http://tinyurl.com/oe24x
and some old commentary
http://tinyurl.com/m4585
The regime in Washington is preparing to
gravely endanger this once proud
Republic.
The question is not even asked, Why is
the policy used to contain the madman
Josef Stalin not sufficient to contain the
regime in Tehran
Once fooled shame on you..
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Because, Derek, try as I might, I cannot find an ethical and logical
path within my concept of civilization that would allow me, or you,
or anyone all the way "up" to George Bush to deny another country to
develop what it will within its own borders.
Allen Rice
-- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Phil:
I will answer your question.
It is because American traitors saw to it that Stalin got the
bomb. Iran
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have national sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both. Even if one asserts that nations, as well as individuals, possess "rights," it cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously inviolable. Where they come into conflict, either the "right" of a country (i.e. a government) to develop what it wants within its own borders will prevail, or the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will prevail. I know which one I vote for.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Because, Derek, try as I might, I cannot find an ethical and logical
path within my concept of civilization that would allow me, or you,
or anyone all the way "up" to George Bush to deny another country to
develop what it will within its own borders.Allen Rice
-- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
>
> Phil:
>
> I will answer your question.
>
> It is because American traitors saw to it that Stalin got the
bomb. Iran
> does not yet have it, so why wait until they do?
>
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/oe24x
> > and some old commentary
> > http://tinyurl.com/m4585
> >
> > The regime in Washington is preparing to
> > gravely endanger this once proud
> > Republic.
> >
> > The question is not even asked, Why is
> > the policy used to contain the madman
> > Josef Stalin not sufficient to contain the
> > regime in Tehran
> >
> > Once fooled shame on you..
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
<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>
Derek, You missed the point of my
question. For over fifty years the US
Government's policy for dealing with
nuclear armed mad man was mutually
assured destruction.Regardless of what
you think of the policy, the policy had a
sucess rate of 100 percent for over fifty
years with some seriously insane and
dangerous men. The policy has even
worked in the deeply viotile subcontinent.
There is a considerable history of
civilization in Iran, and the murderous
suicide sect that Al Queda comes from is
Suni and not Shiite. Power is also
somewhat divided in Iran between the
Ayotollahs and the admittedly nuts
President. Just like Saddam, and Stalin,
and Khrshev, we got these guys
addresses and know where to deliver the
nukes Israel has plenty of Nukes, and
quite capable of delivering punishment to
any country that nukes Tel Aviv.
Israels modern Diesel Electric Subs are
tough to find and target.
The United States absorbed the burning
of its Capitol in 1814, and still the basic
stance of only entering reactive wars was
at least pretended until Bush came along.
The burning of Washington in 1814
proves the basic concept that man was
essentially the same in the nineteenth
century and the issues of how to defend
the country were essentially the same as
today. A few terrorists with torches could
burn down any American City unti high
pressure fire systems were built in the
late teens of the twentieth century. Until
the advent of radar and wireless, a
foreign ship could appear at any time and
within hours reduce an american city to
rubble. Only Pulaski's brave leadership
saved Baltimore in the campaign that lost
Washington, only to have Baltimore burn
down nearly a century later.
Washington's procripptions and
perscriptions are therefore very relevent
to modern day America. The only
difference between the British torch and
an Al Queda bomb is litterly a matter of
degree, not principle. I urge you to read
and think about GW's words from 1797..
He seems to be issuing a direct warning
to Woodrow Wilson and George W.Bush.
Derek,
Indeed it is. I feel, equally, a repugnance against invading,
conquering and killing, just to obtain some short lived peace of
mind.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
Add to that, if I have invaded HIS country and killed HIS
countrymen, denying him the defensive perks that I consider my
right, then he is entirely justified in being royally pissed off,
and correct in viewing me as a damned hypocrite. He will henceforth
consider me an enemy, and I will not be able honestly to claim
otherwise.
Add to that the demonstrated incompetence of our leadership to
perform the task, the natural loss of liberties when the leadership
can use a state of war as an excuse for curtailing them, and the
expense and damage to the economy involved in the statist act par
excellence, "nationbuilding."
I am reminded more and more of the (perhaps apocryphal) quote from
the Vietnam War" "We had to destroy the village in order to save
it".
Allen Rice
-- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Allen:
That's the difference between you and me. I feel a strong moral
sense of
Yeah, you're right. Let's just give all the tinhorn despotic
dictators nuclear weapons. At least we'll have clean hands.
