I think we can all agree that destruction is easier than construction.

What I propose is merely removing the parts of government that are unconstitutional. And you're correct that it won't be easy without support. People will fight to keep their unconstitutional social programs, handouts, etc. until they realize when we get rid of these things, they won't have to pay a penny of income taxes. They'll be able to keep what they earn, have excellent healthcare at an affordable price, send thier children to superior schools that teach what they want their children to learn, prepare a better retirement, give more money to those in need, the freedom to support programs they want and not those they don't, etc.

I don't want to add something, I just want to get rid of what's not supposed to be there.

There are a lot of things that can be done by a Libertarian president that don't require the approval of Congress that would immediately improve America by defending our rights, and eliminating fat.

An interesting idea, and I'll read the essay in a moment, but the thought made me think of Japan. Japan is technically a neutral country per their constitution -- they are only permitted to use their military to defend themselves. Yet, North Korea has been making some incredibly agressive statements and military exercises toward that neutral island nation.

...and I couldn't bear to think what would happen if Japan were attacked and we threw our arms up with the reply, "Your problem, you deal with it. Yes, we know they are launching nukes at you, but its your war."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but not too long ago we liked Iraq... then we tricked them into invading another country so we could go to war with them.

So in short, if you're thinking of starting a country, have nothing to do with America at all. Don't have any oil either.

Quzah.

Once again, this is an example of America's interventionism crippling another country. At the end of WWII, America ensured that Japan would not build a military to defend themselves. Now we're stuck with the job. I say we tell Japan to start building their own army, navy, airforce, etc. and we'll start pulling out. Being intimately familiar with Japanese culture and it's people, I'm sure they'd have a military in no time that could easily defend themselves including nukes. In fact Japan would probably build cheaper, more reliable, and smaller nukes that packed more of a bang.

America's military should not be stationed anywhere on earth but America during times of peace. This would ensure that we'd have a lot more times of peace.

Accurately stated. The post should have said Muslim or regional nation; not Arab nation.

Other nations with no legal claim against Saddam were Turkey and Israel. Saddam coveted his neighbors including Iran and Kuwait. Had he been successful, then it would probably only been time before he devoured Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to form a pan-Arab nation. This was his grandious objective which made him a threat to his neighbors. He started first by attacking what he thought would be an easy takeover -Iran. Easy because even we would provide him with satellite intelligence and chemicals for chemical warfare to help him succeed. Starting with Iran and afterwards, everything started going downhill. However Saddam seems to be the last to realize where he was going in his objectives.

Two nations that Saddam would never attack were Turkey and Israel. Turkey is NATO. And NATO is the US. Israel is obviously protected by the US. Saddam would do everything possible to avoid conflict with the US. Even Saddam knew where to attack and what to leave alone. He chose to attack nations that the US said would be permitted. He failed in Iran. He misinterpreted what he was told about Kuwait. But every Muslim and regional nation always kept one eye on Saddam. They did not trust him - but tolerated him because he was no direct threat - unless they lost US support. Saddam always tried to avoid conflict with the US. But his ego got in the way of logical analysis - and he therefore made a big mistake in Kuwait. Only then did we get concerned that we had all but encouraged him to build chemical and biological weapons. Before he invaded Kuwait, Saddam was considered a US friend - so much so that we even shared intelligence satellite information with him.

The threat by N Korea is based in something far deeper. Those N Korean generals were raised as children to believe virtually the entire world was a threat to N Korea. N Korea is not threatening Japan. They are simply the bully who rattles chains and billy clubs because, psychologically inside, they fear everyone else. They also discovered the weapons generate by such tactics became their greatest source of exports and income. Just another reasons to entertain that paranoia. N Korea is a threat only because so much of the N Korean leadership is paranoid. So paranoid as to fear international aid from NGOs even as their people eat grass to survice and starve to death.

