Ron Paul On War

Discussion
1

The Crime of Conscription
  by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
  November 26, 2003

The ultimate cost of war is almost always the loss of
liberty. True defensive wars and revolutionary wars against
tyrants may preserve or establish a free society, as did
our war against the British. But these wars are rare. Most
wars are unnecessary, dangerous, and cause senseless
suffering with little being gained. The result of most
conflicts throughout the ages has been loss of liberty and
life on both sides. The current war in which we find
ourselves clearly qualifies as one of those unnecessary and
dangerous wars. To get the people to support ill-conceived
wars, the nation's leaders employ grand schemes of
deception.

Woodrow Wilson orchestrated our entry into World War I by
first promising during the election of 1916 to keep us out
of the European conflict, then a few months later
pressuring and maneuvering Congress into declaring war
against Germany. Whether it was the Spanish American War
before that or all the wars since, U.S. presidents have
deceived the people to gain popular support for ill-
conceived military ventures. Wilson wanted the war and
immediately demanded conscription to fight it. He didn't
have the guts even to name the program a military draft;
instead in a speech before Congress calling for war he
advised the army should be "chosen upon the principle of
universal liability to service." Most Americans at the time
of the declaration didn't believe actual combat troops
would be sent. What a dramatic change from this early
perception, when the people endorsed the war, to the
carnage that followed - and the later disillusionment with
Wilson and his grand scheme for world government under the
League of Nations. The American people rejected this gross
new entanglement, a reflection of a somewhat healthier age
than the one we find ourselves in today.

But when it comes to war, the principle of deception lives
on. The plan for "universal liability to serve" once again
is raising its ugly head. The dollar cost of the current
war is already staggering, yet plans are being made to
drastically expand the human cost by forcing conscription
on the young men (and maybe women) who have no ax to grind
with the Iraqi people and want no part of this fight.

Hundreds of Americans have already been killed, and
thousands more wounded and crippled, while thousands of
others will experience new and deadly war-related illnesses
not yet identified.

We were told we had to support this pre-emptive war against
Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction
(and to confront al Qaeda). It was said our national
security depended on it. But all these dangers were found
not to exist in Iraq. It was implied that lack of support
for this Iraqi invasion was un-American and unpatriotic.

Since the original reasons for the war never existed, it is
now claimed that we're there to make Iraq a western-style
democracy and to spread western values. And besides, it's
argued, it's nice that Saddam Hussein has been removed from
power. But does the mere existence of evil somewhere in the
world justify preemptive war at the expense of the American
people? Utopian dreams, fulfilled by autocratic means,
hardly qualify as being morally justifiable.

These after-the-fact excuses for invasion and occupation of
a sovereign nation direct attention away from the charge
that the military industrial complex encouraged this war.
It was encouraged by war profiteering, a desire to control
natural resources (oil), and a Neo-con agenda of American
hegemony with the goal of redrawing the borders of the
countries of the Middle East.

The inevitable failure of such a seriously flawed foreign
policy cannot be contemplated by those who have put so much
energy into this occupation. The current quagmire prompts
calls from many for escalation, with more troops being sent
to Iraq. Many of our reservists and National Guardsmen
cannot wait to get out and have no plans to re-enlist. The
odds are that our policy of foreign intervention, which has
been with us for many decades, is not likely to soon
change. The dilemma of how to win an un-winnable war is the
issue begging for an answer.

To get more troops, the draft will likely be reinstated.
The implicit prohibition of "involuntary servitude" under
the 13th Amendment to the Constitution has already been
ignored many times so few will challenge the
constitutionality of the coming draft.

Unpopular wars invite conscription. Volunteers disappear,
as well they should. A truly defensive just war prompts
popular support. A conscripted, unhappy soldier is better
off on the long run than the slaves of old since the
"enslavement" is only temporary. But in the short run the
draft may well turn out to be more deadly and degrading, as
one is forced to commit life and limb to a less than worthy
cause - like teaching democracy to unwilling and angry
Arabs. Slaves were safer in that their owners had an
economic interest in protecting their lives. Endangering
the lives of our soldiers is acceptable policy, and that's
why they are needed. Too often, though, our men and women
who are exposed to the hostilities of war and welcomed
initially are easily forgotten after the fighting ends.
Soon afterward, the injured and the sick are ignored and
forgotten.

It is said we go about the world waging war to promote
peace, and yet the price paid is rarely weighed against the
failed efforts to make the world a better place. Justifying
conscription to promote the cause of liberty is one of the
most bizarre notions ever conceived by man! Forced
servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a
price to live free, makes no sense. What right does anyone
have to sacrifice the lives of others for some cause of
questionable value? Even if well motivated it can't justify
using force on uninterested persons.

It's said that the 18-year-old owes it to his country.
Hogwash! It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-
old chicken-hawk, who promotes war and places the danger on
innocent young people, owes a heck of a lot more to the
country than the 18-year-old being denied his liberty for a
cause that has no justification.

All drafts are unfair. All 18- and 19-year-olds are never
drafted. By its very nature a draft must be discriminatory.
All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the
elites learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat.

The dollar cost of war and the economic hardship is great
in all wars and cannot be minimized. War is never
economically beneficial except for those in position to
profit from war expenditures. The great tragedy of war is
the careless disregard for civil liberties of our own
people. Abuses of German and Japanese Americans in World
War I and World War II are well known.

But the real sacrifice comes with conscription - forcing a
small number of young vulnerable citizens to fight the wars
that older men and women, who seek glory in military
victory without themselves being exposed to danger,
promote. These are wars with neither purpose nor moral
justification, and too often not even declared by the
Congress.

Without conscription, unpopular wars are much more
difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the
1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end. But
most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A
free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants
thinks nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in
wrongheaded wars; a true fight for survival and defense of
America would elicit, I'm sure, the assistance of every
able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case for wars of
mischief far away from home in which we so often have found
ourselves in the past century.

One of the worst votes that an elected official could ever
cast would be to institute a military draft to fight an
illegal war, if that individual himself maneuvered to avoid
military service. But avoiding the draft on principle
qualifies oneself to work hard to avoid all unnecessary war
and oppose the draft for all others.

A government that is willing to enslave a portion of its
people to fight an unjust war can never be trusted to
protect the liberties of its own citizens. The ends can
never justify the means, no matter what the Neo-cons say.

2

Dear Everyone;

Ron Paul is correct in his view of conscription. I'll leave out all the ramifications of why the need for a military. And why the military is in Iraq. Or why the military is in any other country outside of the USA.

The simplest way around having to have conscription is to do what the government does when it has a need for a nuclear scientist or physicist. The government pays market rates.