Not your best possible respsonse, Derek, since over and over it is
we who seem to grant ourselves the right to define who is
a "tinhorn", who is "despotic", and who is a "dictator".
Nor are we talking about "giving" anyone nuclear weapons. We are
talking about forbidding them to develop what they have.
Here's a scenario with which you can make yourself really afraid.
Pakistan, under Mushariff, has a nuclear capacity. Despite
currenlty being on "our" side, he currently has practically NO
support among "his" people, being viewed as a traitor to Islam. How
long do you suppose it would take an uprising in that country to
take over the platforms and point the atomic missiles at, say, India?
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Yeah, you're right. Let's just give all the tinhorn despotic
dictators nuclear weapons. At least we'll have clean hands.>
> Derek,
>
> Indeed it is. I feel, equally, a repugnance against invading,
> conquering and killing, just to obtain some short lived peace of
> mind.
>
> "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
> Add to that, if I have invaded HIS country and killed HIS
> countrymen, denying him the defensive perks that I consider my
> right, then he is entirely justified in being royally pissed off,
> and correct in viewing me as a damned hypocrite. He will
henceforth
> consider me an enemy, and I will not be able honestly to claim
> otherwise.
>
> Add to that the demonstrated incompetence of our leadership to
> perform the task, the natural loss of liberties when the
leadership
> can use a state of war as an excuse for curtailing them, and the
> expense and damage to the economy involved in the statist act par
> excellence, "nationbuilding."
>
> I am reminded more and more of the (perhaps apocryphal) quote
from
> the Vietnam War" "We had to destroy the village in order to save
> it".
>
> Allen Rice
>
> -- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Allen:
> >
> > That's the difference between you and me. I feel a strong
moral
Are there any lessons to be learned from the fact that the US created Hussein directly and the Ayatollah indirectly via it's attempts to crush socialism while India and China, once socialists states, are doing much better without such intervention?
There seem to be no shortage of similar examples in the African and South American continents.
-- Steve
Starchild, your note is a nice exposition of a choice that could be
made in a world much simpler than the one we actually live in.
Here's some background of a more complex one.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"That to secure these [certain inalienable] rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed."
From the Preamble to the US Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and _secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity_, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And, oddly enough, from Osama Bin Laden's communique of October 6,
2002, "To the American People" (thanks to Derek Jensen for turning
me on to this):
"This argument [that aggression against American civilians is not
justified] contradicts your continuous repetition that America is
the land of freedom, and freedom's leaders in this world. If this
is so, the American people are the ones who choose their government
through their own free will; a choice which stems from their
agreement to its policies."
In short, most people believe that governments are necessary to at
least sustain rights, and that in a democracy the people are
responsible for what their governments do. Not many, at least in
the US, see them as being opposing forces, and not all the
theorizing in the world will overcome that.
Regards,
Allen
I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have
national
sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both. Even if one
asserts that nations, as well as individuals, possess "rights," it
cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously inviolable.
Where
Dear derek;
I jsu picked up on the thread and your statement about having a
strong moral sense of duty to protect my country against nuclear
blackmail.
Do you believe the leaders of Iran could say the same thing right
now based on all the rumors of a USA led NUCLEAR STRIKE against Iran?
Based on an analysis of the known sites and their support facilities
some 400 locations would have to be destroyed. This does not include
the deep under-ground bunkers which supposedly would have to be
destroyed with B61-11 tactical nuclear weapons. There are at elast 4
of these types of facilties.
Did I hear someone say nuclear radiation - nuclear fall out -
nuclear contamination???
Wake up Derek.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
Allen:
That's the difference between you and me. I feel a strong moral
sense of
duty to protect my country against nuclear blackmail.
-Derek
>
>
> Because, Derek, try as I might, I cannot find an ethical and
logical
> path within my concept of civilization that would allow me, or
you,
> or anyone all the way "up" to George Bush to deny another
country to
Allen,
You make a strong argument for your point of view. It is nevertheless an argument from nationalism as surely as Derek's is, and such arguments can I think be fairly described as another form of "nation building."
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Derek,
Indeed it is. I feel, equally, a repugnance against invading,
conquering and killing, just to obtain some short lived peace of
mind."A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
Add to that, if I have invaded HIS country and killed HIS
countrymen, denying him the defensive perks that I consider my
right, then he is entirely justified in being royally pissed off,
and correct in viewing me as a damned hypocrite. He will henceforth
consider me an enemy, and I will not be able honestly to claim
otherwise.Add to that the demonstrated incompetence of our leadership to
perform the task, the natural loss of liberties when the leadership
can use a state of war as an excuse for curtailing them, and the
expense and damage to the economy involved in the statist act par
excellence, "nationbuilding."I am reminded more and more of the (perhaps apocryphal) quote from
the Vietnam War" "We had to destroy the village in order to save
it".Allen Rice
-- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
>
> Allen:
>
> That's the difference between you and me. I feel a strong moral
sense of
> duty to protect my country against nuclear blackmail.