That was why Carter's negotiations to break N Korea was so important. His diplomacy was the first step to breaking that paranoia. George Jr simply reinforced the paranoia by empowering the N Korea paranoids at the expense of those who sought reform - and the elimination of that paranoia. Fear is the driving factor in N Korean international relations.

tw wrote:
You mean the negotiations where Carter and Clinton gave NK around a billion of OUR dollars for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons which NK proceeded to spend the billion on?

Yeah, a definite high water mark in kiss-ass diplomacy.

You're ignoring the fact that Iraq was under no obligation to tell the UN or anyone else how many weapons or what kind of weapons they have. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't require permission from anyone to have any weapons they want including nukes. Were I the leader of Iraq, I'd tell America, and the UN to kiss my hairy ass and don't presume to tell me what to do in MY country.

So there is absolutely no room for treaties or alliances in your imaginary nation?

True, although I guess you could say the same for the US. The fact that the US didn't find the 500 tons of vx/sarin/mustard gas is very telling, too. The US generals said it was there, but they couldn't find it even after months had passed of our occupation. The people of the US said "show us" (or, I wish they would) and, well, they couldn't.

I guess what it comes down to is, like so many people have said, whether this was really a threat or not and what your reaction to the threat is.

UT made the comparison to having a gun pointed at us, others have said that there was no real threat, while another group says we shouldn't even be involved in actions like this.

What I would like to know is this: should the US continue on this path with other countries? I see that, as of last week, Bush is pushing for sanctions on Syria and others are looking at Iran with a curious eye. I get the feeling, personally, that this is starting to get a little dangerous as we get our hands involved in more and spread ourselves thinner and thinner. Yet, it seems, that we're stuck in the Middle East for today and many years/decades to come and there really isn't an easy way out even if we wanted to drop this whole mess.

Personally, I think it has the possibility of ending in disaster with a high loss of American lives, security, and global stability.

Radar, so we should just let them bomb us with nukes? cool! nice work! :3eye:
no country should be allowed nukes, but y'know america would hardly be happy if they were told to get rid of there ones. hmm there is a word I'm looking for, hipa.., hipia.., hmm will come to me :rolleyes:

From the Press Trust of India:

I don't have an imaginary nation. I'm talking about the United States of America and what was a reality in this country. And I, like the the founders of the United States of America, am just fine with making treaties. We can make non-aggression treaties, trade agreement treaties, etc. Just no treaty that involves using the US military to defend any nation other than the United States.

And that article proves what? That one of the terrorists happened to visit Iraq? Guess what? the other 19 were living, training, and working in America. Does that mean America planned the attacks on September 11th?

So again, no amount of stretching will provide a link. The only link between Saddam and Al Queda is a mutual and vocal hatred of each other for decades.

Who said anything about letting people bomb us with nukes? Every country can have any weapon they want and doesn't require our permission or that of the UN. That doesn't mean we let them bomb us. Lately it seems the only way America won't attack you is if you have nukes. Nukes are just a way to make sure people don't do something stupid. It's like the old saying, "If everyone has a gun, everyone is polite".

We can peacefully ask them not to make nukes, or see if we can bribe them, but in the end no country or group of countries has the authority to tell another how they will defend themselves. Just as no person or group of people has the authority to tell you that you can't own a gun.

The supporters of the war in Iraq (Anti-Americans) sing a different tune when asked the following...

If the UN told America to disarm and said they would send in inspectors from Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Lybia, Lebanon, and China into America to go through military bases, the Pentagon, the Whitehouse, hospitals, businesses, and even American homes at 3am without warning, with armed troops supporting them to make sure we got rid of all WMD's, what would you say? What if the people in China didn't like the way Americans were being treated and they pointed to the people unjustly being locked in jail for drug sales or use as the reason? What if China told George W. Bush to step down or they'd attack America? Do you think we should comply? If not, why is it ok to expect the leader of Iraq (equally sovereign as America) to step down or to threaten them? Why is it ok to tell them to disarm and to send inspectors in?

What makes you think American government has the authority to tell other sovereign nations what weapons they may or may not have when they don't even have the legal authority to do that to people inside of America.

