A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing

[Radar]

Contempt for one's audience, Mr. Outreach?

No, just contempt for the stupid. And even when I do outreach booths if someone just wants to come up and argue, I'll be polite for a minute and send them on their way. If they insult me I'll tell them to get the hell away from my booth.

That's called "violation of copyright".

I know Harry Browne and it wouldn't take more than an email for me to get his permission. In fact I already know he wouldn't object to my posting in here to educate people like you.

If folks are insufficiently fascinated by things that fascinate you to follow the link, why bother posting it in plain text? That can be ignored equally well.

Prove it. Ignore it and stay away from the thread. Then I'll believe you.

[Elspode]

"But then if I used a link many of you would be too lazy or stupid to follow it." - Radar


I am awed. I really enjoy attempted forcible education by aggressive people with superiority complexes. Can we arrange some B&D later?

I for one would like to thank Radar for the selfless efforts to set our skewed thought processes right once again. I've always wanted to be freed of the twin curses of self-determination and free thought.

The benefits of the Cellar simply cannot be overestimated.

[ChrisD]

Originally posted by Radar

Perhaps a corollary of that axiom should be: Those who know only historical slogans should quit using them to support their causes.

...

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

The "promise" you speak of were in the terms of his surrender. It's not a promise, it's a political agreement that he was forced to come to as a direct result of his agression on Kuwait (see below).

The war probably could have ended in 1917. Both sides were devastated and seeking an armistice. But America, under no threat of attack by the Germans or Austrians, entered the war that year — allowing the Allies to step up the war and forcing Germany to surrender in 1918.

Like a couple others mentioned (perhaps somewhat impolitely) - I find this to be the biggest speculation in the article (while at the same time the author decries the use of speculation in favor of "history").

• If U.S. politicians had minded their own business in 1917, instead of plunging America into a war that didn't threaten us, an armistice would have occurred...

Let's just hold our horses right here.. Anything past this sentence is pretty far fetched speculation. In times of global crises, whether or not events would have played out differently is subject to anyone's opinion, regardless of how many pundits agree or disagree. You simply can't tell what would have happened.

• If the U.S. had stayed out of World War I, most likely there would have been no World War II...

Here we go again. /Reagan

• If the Allies hadn't imposed draconian peace terms on Germany in 1918, there probably would have been no Hitler to threaten anyone. Germany would have resumed its role as an intellectual and cultural center in Europe. (American diplomats learned their lesson and eased their demands somewhat at the end of World War II.)

One more time, because it seems to be a popular theme. After the first clause, while probably true (and you mention it yourself, allied diplomats seemed to have learned their lesson post-WWII), the author only moves on to more speculation, something that anyone is qualified to give an equal opinion on, because when you pare away all the layers of fancy vocabulary and historical "warm-up", it's just that: speculation.

And when amateur historians remind us that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 (as though that were an excuse for bullying Iraq forever) probably not one of them could tell you why Iraq invaded Kuwait.

I particularly liked this one.

Are they aware of the oil disputes, the fact that Kuwait has more in common with Iraq proper than the northern Iraqi Kurds do,

Cultural similarities are no basis for an invasion by force. Canadians probably share a good amount of our (American) cultural similarities.

or that Kuwait not too long ago was prepared to become part of Iraq?

"Was prepared" being the key phrase here. Perhaps they were "almost" perpared and Iraq took offense they didn't go through and decided to invade anyway?

Are they aware that the American ambassador to Iraq gave her blessing to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait just a few days before it occurred?

Unfortunately, one official's opinion and blessing (a minor official at the time, all things considered) does not represent all of us.

Nor have we touched on another important part of history — the assertions made by our government before and during the Gulf War, assertions that later proved to be false. There were no Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border, no Iraqi atrocities in Kuwaiti hospitals.

None in the kuwaiti hospitals, but how about lighting the oil wells or the deliberate dumping of oil into the Gulf?

3/24/1989, Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska: 10.9 million gallons.
2/15/1996, Sea Empress spill off coast of Wales: 18 million gallons.
12/3/1992, Aegean Sea loses 21.5 million gallons northwest of Spain.

And previous to Iraq, the WORST spill recorded in history and one some estimate will cause environmental damage for ANOTHER 100 years: June 3, 1979, The Ixtoc 1 oil well in the Gulf of Mexico explodes, spilling and estimated 140 million gallons of crude oil into the sea.

Iraq's dumping of oil? A paltry 460 million gallons, the effects of which still have not been calculated.

While not specifically aimed at "humans" and therefore considered an atrocity, this qualifies in my book.

The "smart bombs" General Schwarzkopf talked about so proudly in his TV briefings were hardly ever used in the war — and when they were used, they missed their targets more often than not.

