have
invaded Pwarl Hstbot snf perhaps even
China. But for whatever reson, Japan
viewed the US as a threat and attacked.
Vdfmany declared war us soon after. At
that point our participation in ww2 was
legitimate in my eyes.
perhaps if the US had veen freer in the 19th
century, and that nasty and utterly
unnecessary civil war had not been fought,
, the american revolution would have been
the model for the overthrow of the Czar.
Anyway the crap that goes on internally isn
all the worlds miserable dictaorships is not
the business of the us government. If we
had no income tax and no inflation we
would be so darn rich that private militias
such ad the Gates Brigade, or the Perot
squad could be funded and maned privately
to do good. deeds and form strike forces to
overhrow nasty dictaors.
As for Israel, the moral imperative for it's
existence was the fact that so amy Jews
were killed in Europe and the remaining
Jews were unsafe. Had Mr. Roosevelt
allowed open immigration of Jews from the
beginning of his term in 1932, and we had
no great depression and no income tac and
no fed, these Jews could easily have been
assimilated by rich family sponsors much to
the enrichment of the entire american
society. Israel would remain a poverty
stricken sand dune with a few trouble
making Jews. There is no reson a nbuetral
Us government had to get involved in this
most ancient of old world disfunctoon. With
twelve million untaxed Jews using real
money, I bet something could be worled out
for some jewish folks to live in Peace in
palistine, but I doubt the drive would be
there if there had been no holocaust to
begin with.
As for all the terror Saddam unleashed on
his own people, well, he probably thought
he had to and he was probably correct. Iraq
is a fantasy. The borders were drawn by the
British foreign office arbitrarily immediatly
after ww1. Prior to that the area was pretty
much undefined as to nationhood and stood
uunder the umbrella of the the loosly
governed Ottoman empire which had the
misfortune to be allied with the losing side
through links to the Austro Hungrian
empire. The British gave themselves the
area as a protectorate and proceeded to tyr
and govern it. The effort was deadly and
expensive. Controlling ancient hostilities
between different tribes arbitrarily brought
together in the area called Iraq proved
imposible for the British.
Saddam was supported by the US in its
lean towards Iraq policy in the post Carter
years. He was our guy. The arbitrariness of
giving Saudi Arabia to an ancient Nomadic
tribe that happened to wander the reqion,
instead of the ancient established
civilizations on the Tigris and Wuphrates
rivers, rankled all segments of Iraqui
Society as did the arbitrariness of the
Kuwait borders. None of it was our
business from the very beginning. As a
nuetreal power we could boy our oil on the
market and not care where it came from.
Oil is a fubgible item. It doesn't have a label
on it m made in Iraq or made in Norway. If
yjou are a proding area, once you havfe
hated all your homes, fueld all your cars and
supppplied all your factories, it's just a lot of
black goo unless you can sell it into the
world market. So in facrt we ahve no
national seccurity interest in protecting our
oil supply. That is nineteenth century
resource scarcity thinking the kind of
thinking that led Japan into the trap of Pearl
Harbor.
As for Iraq, we created an unatural state
that could only be held together by force of
arms or the threat of force backed up by
selected acts of force. Had qw not mettled
in WWI and it's aftermath, the tribes of the
region may have eventual congelaed
through negotiation and war to some
resonable borders, perhaps even peaceful,
as the borders of Europe are now.
If private militias from the Us want to join
one side or another in internal conflicts in
Iraq and Congress wishes to allow that,
than by all means go at it. For example an
untaxed Rosss Perot may fund a brigade to
defend the Curds against torture.
The US government should remain nuetral
so far as it possibly can. In the case of Iraq,
if that had been the policy all along clearly
they and we would have been much better
off.
Gearge Washington lived a long life, led a
bitter almost hopeless fight against the
most powerfull Nation on Earth, putting his
own life, liberty and considerable property
at risk, and quietly retired, attempting to
point the Republic he started on a path of
Liberty and Peace against all the forces of
war and tyranny. This speach is largely a
timeless guide for our nations foreign
policy.
As for the Magna Carta, it is incorporated
into American law today as writs of Habeas
Corpus and in the Fourth
Amendmendments which I would check
more but Tessa has to be walked.
I want to thank you for bringing the tone of
this dailog back down to a more civil level
than I left it last night, but if we were living
in England just three hundred years ago
and I were The Queen, you would have
been taken to the Tower long ago.
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek,
I thought this article might be of interest:
"Question: Why didn’t the terrorists strike Switzerland instead of England?
After all, the two countries share the same freedom and values, don’t they?"