We had no valid reason to attack Iraq in 1991, and we still don't. And for the record, the UN has no authority over any sovereign nations. Becoming a member of the UN does not mean you've given up your national sovereignty.

Allow me to quote Harry Browne...

SADDAM WAS FORCED TO SIGN UNDER DURESS!!!

Iraq was attacked without justification in 1991 by America and told at gunpoint to sign a contract. That is not a valid contract. If I hold a gun to your head and make you sign your pink slip over to me, I don't legally own your car.

No contract signed under duress is legally binding.

The duress of a "nation" under a cease-fire agreement doesn't count, mudhead.

They were the victims of an unwarranted attack by America (which was also unconstitutional) and told to sign an agreement or else. That does count. If they had started a war with America and we had won the war, it wouldn't count, but they didn't. America illegally attacked Iraq in 1991 and had no legal standing to force them to sign a contract.

No contract signed by Iraq after the unjustified attack by America in 1991 is legitimate or legally binding. Get this through your empty head.

• THE UNITED NATIONS IS NOT THE BOSS OF IRAQ OR ANYONE ELSE!!!
  
• THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT THE BOSS OF IRAQ OR ANYONE ELSE!!!
  
• NEITHER OF THEM HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO ATTACK IRAQ IN 1991 OR IN 2003!!!
  
• IRAQ WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO HONOR A CONTRACT THEY SIGNED UNDER DURESS AFTER THEY WERE THE VICTIMS OF AN ATTACK!!!

No, but that's between them. It's not up to America to defend Kuwait or any other nation on earth but America. And the UN holds no authority over any nation on earth. If two countries have a dispute, it's up to those countries to settle their disputes and nobody else.

No, it just means I'm logically trying to get you to read something since it seems you've not been paying much attention to what's happening around you. Perhaps if the words were larger you might pay attention to them and grasp them.

It's logical to assume if the letters are larger than normal, they'll get your attention and you might read them.

It's logical to assume that it makes you look like a moron.

Why are you trying to see something that isn't there? Why are you trying to stretch so hard to make a link where there is none. Al Queda wasn't financed even partially by Iraq. The fact that a member of Al Queda happened to visit Iraq doesn't in any way mean the attack in America was funded by Iraq.

Because it's false. Iraq and Al Queda expressed a vocal hatred of each other for decades. They were not allies no matter how many straws you grasp at, it won't change the fact that Iraq has no connection with Al Queda other than a mutual hatred..

Wrong, there are no financial links or links of any other kind. There is more to suggest that America had a connection with the Al Queda terrorists than Iraq. Not one shred of evidence has been given to link Iraq to September 11th. Not one. Not one WMD has been found. NOT ONE. And even if they were found, it wouldn't make a difference because America and the UN have no authority to tell them they can't have them.

No more so than George W. Bush who KNOWINGLY lied to the American people about Iraq posing a threat to get support for his unconstitutional and unprovoked attack of terrorist aggression against IRaq.

Which is completely irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if Saddam boiled an Iraqi baby in oil and ate them for dinner every night. It still wouldn't grant the US or the UN the authority to intervene. And Saddam is no more or less a murderer than George W. Bush. Every single person who died as a result of the war that George W. Bush alone started in Iraq is on his head. Every single American, British, Italian, and other "coalition" troop, and every single Iraqi person who was defending their country or who has attacked troops since they invaded is a murder by George W. Bush.

He DID fund terrorists, but none that attacked America and not one speck of evidence suggest otherwise. Not even a lame report about a secret note Saddam wrote. And you don't attack first and look for evidence to justify your attack afterwards. That's like a cop arresting you and then searching your apartment for a reason to justify the arrest.

The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of George W. Bush and he has failed to provide any evidence that Iraq ever posed a threat to America. And even if he finds something like the piece of crap you're using to grasp at straws, he must show that he had this information BEFORE he attacked.

I'll have to defer to your many years of experience in looking like a moron. Surely by now you must be an expert.