To avoid having conscription you dramatically pump up the pay and benefits for the troopers in the volunteer forces. Then you would have no end of volunteers.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

P.S. While I was not conscripted. Due to events at the time the wise thing for me to do was " voluntarily " join my choice of the military. I ultimately ended up as a member of an occupying force in a South East Asian country. Where my fervent wishes and desires that I make it out of there without my butt getting blown off came to fruition. I was also woefully underpaid even with combat pay added to the mixture.

P.PS. The most shameful aspect of the Iraq War is not the 400 dead GI's and the lack of coverage of their arrival and funerals. Or the delibratively shameful lack of attendance or even a token appearance by any Bush administration official at the funerals. It is the total lack of coverage of the 1300 or so wounded.

The nature of the type of explosives used in the attacks from RPG's to roadside bombs and mines is catastrophic to the human body. As a result a large number of the wounded are ending up as amputees and double amputees. There have been strides in orthopeadic devices for amputees. However, losing arms or legs for a phony war is a kick in the teeth when you're already down.

"Dr. Michael R. Edelstein" <dredelstein@...> wrote:
The Crime of Conscription
  by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
  November 26, 2003

The ultimate cost of war is almost always the loss of
liberty. True defensive wars and revolutionary wars against
tyrants may preserve or establish a free society, as did
our war against the British. But these wars are rare. Most
wars are unnecessary, dangerous, and cause senseless
suffering with little being gained. The result of most
conflicts throughout the ages has been loss of liberty and
life on both sides. The current war in which we find
ourselves clearly qualifies as one of those unnecessary and
dangerous wars. To get the people to support ill-conceived
wars, the nation's leaders employ grand schemes of
deception.

Woodrow Wilson orchestrated our entry into World War I by
first promising during the election of 1916 to keep us out
of the European conflict, then a few months later
pressuring and maneuvering Congress into declaring war
against Germany. Whether it was the Spanish American War
before that or all the wars since, U.S. presidents have
deceived the people to gain popular support for ill-
conceived military ventures. Wilson wanted the war and
immediately demanded conscription to fight it. He didn't
have the guts even to name the program a military draft;
instead in a speech before Congress calling for war he
advised the army should be "chosen upon the principle of
universal liability to service." Most Americans at the time
of the declaration didn't believe actual combat troops
would be sent. What a dramatic change from this early
perception, when the people endorsed the war, to the
carnage that followed - and the later disillusionment with
Wilson and his grand scheme for world government under the
League of Nations. The American people rejected this gross
new entanglement, a reflection of a somewhat healthier age
than the one we find ourselves in today.

But when it comes to war, the principle of deception lives
on. The plan for "universal liability to serve" once again
is raising its ugly head. The dollar cost of the current
war is already staggering, yet plans are being made to
drastically expand the human cost by forcing conscription
on the young men (and maybe women) who have no ax to grind
with the Iraqi people and want no part of this fight.

Hundreds of Americans have already been killed, and
thousands more wounded and crippled, while thousands of
others will experience new and deadly war-related illnesses
not yet identified.

We were told we had to support this pre-emptive war against
Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction
(and to confront al Qaeda). It was said our national
security depended on it. But all these dangers were found
not to exist in Iraq. It was implied that lack of support
for this Iraqi invasion was un-American and unpatriotic.

Since the original reasons for the war never existed, it is
now claimed that we're there to make Iraq a western-style
democracy and to spread western values. And besides, it's
argued, it's nice that Saddam Hussein has been removed from
power. But does the mere existence of evil somewhere in the
world justify preemptive war at the expense of the American
people? Utopian dreams, fulfilled by autocratic means,
hardly qualify as being morally justifiable.

These after-the-fact excuses for invasion and occupation of
a sovereign nation direct attention away from the charge
that the military industrial complex encouraged this war.
It was encouraged by war profiteering, a desire to control
natural resources (oil), and a Neo-con agenda of American
hegemony with the goal of redrawing the borders of the
countries of the Middle East.

The inevitable failure of such a seriously flawed foreign
policy cannot be contemplated by those who have put so much
energy into this occupation. The current quagmire prompts
calls from many for escalation, with more troops being sent
to Iraq. Many of our reservists and National Guardsmen
cannot wait to get out and have no plans to re-enlist. The
odds are that our policy of foreign intervention, which has
been with us for many decades, is not likely to soon
change. The dilemma of how to win an un-winnable war is the
issue begging for an answer.

To get more troops, the draft will likely be reinstated.
The implicit prohibition of "involuntary servitude" under
the 13th Amendment to the Constitution has already been
ignored many times so few will challenge the
constitutionality of the coming draft.

Unpopular wars invite conscription. Volunteers disappear,
as well they should. A truly defensive just war prompts
popular support. A conscripted, unhappy soldier is better
off on the long run than the slaves of old since the
"enslavement" is only temporary. But in the short run the
draft may well turn out to be more deadly and degrading, as
one is forced to commit life and limb to a less than worthy
cause - like teaching democracy to unwilling and angry
Arabs. Slaves were safer in that their owners had an
economic interest in protecting their lives. Endangering
the lives of our soldiers is acceptable policy, and that's
why they are needed. Too often, though, our men and women
who are exposed to the hostilities of war and welcomed
initially are easily forgotten after the fighting ends.
Soon afterward, the injured and the sick are ignored and
forgotten.

It is said we go about the world waging war to promote
peace, and yet the price paid is rarely weighed against the
failed efforts to make the world a better place. Justifying
conscription to promote the cause of liberty is one of the
most bizarre notions ever conceived by man! Forced
servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a
price to live free, makes no sense. What right does anyone
have to sacrifice the lives of others for some cause of
questionable value? Even if well motivated it can't justify
using force on uninterested persons.

It's said that the 18-year-old owes it to his country.
Hogwash! It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-
old chicken-hawk, who promotes war and places the danger on
innocent young people, owes a heck of a lot more to the
country than the 18-year-old being denied his liberty for a
cause that has no justification.

All drafts are unfair. All 18- and 19-year-olds are never
drafted. By its very nature a draft must be discriminatory.
All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the
elites learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat.

The dollar cost of war and the economic hardship is great
in all wars and cannot be minimized. War is never
economically beneficial except for those in position to
profit from war expenditures. The great tragedy of war is
the careless disregard for civil liberties of our own
people. Abuses of German and Japanese Americans in World
War I and World War II are well known.

But the real sacrifice comes with conscription - forcing a
small number of young vulnerable citizens to fight the wars
that older men and women, who seek glory in military
victory without themselves being exposed to danger,
promote. These are wars with neither purpose nor moral
justification, and too often not even declared by the
Congress.

Without conscription, unpopular wars are much more
difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the
1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end. But
most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A
free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants
thinks nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in
wrongheaded wars; a true fight for survival and defense of
America would elicit, I'm sure, the assistance of every
able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case for wars of
mischief far away from home in which we so often have found
ourselves in the past century.

