Ron Getty wrote:
BH: It provides the assurance that nuclear weapons are not being developed
by a regime that [...]
RG: Perhaps I did not explain my question properly. What are the specific
benefits today for America and Americans today with a "Victory in Iraq"?
We have today the assurance I mentioned. Again, if you're wondering why
having that assurance doesn't mean we can't leave today, see
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=211.
RG: I do not need a list of what Saddam did yesterday.
What he did in the past tells you how we got to where we are now.
RG: For the record the list you gave could also just as equally apply to the
USA.or Israel.
Are you saying that when doing what's right overlaps with Israel's
interests, we shouldn't do what's right?
BH: Are you endorsing any of the rebuttable antiwar arguments cataloged at
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=201, or do you have a new one?
RG: I also still stand by my assertion there was no valid reason Libertarian
or not both sides of the issue or not for the US to invade Iraq.
Well, if you're not going to share your arguments for your assertion, then
we'll have to agree to disagree. As you might surmise from the link above,
I've debated a lot of Libertarians about Iraq in the last couple years, and
I haven't seen an argument yet that I don't have an answer for. My task is
made much easier by an asymmetric burden of proof: my opponents claim no
reasonable libertarian could have supported the liberation of Iraq, while I
say merely that it was a judgment call and that America made a
liberty-increasing call.
RG: I was not un-informed about the casualties in Iraq as I am aware of the
differences between battlefield and non-battlefield casualties
It's odd for you to have talked about "2,200 KIAs" if you in fact knew there
haven't been 2,200 KIAs.
RG: if the media is Liberal slanted why did the Liberal NY times sit on the
un-warranted wiretapping story for a year?
The media has a well-documented left-leaning bias, and an even
better-documented bad-news and anti-incumbent bias. That doesn't mean the
media will never be sympathetic to (even misplaced) government concerns
about national security.
RG: does this mean Bush is going to attack the US for funding a terrorist
organization?
When was the last time (if ever) Fatah targeted Americans? My understanding
is that Fatah renounced terrorism and recognized Israel's right to exist as
part of the 1993 Oslo accords: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords.
Brian Holtz
Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley)
http://marketliberal.org/>
blog: http://knowinghumans.net/>