Voting for Interventions

[Undertoad]

Once President Bush started his "axis of evil" malarkey, the surging demands for reform in Iran immediately subsided. After Bush invaded Iraq and continued to threaten Iran, the people of Iran rallied nationalistically behind their government. They closed ranks against an external threat, as people always do.

There have been reform movements in Iran forever and still are. One big uprising came in the summer of 2003, post "AoE" speech. These movements wane when the fascist mullahs jail the dissenters.

Those reformers who are still active in Iran are widely discredited for their associations with America.

Where the words "widely discredited" may mean "put in a stinking Iranian jail for 20 years."

I'm sure the dissenters prefer a hope that international events beyond their ken change the country for the better without having to put up with being quashed by fascists with guns. I'm always amazed when otherwise sensible libertarian types show up as big fans of, and apologists for, the fascists with guns.

If we ignore them they will just go away, he argues. It worked with Communism, he says. I guess; it seemed to require the buildup of a massive industrial-military complex to ensure a pattern of spending that would bankrupt them -- after many decades, many millions of purged subjects. And without the annoying matter of people's basic faiths getting in the way. And without the notion of asymmetric warfare where 19 people could kill thousands of us as a part of the power struggle of its failure.

Which is where we were when that "AoE" speech was made. Mr LaTullippe is right; Islamic states ARE destined to fail. That doesn't give him pause? What happens when they fail is that they become magnets for terrorists looking to take advatange of the power vacuum. Just think about it for a second: wasn't Afghanistan the very model of such a failing state? One of the least important Islamic states and one without oil? And that resulted in 9/11?

Well, yesterday they had free elections and guess what, the Taliban didn't show up. Which means that, in that particular case, when he says

Aggressive American militarism aimed at Muslim countries will be profoundly counterproductive for both the indigenous forces of modernity found there and for America’s own safety and security .... Our militarism has achieved the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Applying it all to Afghanistan, he's exactly wrong.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm always amazed when otherwise sensible libertarian types show up as big fans of, and apologists for, the fascists with guns.

Libertarians tend to think closer to home when they worry about armed fascism.

[xoxoxoBruce]

A productive economy with prosperous citizens cannot be sustained by the tenets of radical Islam. It is destined to fail, just like communism was destined to fail.

Sure, but when communism failed and left the poulace destitute and aimless, they blamed the government. When Islam fails they will blame us.

[russotto]

[quote=xoxoxoBruce]Sure, but when communism failed and left the poulace destitute and aimless, they blamed the government. When Islam fails they will blame us.[quote]

They blame us no matter what. Probably the only solution which will work short-term is to act pretty much as they claim the US acts -- that is, to move in and set up a military occupation whose purpose is to keep the people down and the oil flowing. However, the US populace isn't likely to support that.