One of the worst votes that an elected official could ever
cast would be to institute a military draft to fight an
illegal war, if that individual himself maneuvered to avoid
military service. But avoiding the draft on principle
qualifies oneself to work hard to avoid all unnecessary war
and oppose the draft for all others.

A government that is willing to enslave a portion of its
people to fight an unjust war can never be trusted to
protect the liberties of its own citizens. The ends can
never justify the means, no matter what the Neo-cons say.

3

On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 08:00 PM, Ronald Getty wrote (in part):

P.PS. The most shameful aspect of the Iraq War is not the 400 dead GI's and the lack of coverage of their arrival and funerals. Or the delibratively shameful lack of attendance or even a token appearance by any Bush administration official at the funerals. It is the total lack of coverage of the 1300 or so wounded.

Ron,

  There were far more than 1300 people wounded during the war in Iraq and its aftermath. You have noted only the American casualties. This is of course in keeping with nationalist sentiments in the United States, which place a higher value on the lives of Americans than on the lives of other people, sometimes to the point of failing to acknowledge the lives (or deaths) of non-Americans at all.

  Not to come down on you personally, since I assume you did not personally kill or authorize the killing of any innocent Iraqis, but I'd say it is the practice of treating some human lives as worth less than others simply on the basis of nationality that is the most shameful part of the war in Iraq. People have no more say over where they are born than they do over their ethnicity, so discriminating on this basis is little better than racism.

   It is this nationalist attitude that allows American commanders to consider dropping bombs on civilian areas an acceptable way to minimize the number of U.S. military personnel killed and wounded. It is a nationalism which is the moral equivalent of racism that leads directly to the practice that results in the bulk of lives lost and property destroyed in war -- dealing death and destruction from afar rather than directly targeting enemy combatants.

  If one counts only American casualties, it's easy to see why the war was bad. If one counts only American casualties, no one was being killed and wounded in Iraq before the war.
It was only when the war started that the loss of life and limb began.

  But of course this nationalist view is a distortion of reality. In reality, the number of Iraqis murdered, gassed, drafted and killed on the battlefield in the wars against Iran and the war over Kuwait, etc., by the Baathist regime numbers in at least the hundreds of thousands -- far more than the 1700 or so Americans killed and wounded. Saddam Hussein and his thugs never to my knowledge showed any remorse for this slaughter or gave any credible sign that they intended to do things differently henceforward. Thus by getting rid of the agency responsible for those deaths, the war arguably *saved* lives, however unlibertarian it may have been in its methods and funding.

  Again, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying you deliberately devalued the Iraqi lives that have been lost. Living in the United States, one easily falls into these patterns of speech and the outlook that goes with them. Even the Ron Paul essay which started this thread, despite being written by a libertarian and presumably worldly member of Congress, indiscriminately used personal pronouns such as "we" and "our" to refer to both Americans and the U.S. government -- as if people living in a country and the government ruling that country were interchangeable.

  I believe Libertarians in general ought to think more about nationalism and its consequences, which is why I post messages like this one.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

4

Dear Starchild;

The Ron Paul article was on conscription and the effect it would have on US civilians drafted into the military. The response I wrote was not from a nationalistic,ethnic or racist viewpoint. But what it meant to be a draftee in the US vs. a voluntary military and the Bush need for more troopers in Iraq.

If you want the Iraq casualties, from a global viewpoint, then there have been by some estimates 7,000 Iraqis killed and some 20,000 wounded. At no time was I placing a higher value on US casualties over Iraq casualties. I am not nationalistic, racist and ethnic-phobe who ignores other people in other countries simple because they are not red-blooded Americans. And because of this I ignore the dead and wounded on the other side.

Since I believe the US went there on trumped up charges from the Bush administration any casualties on either side are totally unacceptable regardless of race, creed, color, religion or sexual orientation. I also believe the US Congress is also totally responsible for allowing Bush to stampede them into Bush unilaterally declaring war on Iraq without a declaration of war approved by the US Congress. I also believe Bush should be impeached for this action.

So the casualties on both sides are just as much the fault of Congress as Bush and his neo-cons who want to re-structure the Middle East and its geography for their own self serving purposes. Mere civilians who get in the way are nothing more than road-kill to them.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

P.S. I was involved in the Vietnam war and am extremely familiar of the effect of war on civilians. Civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were involved in a conflict over which they had no choice. Mainly because of the stupidity of three governments - North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the USA and their self-serving geo-politics.

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 08:00 PM, Ronald Getty wrote (in
part):

P.PS. The most shameful aspect of the Iraq War is not the 400 dead
GI's and the lack of coverage of their arrival and funerals. Or
the deliberatively shameful lack of attendance or even a token
appearance by any Bush administration official at the funerals. It is
the total lack of coverage of the 1300 or so wounded.

Ron,

      There were far more than 1300 people wounded during the war in Iraq
and its aftermath. You have noted only the American casualties. This is
of course in keeping with nationalist sentiments in the United States,
which place a higher value on the lives of Americans than on the lives
of other people, sometimes to the point of failing to acknowledge the
lives (or deaths) of non-Americans at all.

      Not to come down on you personally, since I assume you did not
personally kill or authorize the killing of any innocent Iraqis, but
I'd say it is the practice of treating some human lives as worth less
than others simply on the basis of nationality that is the most
shameful part of the war in Iraq. People have no more say over where
they are born than they do over their ethnicity, so discriminating on
this basis is little better than racism.

      It is this nationalist attitude that allows American commanders to
consider dropping bombs on civilian areas an acceptable way to minimize
the number of U.S. military personnel killed and wounded. It is a
nationalism which is the moral equivalent of racism that leads directly
to the practice that results in the bulk of lives lost and property
destroyed in war -- dealing death and destruction from afar rather than
directly targeting enemy combatants.

      If one counts only American casualties, it's easy to see why the war
was bad. If one counts only American casualties, no one was being
killed and wounded in Iraq before the war.
It was only when the war started that the loss of life and limb began.

      But of course this nationalist view is a distortion of reality. In
reality, the number of Iraqis murdered, gassed, drafted and killed on
the battlefield in the wars against Iran and the war over Kuwait, etc.,
by the Baathist regime numbers in at least the hundreds of thousands --
far more than the 1700 or so Americans killed and wounded. Saddam
Hussein and his thugs never to my knowledge showed any remorse for this
slaughter or gave any credible sign that they intended to do things
differently henceforward. Thus by getting rid of the agency responsible
for those deaths, the war arguably *saved* lives, however unlibertarian
it may have been in its methods and funding.