I'd double check your sources on this one.. While we have no way of truly knowing the numbers because _I_ won't even go as far as to say our government would give us 100% accurate and truthful numbers, draw your own conclusions, YMMV:

According to the Pentagon: 80-90% of smart bombs hit their targets. The target choice has often come into criticism as water, sanitation, roads, hospitals were targetted, but the bombs themselves performed as intended.

In contrast: the same source released that approximately 70% of "dumb" conventional bombs miss their target.

History is more than slogans.

• It is facts backed up by evidence you can verify;

So wild speculation about the end of WWI and cause of WWII is okay?

• It is human nature being relived over and over;

Exactly. Exactly! I think most people here are aware of the Holocaust and do everything possible to BE responsible as a world community. I used to think there was a joke that any argument on the internet was "officially lost" when you brought in the Nazis/Hitler/The Holocaust - but I guess we can let it slide here because it was brought out at the outset. :p My point here is that History (if anything?) has shown us that brutal, oppresive regimes are best stopped as soon as possible. Saddam may have killed 30,000 Kurds 14 years ago, that could have been just a start. All the more pressing a reason to force abdication.

• It is continual confirmation that we must treat our own government with great skepticism;

Agreed. However, don't confuse skepticism with blind opposition.


Unfortunately, I'm not the clear, concise writer that many of you here on the Cellar are, and so I can't really wrap this up in a powerful conclusion that will stand out for anyone, so I'll just say that I'm in support of disarmament (for a slew of reasons, WMD just being a fairly pressing one) and that I support our troops and our country's presidental administration (although that Bush guy... he needs to go :p ).

Thanks for the time-
ChrisD

[Radar]

What makes you think the U.N. or America has the authority to disarm anyone? America is no more legally or morally authorized to disarm Iraq than they are of disarming America. What would those who support the forced disarmament of Iraq based on a U.N. resolution say if the U.N. security council told America that we had to disarm entirely and that they would send inspectors from China, Russia, France, and Iraq to inspect the white house, pentagon, military bases, missle silos, and even American homes 24 hours a day 7 days a week without notice?

America would tell the U.N. to shove it. And that's exactly what Iraq should do. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't ask permission from the U.N. or America about which weapons they can or should have.

Bush is using unverified non-compliance with the U.N. resolution against Iraq as an excuse to start an unconstitutional war while at the same time fipping the U.N. the bird and telling them we won't listen to them if they tell us not to use force. Why should Iraq listen to the U.N. if America won't?

[Undertoad]

ChrisD, you can write like real good and stuff. The problem is that if Radar is only interested in one-way communication, it's kinda pointless to write anything.

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The problem is that if Radar is only interested in one-way communication, it's kinda pointless to write anything.

</cloaking device>
Well... what do you expect from a bartender? Frankly, I blame it on the lack of an academically-rigorous education. Apparently, upper-level writing courses aren't a graduation requirement at the Southeast Nevada Institute of Animal Husbandry and Mortuary Science.
<cloaking device>

[Radar]

Nothing wrong with being a bartender. And I have a degree in computer science dickhead. On your best day and my worst you couldn't expect to keep up with me intellectually.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Unfortunately for Radar's good name, his postings here reveal a Blame-America-Firster.

While he hews to the Libertarian shibboleth that a virtuous government (The LP, not being largely in power, has the luxury of pushing great and high virtue in governmental behavior, but this Libertarian does not expect to see much of that should Libertarian philosophy come to ascendancy in our republic's government. Just jaundiced of view, I guess!) shall not initiate use of force, Radar rather hopes no one will notice that the flaw in that argument in current circumstances is that force has already been initiated, twice over on one major Manhattan target, in a Yemeni harbor, and upon two embassy buildings, by self-declared enemies. Five times is more than enough for any definition of enemy action. Perhaps Radar does not consider that we actually have any enemies at all, let alone the kind of hysterical anti-Americanists we shall have to rid the planet of. A hint, therefore: libertarianism's foes are collectivists, socialists, and other unfree types, and these are not scarce on the ground.

Libertarianism may be cutely defined as: Libertarianism, the anti-Socialism.

Actually, to judge by the number of smiles and snickers of disbelief that crossed my countenance on reading Dr. Brown's article, I may be a better student of history than he.

/s/ Urbane G -- Big L Libertarian by party registration, small L libertarian by philosophy

[Undertoad]

That's Mr. Browne, not Dr., and his specialty is not history but selling his books on approaches for the upcoming bad times. Which, judging by the timing of his books, are always upcoming.

How did the LP twice nominate someone who has made a living predicting bad outcomes for the American economy?

(That question's rhetorical - I already know the answer.)

[Radar]

Urbane, your naiveté reveals your ignorance regarding history and our government. It’s not a matter of me being a “Blame-America-Firster” because I’m not. It’s a matter of me placing blame where it belongs. If America weren’t using our military to bully other countries around and to practice imperialism, we wouldn’t be having these problems.