It's obvious by this sentence alone you didn't read the posted article. That's not what it said. Should I make it in big print for you?

Q: What's the difference between a terrorist and a USA lead assination of a of a democraticly ellected official (Chile, 9/11 '73) ?
A: Terrorists are bad. Americans are good.

You're right. It is a poor joke.

So in summary, it's ok for the US to knock out (or establish) leaders in other countries whenever the fuck they feel like it, for whatever reason they feel like.

Quzah.

I sit here and read this thread and am quite amazed at how it has run ... from jubilation at Saddams capture to a diatribe by virtually one person on everything that America has done, that's wrong for the last 240-odd years ...

Here's my .02c worth ...

Radar and his compatriots are idealists, trying to instigate the Utopian dream.
Harry Browns libertarian dissertation on wars is childishly simplistic .. and does not even begin to entertain the complex factors that drew nations into major wars during the 20th century.

The major mistakes of the past 200 or 2000 years cannot be undone, and play a large part in nations and individuals perceived or real grievances or injustices, and their actions that follow on from those beliefs in those grievances or injustices.

The capture of Saddam will have little effect on the war in Iraq.
In fact it will probably increase the amount of guerilla urban warfare.
There are dozens of loosely structured groups in Iraq, consisting of tribal groups, religious groups, or just plain power grabbers, who want to wrest control of the country from anyone they perceive to be in charge .. and they regard all others as enemy to be blown away at every opportunity.
The capture of Saddam will release their previously curtailed energies, into new warfare attempts to gain power.

The Americans have a poor understanding of tribal structure, beliefs, loyalties, and attitudes of the Middle Eastern nations .. as so many have ''invaders'' have before them ..

So-o-o .... ''invasion'', is what the Middle Easterners see, every time a foreign nation appears within their borders .. and the previously warring groups, will unite to repel a common perceived ''enemy'' ..

As soon as that ''enemy'' shows a lack of enthusiam ... or retreats .. they will go back to fighting and killing each other .. as they have done for 2000 years ...........

The best thing that Americans can do in Iraq is pull out as swiftly as possible, before they become bogged down in a war that will rapidly degenerate into a costly refereeing match between multiple warring parties.

The American leaders dream is to be the saviour of the oppressed in all parts of the world .. but the Americans record in foreign countries since WW2 is seen as just one of taking sides, and either instigating more injustices, or adding to those that already exist ... and adding to Americas wealth in the process. Little wonder the Americans are hated so much.

All wars are based on leaders political aspirations .. and none more so than this war in Iraq. The current American leaders are the most devious manipulators of the truth and imagery I have ever seen, and it is frightening to consider what their potential is.
They are master manipulators of the media, with new exposes every day, of stories they have embellished, outright lies they have fabricated, and their greed for power so alarmingly obvious.

I personally think the only reason GWB went to war with Saddam, is that he saw a power grabber more ruthless than himself, and was scared he would be outdone .....

Incidentally .. I an not an Arab, not black, not a member of an oppressed minority .. not a member of a political party .. merely an observant Aussie .. and probably more pertinently ...... a Vietnam Vet ......

Or if you have a good job that provides it. Oooo don't get me started! Healthcare workers tend to treat you "differently" when they find out that you are on the state's insurance instead of commercial. Trust me, I know all too well...

And the thing that REALLY gets me is that if you are already ill (read: preexisiting conditions), you'll have to wait up to a year for your benefits to kick in, but they will want you to still pay the monthly preminums. Oh hell no: why would I want to pay for a service that I can't use immediately? :rar:

True, but you practically have to have one foot in the poverty gutter to get EVERYTHING covered. As it stands, I don't have prescriptions covered because I fall into a certain category. In other words, the state assumes that I make too much money (between unemployment and SSDI). They must be out of their goddamned minds if they think that those incomes could afford HALF of the total of medications that I have to take everyday! They better be lucky that there is such a thing as State Renal Insurance, or I'd pretty much be dead by now, no joke! :(

I guess I shouldn't complain too much because I also have Medicare (which renal patients are pretty much automatically qualified for, but again, no script coverage). But still, it's been a hassle at times dealing with the state, so I guess all that is coming back to me as I write this. Sorry...:mad:

My dad thought this too (that this was all a political ploy). He also doesn't think they have the real Hussain (DNA tests be damned!).