      Again, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying you deliberately devalued
the Iraqi lives that have been lost. Living in the United States, one
easily falls into these patterns of speech and the outlook that goes
with them. Even the Ron Paul essay which started this thread, despite
being written by a libertarian and presumably worldly member of
Congress, indiscriminately used personal pronouns such as "we" and
"our" to refer to both Americans and the U.S. government -- as if
people living in a country and the government ruling that country were
interchangeable.

      I believe Libertarians in general ought to think more about
nationalism and its consequences, which is why I post messages like
this one.

Yours in liberty,
                                    <<< Starchild >>>

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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.

5

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I may be misremembering, Starchild. I thought you supported our action in
Iraq. Am I wrong?

~Chris
- --
"Hollywood's often tried to mix/Show business with politics/From Helen
Gahagan/To... Ronald Reagan?" - Tom Lehrer, "George Murphy", 1965
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

6

Chris,

  I wasn't aware of "us" doing anything in Iraq. I did (and do) support the U.S. government's military action against Saddam Hussein's regime. My enthusiasm for it was rather lukewarm due to the methods used, the funding, and the context of other abuses in the "war on terrorism," but on balance I believe it was a step in the right direction. I also thought Bush gave a good speech recently calling for greater democracy in the Arab world and specifically mentioning the need for reform in Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

7

Dear Everyone;

Starchild in part said he thought Bush gave a good speech calling
for greater democracy in the Arab world and reform in Egypt, Syria
Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps Bush or Starchild could explain which version of democracy
they would like to see installed in Iraq or Arabia.

L. Paul Bremer, America's chief postwar Iraq administrator said in
part, " The United States will help write an interim Iraqi
constitution that embodies American values and will lead to the
creation of a new government. The interim constitution will also
provide in a limited time, probably two years, for a permanent
constitution to be written that also embodies American values."

How do you impose a foreign cultural value system on another people?
What force do you use on other people to make them adapt a foreign
cultural value system? Do you also force them to accept new moral,
ethical, civil and religious values in their daily lives so they
will be more eager to agree to a new foreign value system?

American cultural democracy is based on a Judeo-Christian value
system which evolved in western Europe over several hundred years.
In Iraq you have an Arabic cultural value system which evolved over
several hundred years based on the Muslim religion.

What imperial right does the Bush administration have to brush aside
several hundred years of Arabic-Muslim cultural values and by fiat
or force install an American style democracy value system in Iraq?

Perhaps someone could give an explanation of this.

This imposition of democracy is the direct antithesis of Libertarian
principles. How could someone support the Bush version of democracy
in Iraq where it would be forced on the Iraqis whether they liked it
or not?

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:

Chris,

  I wasn't aware of "us" doing anything in Iraq. I did (and

do) support

the U.S. government's military action against Saddam Hussein's

regime.

My enthusiasm for it was rather lukewarm due to the methods used,

the

funding, and the context of other abuses in the "war on

terrorism," but

on balance I believe it was a step in the right direction. I also
thought Bush gave a good speech recently calling for greater

democracy

in the Arab world and specifically mentioning the need for reform

in

8

Ron,

  Since I doubt President Bush will get back to you, I'll give you my response. 8) I believe everyone in the world deserves the benefits of living in a libertarian society. Within these societies, they would be free to form voluntary communities with different values, standards, and rules, as long as they did not attempt to force them on others. As Chris Maden stated in a previous email, that's a key facet of libertarianism -- it is compatible with all kinds of diverse cultures, values and beliefs as long as they are peaceful, whereas statist systems are not.

  I don't think individual liberty is an "American" value. It is a contradiction in terms to speak of "forcing" libertarianism on anyone, imho, because it is by definition the state of affairs in which people are not subject to legal coercion. (While it may not be possible to abolish coercion entirely, that ought to be the light by which we set our bearings.) The Japanese have largely embraced "American" values of government despite this "foreign value system" being "imposed by force" after WWII, and Japan is now the second-wealthiest country in the world.

  Property rights, civil liberties like free speech, religious plurality, the right to self defense, the right to self-medicate, and freedom from economic regulations and controls are not American or Judeo-Christian values any more than they are Arabian or Islamic values. These values are more prevalent in developed Western countries not *because* of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but in spite of it. The spirit of scientific enlightenment that flourished in the "Age of Reason" and the example of Athenian democracy handed down from ancient Greece have done much more to help Europe and America escape the shackles of state oppression than the Judeo-Christian influence. If the popes and rabbis had gotten their way, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages.

  The governments of Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia should each start by writing a good, secular, libertarian-style constitution, and seeing that any official who knowingly violates its terms immediately loses his or her job and is banned from government employment. Implement a jury system for all offenses, cease prosecuting any victimless crimes, and invite non-governmental civics organizations and libertarians from other countries to come in and teach people about exercising their rights in a free society. Privatize significant state-owned assets such as mosques and Islamic holy sites and give them to peaceful religious groups in order to cultivate goodwill among the moderate religious majority and make it clear that the separation of church and state isn't an attack on Islam. Meanwhile, defund the extremist madrasas (religious schools) that are currently teaching jihad, hatred of Jews, and other harmful doctrines, and create incentives for victims of violence to bring lawsuits against the fundamentalist clerics and organizations who sponsor and incite such acts. Establish new political parties, NGOs, and independent media outlets, with state support at first if necessary to get the ball rolling. After a suitable length of time has gone by and these fundamental institutions have gotten on their feet, start holding elections. Begin at the local level in small jurisdictions, so that people can be taught about the electoral process as it is established, and elections can be closely monitored for any abuses, and gradually expand to other areas and to the national level.

  We no longer see "domestic violence" as more acceptable than street violence, even within a voluntary marriage -- we urge the police to intervene in true cases of spousal and child abuse. If the officers come from a different national, ethnic or cultural background than the family, this is not particularly important. Can there be any doubt of the horrible abuses being perpetrated by various governments, including many in the Middle East, against "their" citizens? Why should an entire country be off-limits to outside action to correct serious and systematic abuses, when the validity of external intervention is recognized even in intimate family situations? What "imperial right" do members of the Saudi royal family have to maintain their legal privileges and enforce their statist and strict Islamic views of government over all the people of Saudi Arabia in violation of those peoples' inalienable natural rights?

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

9

Dear Starchild;

My point was not what you or I would do in giving Libertarian
principles to the people of Iraq or the Middle East. So they could
adapt Libertarian principles to their cultural values.

My grave concern is Bush and his neo-con buddies imposing their
viewpoint of what democracy means to them on the people of Iraq.
And if Bush and his buddies can make it happen - the rest of the
Middle East.

For Bush and his neo-cons are ignoring the reality of the situation
in Iraq while trying to install democracy. The battle is not over
democracy vs. non-democracy. It is Islam throughout the world vs.
democracy in Iraq, American style. If Islam can defeat Ameican style
democracy, culutural values and systems then America is finished
throughout the Middle East.