>
> -Derek
>
<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>
Starchild,
This is rather a stretch, don't you think?
There's a huge difference between leaving the other fellow's nation
alone, unless it attacks me in some way, and charging in to rebuild
it because I have decided I don't like him, and am sure my "way of
life" is better than his.
Allen Rice
Allen,
You make a strong argument for your point of view. It is
nevertheless
an argument from nationalism as surely as Derek's is, and such
arguments can I think be fairly described as another form
of "nation
building."
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Derek,
>
> Indeed it is. I feel, equally, a repugnance against invading,
> conquering and killing, just to obtain some short lived peace of
> mind.
>
> "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
> Add to that, if I have invaded HIS country and killed HIS
> countrymen, denying him the defensive perks that I consider my
> right, then he is entirely justified in being royally pissed off,
> and correct in viewing me as a damned hypocrite. He will
henceforth
> consider me an enemy, and I will not be able honestly to claim
> otherwise.
>
> Add to that the demonstrated incompetence of our leadership to
> perform the task, the natural loss of liberties when the
leadership
> can use a state of war as an excuse for curtailing them, and the
> expense and damage to the economy involved in the statist act par
> excellence, "nationbuilding."
>
> I am reminded more and more of the (perhaps apocryphal) quote
from
Steve,
The Soviet Union intervened to help the communists come to power in China, and the British had a long intervention in India. I believe the despotic regime in power in Burma has been homegrown, and the situation there has not improved despite a lack of military intervention. There seem to be no shortage of similar examples in the African continent. What is the overall theory again?
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Allen,
The quote from Osama bin Laden proves beyond a doubt that he has found in American nationalism a convenient rationale for his actions, to wit: The U.S. people and the U.S. government are by their own admission closely linked, therefore it is legitimate for Al Qaeda to go after civilian targets in the United States directly.
The more people in the U.S. refer to the U.S. government as "our" government, and speak of the entire country, including the government, as "us," and "we," the more logical and supportable bin Laden's view becomes.
I certainly can't argue with the fact that most people believe that individuals in a democracy are somewhat responsible for what a democratically elected government there does, and that governments are necessary to sustain rights. I believe the latter to some degree myself. But are we debating where popular opinion stands, or the likelihood of changing it? I thought we were debating what was correct. I still say that you cannot simultaneously have national and individual sovereignty, regardless of what most people believe.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild, your note is a nice exposition of a choice that could be
made in a world much simpler than the one we actually live in.Here's some background of a more complex one.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"That to secure these [certain inalienable] rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed."From the Preamble to the US Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and _secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity_, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."And, oddly enough, from Osama Bin Laden's communique of October 6,
2002, "To the American People" (thanks to Derek Jensen for turning
me on to this):"This argument [that aggression against American civilians is not
justified] contradicts your continuous repetition that America is
the land of freedom, and freedom's leaders in this world. If this
is so, the American people are the ones who choose their government
through their own free will; a choice which stems from their
agreement to its policies."In short, most people believe that governments are necessary to at
least sustain rights, and that in a democracy the people are
responsible for what their governments do. Not many, at least in
the US, see them as being opposing forces, and not all the
theorizing in the world will overcome that.Regards,
Allen>
> I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have
national
> sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both. Even if one
> asserts that nations, as well as individuals, possess "rights," it
> cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously inviolable.
Where
> they come into conflict, either the "right" of a country (i.e. a
> government) to develop what it wants within its own borders will
> prevail, or the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the
> pursuit of happiness will prevail. I know which one I vote for.
>
> Yours in liberty,
<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>
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Allen,
Your view is predicated on a belief that nations are closely linked to individuals, perhaps that a nation is a kind of extension of an individual, so that an attack on a nation is an attack on each person residing in that nation (or at least on each person considered a citizen or national by its government). This is what I was referring to as nation-building. You are building (reinforcing) a much more robust role for nations in the world than libertarianism requires.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild,
This is rather a stretch, don't you think?