Just keep your eyes open for the merchandise coming to a Walmart near you:

*on a t-shirt*
"Ladies and Gentlemen...WE GOT 'IM!"

America LOVES a catchphrase....
:rolleyes:

Dear god...sounds like he's channeling my dad...lol!! He also mentioned the many doubles, and it did make me think a bit. Now Steve has me thinking some more...heh!

Just pondering the possibilities...:D

A little gem from Ralph Peters:

As we wait for the details behind Saddam's capture, want to know why we got Uday and Qusay? The reward was tempting. But the deciding factor for their unhappy host was more visceral: Saddam's boys smacked around his wife. At that point, our money and the promise of relocation abroad became irresistible. Uday and Qusay signed their own death warrants with a temper tantrum.

I like this paragraph best.

I'm sure they took samples from his kids. That in itself should be enough to make sure it's not one of the doubles.

Does anyone else find it odd that the best Saddam could pull off as far as a hiding place goes is a hole in the ground?

You'd think that someone with his level of connections and financial assests would have been better prepared. Just seemed odd to me from the start.

If he was truly a sociopath, he could easily have had no conception that he could be defeated.

Assuming he's really their father ...

(you know, this can go on and on and on and on with no satisfactory resolution)

but wouldn't it be funny if we did DNA tests and found out that Uday and Qusay had had different fathers?


--

Nice post, onetrack.

I had been wondering if the US Occupation might be able to unite the Iraqi people. If we keep at it like this for long enough, we might be one of the better things that have happened to them in the past four hundred years.

Next week on Maury...

"Have you cheated on your ruthless-leader-of-a-3rd-world-country-husband?"
"Do you suspect you've been sleeping with the double of your ruthless-leader-of-a-3rd-world-country-husband?"

Quzah.

"We caught the wrong guy"

Great article, IMO. I suspect many people feel the same way.

What if Hussein went out one evening and, uh, didn't want his wife to know about it?

"Despite such assertions, the administration has never proved a prewar link between Saddam and the terrorist network. Instead, officials usually stick to assertions about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior bin Laden associate whom U.S. officials have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq an area outside Saddam's control before the war and organizing an attack that killed an American aid executive in Jordan last year.

Indeed, Mr. Bush cited al-Zarqawi to back up his claim of al Qaeda ties to Saddam.

"Al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad," he said. "

Which I haven't seen Bush say anything about yet, unless I missed something.

Absolutely false. The Libertarian approach to national defense isn't a "utopian dream". In fact Libertarians seem to be the only people who don't dream of a utopia. We don't promise something for nothing or tell people the government can do everything for everybody. We know the inescapable reality that many don't like to face, that all freedom comes with responsibility.

Not only would a Libertarian approach work, it has worked for hundreds of years. Only when we start military interventionism and take sides on every issue do we make enemies all over the world.

Harry Browne's essay is a thoughtful, intelligent, cogent argument that describes perfectly the folly of getting involved in a complicated web of messy treaties that promise military action. The founding father's and Harry Browne had it right, and those who attempt to use a thinly veiled imperialistic/war mongering attitude by claiming we got into the war for "complex" reasons, are fooling nobody but themselves.

World War I happened after the murder of one man. It never would have happened without military interventionism and America never should have participated in it and had no valid reason to be in it. America violated its neutrality agreement and shipped arms to England. There never even would have been a WWII if America hadn't stuck our noses into WWI.