Bush and his good old buddies are fighting a war of high technolgy
vs. ideology. Just look at the latest donkey cart rocket attack. All
the high tech military gizmos couldn't stop a donkey cart rocket
attack.

Ideology will always win because you can not kill an ideology. And
you can not replace an ideology by fiat with democracy. When you
have an ideology which can get people to be suicide bombers try
using high tech to stop them.

The simple fact is Bush is in a Revolutionary War in Iraq with
guerillas being the first step. In succesful fights against a
guerilla war the ratio of 15 - 20 offensive troops against each
guerilla is needed. Bush would need three times the 140,000 troops
he has there to win in Iraq.

This is based on an adult male population of about 12 million. Then
taking into account those who were members of the elite Republican
Guards and others who did receive military training. You easily have
a guerilla force of some 25,000.

Libertarian principles are great to talk about and what they could
do for the people of Iraq or the Middle East. But neither you or I
have a ghost of a chance of getting up to the plate to even show
what these principles could mean in a free Iraq.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:

Ron,

  Since I doubt President Bush will get back to you, I'll give

you my

response. 8) I believe everyone in the world deserves the

benefits of

living in a libertarian society. Within these societies, they

would be

free to form voluntary communities with different values,

standards,

and rules, as long as they did not attempt to force them on

others. As

Chris Maden stated in a previous email, that's a key facet of
libertarianism -- it is compatible with all kinds of diverse

cultures,

values and beliefs as long as they are peaceful, whereas statist
systems are not.

  I don't think individual liberty is an "American" value. It

is a

contradiction in terms to speak of "forcing" libertarianism on

anyone,

imho, because it is by definition the state of affairs in which

people

are not subject to legal coercion. (While it may not be possible

to

abolish coercion entirely, that ought to be the light by which we

set

our bearings.) The Japanese have largely embraced "American"

values of

government despite this "foreign value system" being "imposed by

force"

after WWII, and Japan is now the second-wealthiest country in the

world.

  Property rights, civil liberties like free speech, religious
plurality, the right to self defense, the right to self-medicate,

and

freedom from economic regulations and controls are not American or
Judeo-Christian values any more than they are Arabian or Islamic
values. These values are more prevalent in developed Western

countries

not *because* of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but in spite of

it. The

spirit of scientific enlightenment that flourished in the "Age of
Reason" and the example of Athenian democracy handed down from

ancient

Greece have done much more to help Europe and America escape the
shackles of state oppression than the Judeo-Christian influence.

If the

popes and rabbis had gotten their way, we'd still be living in the

Dark

Ages.

  The governments of Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia should each

start by

writing a good, secular, libertarian-style constitution, and

seeing

that any official who knowingly violates its terms immediately

loses

his or her job and is banned from government employment. Implement

a

jury system for all offenses, cease prosecuting any victimless

crimes,

and invite non-governmental civics organizations and libertarians

from

other countries to come in and teach people about exercising their
rights in a free society. Privatize significant state-owned assets

such

as mosques and Islamic holy sites and give them to peaceful

religious

groups in order to cultivate goodwill among the moderate religious
majority and make it clear that the separation of church and state
isn't an attack on Islam. Meanwhile, defund the extremist madrasas
(religious schools) that are currently teaching jihad, hatred of

Jews,

and other harmful doctrines, and create incentives for victims of
violence to bring lawsuits against the fundamentalist clerics and
organizations who sponsor and incite such acts. Establish new

political

parties, NGOs, and independent media outlets, with state support

at

first if necessary to get the ball rolling. After a suitable

length of

time has gone by and these fundamental institutions have gotten on
their feet, start holding elections. Begin at the local level in

small

jurisdictions, so that people can be taught about the electoral

process

as it is established, and elections can be closely monitored for

any

abuses, and gradually expand to other areas and to the national

level.

  We no longer see "domestic violence" as more acceptable than

street

violence, even within a voluntary marriage -- we urge the police

to

intervene in true cases of spousal and child abuse. If the

officers

come from a different national, ethnic or cultural background than

the

family, this is not particularly important. Can there be any doubt

of

the horrible abuses being perpetrated by various governments,

including

many in the Middle East, against "their" citizens? Why should an

entire

country be off-limits to outside action to correct serious and
systematic abuses, when the validity of external intervention is
recognized even in intimate family situations? What "imperial

right" do

members of the Saudi royal family have to maintain their legal
privileges and enforce their statist and strict Islamic views of
government over all the people of Saudi Arabia in violation of

those

peoples' inalienable natural rights?

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

> Dear Everyone;
>
> Starchild in part said he thought Bush gave a good speech calling
> for greater democracy in the Arab world and reform in Egypt,

Syria

> Saudi Arabia.
>
> Perhaps Bush or Starchild could explain which version of

democracy

> they would like to see installed in Iraq or Arabia.
>
> L. Paul Bremer, America's chief postwar Iraq administrator said

in

> part, " The United States will help write an interim Iraqi
> constitution that embodies American values and will lead to the
> creation of a new government. The interim constitution will also
> provide in a limited time, probably two years, for a permanent
> constitution to be written that also embodies American values."
>
> How do you impose a foreign cultural value system on another

people?

> What force do you use on other people to make them adapt a

foreign

> cultural value system? Do you also force them to accept new

moral,

> ethical, civil and religious values in their daily lives so they
> will be more eager to agree to a new foreign value system?
>
> American cultural democracy is based on a Judeo-Christian value
> system which evolved in western Europe over several hundred

years.

> In Iraq you have an Arabic cultural value system which evolved

over

> several hundred years based on the Muslim religion.
>
> What imperial right does the Bush administration have to brush

aside

> several hundred years of Arabic-Muslim cultural values and by

fiat

> or force install an American style democracy value system in

Iraq?

>
> Perhaps someone could give an explanation of this.
>
> This imposition of democracy is the direct antithesis of

Libertarian

> principles. How could someone support the Bush version of

democracy

> in Iraq where it would be forced on the Iraqis whether they

liked it

> or not?
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
> wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> I wasn't aware of "us" doing anything in Iraq. I did (and
> do) support
>> the U.S. government's military action against Saddam Hussein's
> regime.
>> My enthusiasm for it was rather lukewarm due to the methods

used,

> the
>> funding, and the context of other abuses in the "war on
> terrorism," but
>> on balance I believe it was a step in the right direction. I

also

>> thought Bush gave a good speech recently calling for greater
> democracy
>> in the Arab world and specifically mentioning the need for

reform

10

Ron,

  You make good points -- I'm not at all sure that the Bush administration will successfully install a sound democratic system in Iraq, let alone other parts of the Middle East. I don't necessarily feel it is a conflict between Islam and American-style democracy. An American-installed Iraqi government shows no sign of being any more hostile to Islam than Saddam Hussein was. But if you're right and that is the nature of the conflict, can there be any question of which side we ought to be supporting?