There's a huge difference between leaving the other fellow's nation
alone, unless it attacks me in some way, and charging in to rebuild
it because I have decided I don't like him, and am sure my "way of
life" is better than his.Allen Rice
>
> Allen,
>
> You make a strong argument for your point of view. It is
nevertheless
> an argument from nationalism as surely as Derek's is, and such
> arguments can I think be fairly described as another form
of "nation
> building."
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
> > Derek,
> >
> > Indeed it is. I feel, equally, a repugnance against invading,
> > conquering and killing, just to obtain some short lived peace of
> > mind.
> >
> > "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
> > Add to that, if I have invaded HIS country and killed HIS
> > countrymen, denying him the defensive perks that I consider my
> > right, then he is entirely justified in being royally pissed off,
> > and correct in viewing me as a damned hypocrite. He will
henceforth
> > consider me an enemy, and I will not be able honestly to claim
> > otherwise.
> >
> > Add to that the demonstrated incompetence of our leadership to
> > perform the task, the natural loss of liberties when the
leadership
> > can use a state of war as an excuse for curtailing them, and the
> > expense and damage to the economy involved in the statist act par
> > excellence, "nationbuilding."
> >
> > I am reminded more and more of the (perhaps apocryphal) quote
from
> > the Vietnam War" "We had to destroy the village in order to save
> > it".
> >
> > Allen Rice
> >
<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>
Derek,
I don't believe that's an accurate analogy. The difference is that *if* it were true that the American people and the U.S. government were essentially one unit, then American civilians *would* become a legitimate military target. Which is *not* to say that Al Qaeda's goals are legitimate, but merely that attacking civilians such as in the WTC would be no different than attacking the Pentagon.
However if it were true that the rapist found what the victim was wearing to be sexually stimulating, that would *not* make his crime any more justifiable than if he was not excited by her attire, even if the victim knew her choice of clothes might be sexually titillating.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
the rapist's testimony during trial proves beyond a doubt that he had found in her wearing a miniskirt and high heels a motivation to rape the victim.
Talk like this makes you both sound like apologists for OBL
> Allen,
>
> The quote from Osama bin Laden proves beyond a doubt that he has found
> in American nationalism a convenient rationale for his actions, to wit:
> The U.S . people and the U.S. government are by their own admission
> closely linked, therefore it is legitimate for Al Qaeda to go after
> civilian targets in the United States directly.
>
> The more people in the U.S. refer to the U.S. government as "our"
> government, and speak of the entire country, including the government,
> as "us," and "we," the more logical and supportable bin Laden's view
> becomes.
>
> I certainly can't argue with the fact that most people believe that
> individuals in a democracy are somewhat responsible for what a
> democratically elected government there does, and that governments are
> necessary to sustain rights. I believe the latter to some degree
> myself. But are we debating where popular opinion stands, or the
> likelihood of changing it? I thought we were debating what was correct.
> I still say that you cannot simultaneously have national and individual
> sovereignty, regardless of what most people believe.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
> > Starchild, your note is a nice exposition of a choice that could be
> > made in a world much simpler than the one we actually live in.
> >
> > Here's some background of a more complex one.
> >
> > From the Declaration of Independence:
> >
> > "That to secure these [certain inalienable] rights, governments are
> > instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
> > the governed."
> >
> > From the Preamble to the US Constitution:
> >
> > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
> > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
> > the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and _secure the
> > Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity_, do ordain and
> > establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> >
> > And, oddly enough, from Osama Bin Laden's communique of October 6,
> > 2002, "To the American People" (thanks to Derek Jensen for turning
> > me on to this):
> >
> > "This argument [that aggression against American civilians is not
> > justified] contradicts your continuous repetition that America is
> > the land of freedom, and freedom's leaders in this world. If this
> > is so, the American people are the ones who choose their government
> > through their own free will; a choice which stems from their
> > agreement to its policies."
> >
> > In short, most people believe that governments are necessary to at
> > least sustain rights, and that in a democracy the people are
> > responsible for what their governments do. Not many, at least in
> > the US, see them as being opposing forces, and not all the
> > theorizing in the world will overcome that.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Allen
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll say again that it seems to me that one can have
> > national
> > > sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but not both. Even if one
> > > asserts that nations, as well as individuals, possess "rights," it
> > > cannot be that both sets of rights are simultaneously inviolable.
> > Where
> > > they come into conflict, either the "right" of a country ( i.e. a
> > > government) to develop what it wants within its own borders will
> > > prevail, or the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the
> > > pursuit of happiness will prevail. I know which one I vote for.
> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> >
> < 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>
> >
>
<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>