The U.S. Military has one and only one purpose, and that is to defend American soil and ships from attack. It's not for settling disputes among other nations, providing "stability" in other nations, overthrowing the leadership of other nations that haven't directly attacked america, training the military of other nations, sending humanitarian aid to other nations, be a show of force in other nations, be the muscle of the UN, etc. If the military is used for any of these reasons or any other reason outside defending from a direct attack against America (not American "interests" abroad), it is being used unconstitutionally and is endangering America rather than defending it.

I defy someone to name a war that the US was involved in within the last 100 years that was a valid, constitutional, defense of America other than World War II, which was questionable considering the fact that we provoked Japan. Let me give you a hint...It certainly wasn't Vietnam, Bosnia, Grenada, Iraq (either time), Korea, Panama, anywhere in Africa, etc.

Exactly right Radar. To me the really interesting thing is that the interventionists expect the citizens of of these various backwater countries to welcome our troops and assume they are there for altruistic reasons. Given our track record in Iraq, its amazing any Iraqis who aren't bought and paid for welcomed the invasion.

Radar said: "No, but that's between them. It's not up to America to defend Kuwait or any other nation on earth but America. And the UN holds no authority over any nation on earth. If two countries have a dispute, it's up to those countries to settle their disputes and nobody else. "

So, logically, it follows that Europe should still be ruled by Nazi Germany, since the United States itself had not been attacked by Hitler when we intervened? The war in Europe was a pre-emptive strike?

Boy, a lot of our grandpas are gonna be pissed when they hear this.

Hitler never would have come to power in the first place if it hadn't been for America's military interventionism in WWI. All of the millions of Jews, Russians, etc. would have lived were it not for America's involvement. England probably would have been speaking German after that war. But definately would have after the second World War. In either case, it doesn't matter. America isn't here to defend England or any country but our own.

"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul."

-John Quincy Adams

My problem with this line of thought is that it assumes that America, as well as many other countries, did not establish the ties, treaties, and ideals that we already have. We were involved in WWII because of the actions we took in WWI, and just as then, we cannot [easily] remove ourselves from this method. We could not drop everything today and say "we're only defending ourselves" or "we're not going to involve ourselves, anymore" simply because the US is the cornerstone to the world economy and to a lot of world stability. Radar's idea of military inaction would only work today if we hadn't taken the steps we did starting around the year 1910 or so. There is no transition now that is a simple one and possibly there might not be any option for that at all.

Yes, there is a transition. We opt out of every treaty that involves using our military to defend any country but our own. We trade freely with all nations but remain neutral in all conflicts. We close every American military base outside of America and use some of that money to build a working missile defense system.

Countries like Japan & Germany will be given a few years to build and train their own military and we return to being a non-interventionist neutral nation with few enemies if any.

I'd also suggest we resign our membership from the UN unless the UN states that they hold no authority over any sovereign nation including the members of the UN and that they will not attempt to disarm any nation forcebly.

I just don't see this happening, not without enormous and widespread repercussions. Our money, our economy, is based on the influence we have over the rest of the world. The US is afraid to change something as simple as the color of the money too much because of the fear that the modification would indicate instability or change. This country, the investments in this country, and the investments this country puts in others are both directly and indirectly related to the widespread control the US and its allies have on the rest of the world. Opting out of every treaty that says our military will assist others would cause such an incredible "run on the banks" that we'd see the worst outflow of money from the US markets we've ever seen. The following international depression from the failure of trade, despite free trade, that would ensue would alone lead to wars.

I'll agree that less US intervention is good, but I don't see complete and total withdrawl happening.

If investments are tied to using our military to defend other countries, those investors will have to look elsewhere. Security is more important. I also don't see out opting out of treaties that promise the use of our military as a sign of instability. I think it would make America MORE stable, and offer more incentive to invest. We would still make non-aggression treaties and trade agreements.

You seem to support a "one world government" and that is a nightmare of unimaginable proportions to me.

While we are in one world, that world is made up of different cultures and countries and it's best this way. Keeping power divided prevents tyrrany. I can't even imagine the tyrrany of a single world government with unlimited powers.