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0507c.asp
-- Steve
David,
It's good to know I'm not the only one in our group who has fallen off the nationalist bandwagon! The questions you raise here are very important ones. Who was attacked on 9/11, exactly? Was "America" attacked just because the terrorists said that's who they were attacking? If they'd said they were attacking "large buildings," or "the human race" instead, would that have changed the meaning of the attacks? Imagine if the media had just factually reported what happened, instead of immediately characterizing the incidents as "attacks on America."
What is "America" anyway, and why should we as libertarians identify with it? Shouldn't our allegiance be to the idea of freedom, not to a nation? Who are our comrades whom we should honor with words like "we" and "us?" Shouldn't it be those who share our philosophy, rather than merely those who happen to hold similar government-issued documents?
The problem with the phrase "my country right or wrong" isn't just the "right or wrong" part, it's the whole thing.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
On Wednesday, December 14, 2005, at 09:21 PM, David Rhodes wrote (in part):
Additionally, your use of 'we' is a bit curious. For
instance, 'I' don't feel I was attacked on 9/11. In
fact, I sometimes feel like I have more in common with
Mexico than NYC - borders be damned..Ways NYC
attacked? Who was attacked? My point is - diminish
the superpower, and you diminish the target as well as
the cause..d
--- Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:
> David:
>
> Two reasons:
>
> 1. As a civilized people, we care more about killing
> innocents than
> our enemies (the islamofascists) do.
> This requires lots of troops, technology, and money.
>
> 2. We have way more to lose. Al qaeda and other
> terrorist groups and
> their state sponsors would consider a nuke going off
> in a us city a
> great victory. We would take no such pleasure in
> nuking tehrhan for
> instance. So we are always playing defense.
> Technology has advanced so
> much that fortress america is no longer feasible nor
> wise. That's why
> we need to project our force and intelligence - to
> pre-empt disaster.
>
> > Derek - Question for you - If it's so easy to
> attack
> > countries from afar these days, why doesn't the US
> > military solely adopt this approach? Why have
> military
> > bases in 100+ countries, secret prisons and
> interfere
> > with foreign governments when they can simply lob
> a
> > cruise missile over?
> >
> > Seems like a more defensive stance would save a
> ton of
> > money and there would be no question as to whether
> US
> > meddling had resulted in additional wars or
> terrorist
> > activities.
> >
> > d.
> >
> > > Michael:
> > >
> > > I'm glad you mentioned the quotation by Randolph
> > > Bourne. In Bourne's
> > > day, America was protected by two very wide
> oceans.
> > > At the time of
> > > his death in 1918 there had never been a
> > > transatlantic flight, and
> > > nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them
> were
> > > unknown.
> > >
> > > Mounting an effective and sustainable invasion
> of
> > > America was beyond
> > > the capabilities of the vast majority of
> nations.
> > > Self-defense was
> > > relatively easy and inexpensive for the US. In
> > > addition, America had
> > > much more of an economically
> > > self-sufficient economy than could be possible
> in
> > > today's globalization.
> > >
> > > So, the isolationist approach to foreign policy
> made
> > > some sense then.
> > > Today, however, it would be an extremely
> dangerous
> > > way to conduct
> > > foreign policy.
> > >
> > > -Derek
> > >
> > > > Derek,
> > > >
> > > > In his article, Max Borders writes:
> > > > "Is it possible for one to be libertarian
> about
> > > policies at home and
> > > > neo-conservative about policies abroad?"
> > > >
> > > > The answer clearly is: It is not possible.
> > > >
> > > > Why? As William Randolph Bourne presciently
> > > observed: "War is the
> > > > health of the state." The state always expands
> > > domestically during
> > > > wartime and never returns to its previous
> smaller
> > > size.
> > > >
> > > > A Big Govt libertarian abroad is of necessity
> a
> > > Big Govt libertarian
> > > > at home.
> > > >
> > > > Best, Michael
> > > >
> > > > From: Derek Jensen
> > > > To: lpsf-discuss@...m
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:54 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Flying with the
> > > Libertarian Hawks
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I'm interested in such a conversation
> too.
> > > I will point out
> > > > however, that I prefer peace as well. We just
> > > have different ideas on
> > > > how to achieve it.
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks, I'll take the Peace Bus.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously, I would be interested in a
> sustained
> > > conversation between
> > > > > Libertarian hawks and doves, on-line or in
> > > person, but won't have
> > > > > time
> > > > > for that for awhile.
> > > > >
> > > > > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
> > > > > On Behalf Of Derek Jensen
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:03 AM
> > > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Flying with the
> > > Libertarian Hawks
> > > > >
> Tech Central Station
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Illegitimis non carborundum
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
> --
> View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
>
> Illegitimis non carborundum
>SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>