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

11

Dear Starchild;

Taking sides isn't easy in any conflict. Look at what God went
through in WW II. The Allies had God is on our side and the Germans
had Gott Mitt Uns. As far as the Middle East is concerned everyone
needs to tread lightly and at the same time be extremely aware of
the cultural differences. Attempts to install any changes in Iraq or
the Middle East need to modified to the cultural value systems.
These attempts should be made but gently people gently.

Realpolitik is not the forte of the Bush administration. There is
simply this is what we want done and we're going to get what we want
done.

This is partially driven by the fact that Pres. Bush is classified
as a dry-drunk. Other dry-drunks have confirmed his actions are
classical signs of the condition.

When he quit all his heavy drinking ( and possible coke snorting )
inhis late 30's early 40's he left a chemical imbalance
physiologically brain wise. And as a result he see things as only
black and white. There are no shaded nuances of gray. This is a
condition very familiar to recovered alcoholics.

This condition can be helped if you take the necessary counseling
classes in how to cope with the chemical imbalance. Bush either
never took these counseling classes or ignored the classes.

Nothing like a recovered alcoholic at the helm of the state who only
sees things in black and white in a technicolor world.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:

Ron,

  You make good points -- I'm not at all sure that the Bush
administration will successfully install a sound democratic system

in

Iraq, let alone other parts of the Middle East. I don't

necessarily

feel it is a conflict between Islam and American-style democracy.

An

American-installed Iraqi government shows no sign of being any

more

hostile to Islam than Saddam Hussein was. But if you're right and

that

is the nature of the conflict, can there be any question of which

side

we ought to be supporting?

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

> Dear Starchild;
>
> My point was not what you or I would do in giving Libertarian
> principles to the people of Iraq or the Middle East. So they

could

> adapt Libertarian principles to their cultural values.
>
> My grave concern is Bush and his neo-con buddies imposing their
> viewpoint of what democracy means to them on the people of Iraq.
> And if Bush and his buddies can make it happen - the rest of the
> Middle East.
>
> For Bush and his neo-cons are ignoring the reality of the

situation

> in Iraq while trying to install democracy. The battle is not over
> democracy vs. non-democracy. It is Islam throughout the world vs.
> democracy in Iraq, American style. If Islam can defeat Ameican

style

> democracy, culutural values and systems then America is finished
> throughout the Middle East.
>
> Bush and his good old buddies are fighting a war of high

technolgy

> vs. ideology. Just look at the latest donkey cart rocket attack.

All

> the high tech military gizmos couldn't stop a donkey cart rocket
> attack.
>
> Ideology will always win because you can not kill an ideology.

And

> you can not replace an ideology by fiat with democracy. When you
> have an ideology which can get people to be suicide bombers try
> using high tech to stop them.
>
> The simple fact is Bush is in a Revolutionary War in Iraq with
> guerillas being the first step. In succesful fights against a
> guerilla war the ratio of 15 - 20 offensive troops against each
> guerilla is needed. Bush would need three times the 140,000

troops

> he has there to win in Iraq.
>
> This is based on an adult male population of about 12 million.

Then

> taking into account those who were members of the elite

Republican

> Guards and others who did receive military training. You easily

have

> a guerilla force of some 25,000.
>
> Libertarian principles are great to talk about and what they

could

> do for the people of Iraq or the Middle East. But neither you or

I

> have a ghost of a chance of getting up to the plate to even show
> what these principles could mean in a free Iraq.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
> wrote:
>> Ron,
>>
>> Since I doubt President Bush will get back to you, I'll give
> you my
>> response. 8) I believe everyone in the world deserves the
> benefits of
>> living in a libertarian society. Within these societies, they
> would be
>> free to form voluntary communities with different values,
> standards,
>> and rules, as long as they did not attempt to force them on
> others. As
>> Chris Maden stated in a previous email, that's a key facet of
>> libertarianism -- it is compatible with all kinds of diverse
> cultures,
>> values and beliefs as long as they are peaceful, whereas statist
>> systems are not.
>>
>> I don't think individual liberty is an "American" value. It
> is a
>> contradiction in terms to speak of "forcing" libertarianism on
> anyone,
>> imho, because it is by definition the state of affairs in which
> people
>> are not subject to legal coercion. (While it may not be possible
> to
>> abolish coercion entirely, that ought to be the light by which

we

> set
>> our bearings.) The Japanese have largely embraced "American"
> values of
>> government despite this "foreign value system" being "imposed by
> force"
>> after WWII, and Japan is now the second-wealthiest country in

the

> world.
>>
>> Property rights, civil liberties like free speech, religious
>> plurality, the right to self defense, the right to self-

medicate,

> and
>> freedom from economic regulations and controls are not American

or

>> Judeo-Christian values any more than they are Arabian or Islamic
>> values. These values are more prevalent in developed Western
> countries
>> not *because* of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but in spite of
> it. The
>> spirit of scientific enlightenment that flourished in the "Age

of

>> Reason" and the example of Athenian democracy handed down from
> ancient
>> Greece have done much more to help Europe and America escape the
>> shackles of state oppression than the Judeo-Christian influence.
> If the
>> popes and rabbis had gotten their way, we'd still be living in

the

> Dark
>> Ages.
>>
>> The governments of Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia should each
> start by
>> writing a good, secular, libertarian-style constitution, and
> seeing
>> that any official who knowingly violates its terms immediately
> loses
>> his or her job and is banned from government employment.

Implement

> a
>> jury system for all offenses, cease prosecuting any victimless
> crimes,
>> and invite non-governmental civics organizations and

libertarians

> from
>> other countries to come in and teach people about exercising

their

>> rights in a free society. Privatize significant state-owned

assets

> such
>> as mosques and Islamic holy sites and give them to peaceful
> religious
>> groups in order to cultivate goodwill among the moderate

religious

>> majority and make it clear that the separation of church and

state

>> isn't an attack on Islam. Meanwhile, defund the extremist

madrasas

>> (religious schools) that are currently teaching jihad, hatred of
> Jews,
>> and other harmful doctrines, and create incentives for victims

of

>> violence to bring lawsuits against the fundamentalist clerics

and

>> organizations who sponsor and incite such acts. Establish new
> political
>> parties, NGOs, and independent media outlets, with state support
> at
>> first if necessary to get the ball rolling. After a suitable
> length of
>> time has gone by and these fundamental institutions have gotten

on

>> their feet, start holding elections. Begin at the local level in
> small
>> jurisdictions, so that people can be taught about the electoral
> process
>> as it is established, and elections can be closely monitored for
> any
>> abuses, and gradually expand to other areas and to the national
> level.
>>
>> We no longer see "domestic violence" as more acceptable than
> street
>> violence, even within a voluntary marriage -- we urge the police
> to
>> intervene in true cases of spousal and child abuse. If the
> officers
>> come from a different national, ethnic or cultural background

than

> the
>> family, this is not particularly important. Can there be any

doubt

> of
>> the horrible abuses being perpetrated by various governments,
> including
>> many in the Middle East, against "their" citizens? Why should an
> entire
>> country be off-limits to outside action to correct serious and
>> systematic abuses, when the validity of external intervention is
>> recognized even in intimate family situations? What "imperial
> right" do
>> members of the Saudi royal family have to maintain their legal
>> privileges and enforce their statist and strict Islamic views of
>> government over all the people of Saudi Arabia in violation of
> those
>> peoples' inalienable natural rights?
>>
>> Yours in liberty,
>> <<< Starchild >>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dear Everyone;
>>>
>>> Starchild in part said he thought Bush gave a good speech

calling

>>> for greater democracy in the Arab world and reform in Egypt,
> Syria
>>> Saudi Arabia.
>>>
>>> Perhaps Bush or Starchild could explain which version of
> democracy
>>> they would like to see installed in Iraq or Arabia.
>>>
>>> L. Paul Bremer, America's chief postwar Iraq administrator said
> in
>>> part, " The United States will help write an interim Iraqi
>>> constitution that embodies American values and will lead to the
>>> creation of a new government. The interim constitution will

also

>>> provide in a limited time, probably two years, for a permanent
>>> constitution to be written that also embodies American values."
>>>
>>> How do you impose a foreign cultural value system on another
> people?
>>> What force do you use on other people to make them adapt a
> foreign
>>> cultural value system? Do you also force them to accept new
> moral,
>>> ethical, civil and religious values in their daily lives so

they

>>> will be more eager to agree to a new foreign value system?
>>>
>>> American cultural democracy is based on a Judeo-Christian value
>>> system which evolved in western Europe over several hundred
> years.
>>> In Iraq you have an Arabic cultural value system which evolved
> over
>>> several hundred years based on the Muslim religion.
>>>
>>> What imperial right does the Bush administration have to brush
> aside
>>> several hundred years of Arabic-Muslim cultural values and by
> fiat
>>> or force install an American style democracy value system in
> Iraq?
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone could give an explanation of this.
>>>
>>> This imposition of democracy is the direct antithesis of
> Libertarian
>>> principles. How could someone support the Bush version of
> democracy
>>> in Iraq where it would be forced on the Iraqis whether they
> liked it
>>> or not?
>>>
>>> Ron Getty
>>> SF Libertarian
>>>
>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Chris,
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't aware of "us" doing anything in Iraq. I did (and
>>> do) support
>>>> the U.S. government's military action against Saddam Hussein's
>>> regime.
>>>> My enthusiasm for it was rather lukewarm due to the methods
> used,
>>> the
>>>> funding, and the context of other abuses in the "war on
>>> terrorism," but
>>>> on balance I believe it was a step in the right direction. I
> also
>>>> thought Bush gave a good speech recently calling for greater
>>> democracy
>>>> in the Arab world and specifically mentioning the need for
> reform
>>> in
>>>> Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
>>>>
>>>> Yours in liberty,
>>>> <<< Starchild >>>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or

Lexmark

> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US

&

12

Ron,

  I'm not suggesting there are no shades of gray regarding a choice between Islam or American-style democracy. And I realize it's sometimes easier to not take sides. But as Eli Wiesel said, neutrality helps the oppressor, never the oppressed. (Just substitute "non-intervention" for "neutrality.")

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

13

Dear Starchild;

Eh? I did say changes do need to occur but they should not be by Bush and his neo-cons trying to install their vierpoints of what has to be done. Especially since it appears not very many Iraqi Abdul or Aliyah Does have been asked what they would like to see done. It is their country and they are the ones who have to live in it and they should have a voice of some kind in what happens next.

As the old saying goes, now that you've made your bed - go lie in it. In this case King Bush The II will not have to lie in it the people of Iraq will.

On neutrality - Denmark did it in WW II so they wouldn't be totally crushed by the Wermacht. They also ended up with an underground resistance movement and got the majority of their Jews out of Denmark before it was too late. Sometimes neutrality buys you the time you need to figure out how you're going to try survive. Because when you survive you live to fight another day - at your choice of place and time.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

P.S. Has anyone else noticed the seemingly long delay between a posting to the lpsf group site and having it show up on your e-mail server? I have noticed delays going from 3 - 5 hours after posting. And I have a yahoo e-mail address so the lpsf yahoo to my yahoo e-mail yahoo shouldn't be taking like billions and billions of hours.

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron,

      I'm not suggesting there are no shades of gray regarding a choice
between Islam or American-style democracy. And I realize it's sometimes
easier to not take sides. But as Eli Wiesel said, neutrality helps the
oppressor, never the oppressed. (Just substitute "non-intervention" for
"neutrality.")

Yours in liberty,
                                    <<< Starchild >>>

14

Dear Starchild;

Eh? I did say changes do need to occur but they should not be by Bush and his neo-cons trying to install their vierpoints of what has to be done. Especially since it appears not very many Iraqi Abdul or Aliyah Does have been asked what they would like to see done. It is their country and they are the ones who have to live in it and they should have a voice of some kind in what happens next.

As the old saying goes, now that you've made your bed - go lie in it. In this case King Bush The II will not have to lie in it the people of Iraq will.

On neutrality - Denmark did it in WW II so they wouldn't be totally crushed by the Wermacht. They also ended up with an underground resistance movement and got the majority of their Jews out of Denmark before it was too late. Sometimes neutrality buys you the time you need to figure out how you're going to try survive. Because when you survive you live to fight another day - at your choice of place and time.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

P.S. Has anyone else noticed the seemingly long delay between a posting to the lpsf group site and having it show up on your e-mail server? I have noticed delays going from 3 - 5 hours after posting. And I have a yahoo e-mail address so the lpsf yahoo to my yahoo e-mail yahoo shouldn't be taking like billions and billions of hours.

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron,

      I'm not suggesting there are no shades of gray regarding a choice
between Islam or American-style democracy. And I realize it's sometimes
easier to not take sides. But as Eli Wiesel said, neutrality helps the
oppressor, never the oppressed. (Just substitute "non-intervention" for
"neutrality.")

Yours in liberty,
                                    <<< Starchild >>>

15

Ron,

  Here's what I'm getting at, and sorry if I wasn't clear. Part of taking a non-nationalist view, imho, is looking at the situation in Iraq *before* as well as *after* the United States became involved. Before the United States became involved is when most of the Iraqis killed there during the past few decades have died -- at the hands of Saddam Hussein, not George Bush.

  In the American nationalist view, Iraq only really came onto the map and started to matter in 1990-1991 when U.S. troops were sent to repel the invasion of Kuwait. Anything that happened before that is "somebody else's history" or "somebody else's business" and of no particular concern to anyone who happens to live in the United States. "We," the party line goes, should only worry about "our" government. Let "them" worry about "theirs."

  This view understandably sees the war in Iraq as bad, because the vastly greater amount of killing that took place in the years prior to 1990 (and which arguably has been curtailed by U.S. government involvement via the removal of Saddam from power), isn't "our" concern. Only what has happened since the U.S. became involved counts. So unless one views the recent war in Iraq as "unfinished business" from the Gulf War, Bush is clearly (to American nationalists) responsible for provoking bloodshed in the current situation.

  I should mention here that I'm talking about some of the more intelligent nationalists. The most ignorant faction of American nationalism actually *supported* the war. In their murky view of the world, "those Arabs" (Saddam, Osama, the Taliban et. al.) bombed the World Trade Center, and everything that's followed (civilian casualties or military, Afghanistan or Iraq, doesn't matter) is simply legitimate payback. Not that most of these folks worry much about legitimacy -- "America kicks ass, dude!" "We've got to show 'em who's boss" and "America is Number One!" are typically about all the rationalization or justification needed. There's enough of this ugly nationalism around that I suspect a lot of other folks simply don't realize that their own opposing views are also colored by nationalism.

  While I still believe that Saddam probably had "weapons of mass destruction" and that evidence of this will turn up sooner or later, I do agree that the description of Iraq being an imminent threat to the U.S. seems to have been trumped up, as well as the connections between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda.

  One can compare Bush's actions in this respect to FDR's scheming to get into World War II -- another war that I'd argue the U.S. military was *right* to have fought. Although at least Bush (as far as we presently know!) didn't deliberately allow Americans to be bombed in order to engineer U.S. involvement in a war.

  Regarding the draft, I believe you are thinking in nationalist terms again, by focusing only on the draft *in the United States*. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had, IIRC, something like the fifth largest military force in the world, and I believe that most of those Iraqi soldiers were conscripts. Proponents of a draft in the U.S., on the other hand, are still a long way from success. If as your subject line indicates "It's about the draftees," then by this measure too, deposing Saddam was a big step in the right direction.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

Dear Starchild;

The Ron Paul article was on conscription and the effect it would have on US civilians drafted into the military. The response I wrote was not from a nationalistic,ethnic or racist viewpoint. But what it meant to be a draftee in the US vs. a voluntary military and the Bush need for more troopers in Iraq.

If you want the Iraq casualties, from a global viewpoint, then there have been by some estimates 7,000 Iraqis killed and some 20,000 wounded. At no time was I placing a higher value on US casualties over Iraq casualties. I am not nationalistic, racist and ethnic-phobe who ignores other people in other countries simple because they are not red-blooded Americans. And because of this I ignore the dead and wounded on the other side.

Since I believe the US went there on trumped up charges from the Bush administration any casualties on either side are totally unacceptable regardless of race, creed, color, religion or sexual orientation. I also believe the US Congress is also totally responsible for allowing Bush to stampede them into Bush unilaterally declaring war on Iraq without a declaration of war approved by the US Congress. I also believe Bush should be impeached for this action.

So the casualties on both sides are just as much the fault of Congress as Bush and his neo-cons who want to re-structure the Middle East and its geography for their own self serving purposes. Mere civilians who get in the way are nothing more than road-kill to them.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

P.S. I was involved in the Vietnam war and am extremely familiar of the effect of war on civilians. Civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were involved in a conflict over which they had no choice. Mainly because of the stupidity of three governments - North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the USA and their self-serving geo-politics.

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 08:00 PM, Ronald Getty wrote (in
part):

> P.PS. The most shameful aspect of the Iraq War is not the 400 dead
> GI's and the lack of coverage of their arrival and funerals. Or
> the deliberatively shameful lack of attendance or even a token
> appearance by any Bush administration official at the funerals. It is
> the total lack of coverage of the 1300 or so wounded.

Ron,

  There were far more than 1300 people wounded during the war in Iraq

and its aftermath. You have noted only the American casualties. This is
of course in keeping with nationalist sentiments in the United States,
which place a higher value on the lives of Americans than on the lives
of other people, sometimes to the point of failing to acknowledge the
lives (or deaths) of non-Americans at all.

  Not to come down on you personally, since I assume you did not

personally kill or authorize the killing of any innocent Iraqis, but
I'd say it is the practice of treating some human lives as worth less
than others simply on the basis of nationality that is the most
shameful part of the war in Iraq. People have no more say over where
they are born than they do over their ethnicity, so discriminating on
this basis is little better than racism.

  It is this nationalist attitude that allows American commanders to

consider dropping bombs on civilian areas an acceptable way to minimize
the number of U.S. military personnel killed and wounded. It is a
nationalism which is the moral equivalent of racism that leads directly
to the practice that results in the bulk of lives lost and property
destroyed in war -- dealing death and destruction from afar rather than
directly targeting enemy combatants.

  If one counts only American casualties, it&#39;s easy to see why the war

was bad. If one counts only American casualties, no one was being
killed and wounded in Iraq before the war.
It was only when the war started that the loss of life and limb began.

  But of course this nationalist view is a distortion of reality\. In

reality, the number of Iraqis murdered, gassed, drafted and killed on
the battlefield in the wars against Iran and the war over Kuwait, etc.,
by the Baathist regime numbers in at least the hundreds of thousands --
far more than the 1700 or so Americans killed and wounded. Saddam
Hussein and his thugs never to my knowledge showed any remorse for this
slaughter or gave any credible sign that they intended to do things
differently henceforward. Thus by getting rid of the agency responsible
for those deaths, the war arguably *saved* lives, however unlibertarian
it may have been in its methods and funding.

  Again, don&#39;t get me wrong \-\- I&#39;m not saying you deliberately devalued

the Iraqi lives that have been lost. Living in the United States, one
easily falls into these patterns of speech and the outlook that goes
with them. Even the Ron Paul essay which started this thread, despite
being written by a libertarian and presumably worldly member of
Congress, indiscriminately used personal pronouns such as "we" and
"our" to refer to both Americans and the U.S. government -- as if
people living in a country and the government ruling that country were
interchangeable.

  I believe Libertarians in general ought to think more about

nationalism and its consequences, which is why I post messages like
this one.

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

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>

Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

<image.tiff>