While he hews to the Libertarian shibboleth that a virtuous government (The LP, not being largely in power, has the luxury of pushing great and high virtue in governmental behavior, but this Libertarian does not expect to see much of that should Libertarian philosophy come to ascendancy in our republic's government.

It’s not a luxury to expect the government to stick to our constitution. Nor is it strictly a Libertarian phenomenon. Nor is it related in any way to the power that the Libertarian party holds in government. Most Americans can and should expect our government to abide by the constitution that defines and limits the powers of government.

Just jaundiced of view, I guess!) shall not initiate use of force, Radar rather hopes no one will notice that the flaw in that argument in current circumstances is that force has already been initiated, twice over on one major Manhattan target, in a Yemeni harbor, and upon two embassy buildings, by self-declared enemies.

Unfortunately for you, there is no flaw in my argument because none of the attacks you mentioned were on the part of Iraq, funded by Iraq, planned by Iraq, or connected to the Iraqi government at all. In fact Iraq has never funded, harbored, trained, or supported anyone who has attacked America. The sole purpose of the American military is for the DEFENSE of American soil and ships. Not to police the world, not to tell other sovereign nations what weapons they may or may not own. Not to overthrow the leaders of other nations or to make “regime” changes. Not to practice imperialism. Not to defend any nation other than our own. You conveniently left out the fact that Iraq has never attacked America ever, but they were the victims of unwarranted and illegal attacks on the part of America in 1991. After that they were starved and kept from medicine. They were told they couldn’t fly planes over their own country, and bullied for 12 years by a nation that has no legal or moral authority over them.

Perhaps Radar does not consider that we actually have any enemies at all, let alone the kind of hysterical anti-Americanists we shall have to rid the planet of.

Perhaps Urbane doesn’t realize that our military interventionism, our use of foreign “aid” to bully other countries, and our imperialistic show of force around the world is the reason we have so many enemies in the first place. The founders of America were military non-interventionists and so are all reasonable people. And your support of genocide against those who are “anti-American” only proves that you are not a reasonable person.

Libertarianism may be cutely defined as: Libertarianism, the anti-Socialism

It may more accurately be defined as those who support the most freedom at the least cost and who recognize and respect the rights of others and the sovereignty of other nations.

Actually, to judge by the number of smiles and snickers of disbelief that crossed my countenance on reading Dr. Brown's article, I may be a better student of history than he.

Judging from your pretentious manner and the cavernous holes in your logic I wouldn’t think you were much of a student of any subject, unless you count the study of ostentatious and hackneyed use of vocabulary.

[Radar]

How did the LP twice nominate someone who has made a living predicting bad outcomes for the American economy?

Because he was correct on all counts. If you read his books you'll find that he predicted this whole Iraq thing several years before Bush was elected. The writing is on the wall even if you are too blind to see it and too illiterate to read it.

[elSicomoro]

Remember folks, in this case, you can ignore the infection and it won't harm you later.

[ChrisD]

Radar's ad hominem attacks detract from his credibility somewhat, and while I do my best to honestly give everyone a chance and keep an open mind, ad hominem on the internet simply has the effect of reducing the author to a troll.

That being said, Radar: I do believe that at times (most times!) we should play the role of turtle - hole up in our shell and ignore those injustices that may be occuring in the world, weather or not they might be pointed at us, our views, or our belief in fundamental human rights.

But at other times, I think Spiderman said it best: With great power comes great responsibility.

I'm open to both sides of the argument. My biggest fear (problem?) with the oncoming war is a backlash of terrorist sleeper cells at home. Hopefully the FBI and good 'ole Ridge are on top of that threat, but it's hard to assess accurately. However, my biggest problem with the anti-war faction is what I call the "French" factor: A mindset determined to oppose, regardless of the facts at hand, simply for the sake of opposing. Whether it be the chic thing to do, the hippie thing to do, the peaceful thing to do, or the right thing to do; some people are simply opposed and will be no matter what they are shown or told.

In my opinion, these are the people who will be the most quiet when the US is vindicated post-war when the media can uncover the mass graves, torture chambers, hidden prisons, and most importantly: the ever so cliched weapons of mass destruction.

We will be vindicated.

[ChrisD]

Originally posted by Radar
Urbane, your naiveté reveals your ignorance regarding history and our government. It’s not a matter of me being a “Blame-America-Firster” because I’m not. It’s a matter of me placing blame where it belongs. If America weren’t using our military to bully other countries around and to practice imperialism, we wouldn’t be having these problems.

Yes, other people, who perhaps have no say in the matter, would.

Unfortunately for you, there is no flaw in my argument because none of the attacks you mentioned were on the part of Iraq, funded by Iraq, planned by Iraq, or connected to the Iraqi government at all. In fact Iraq has never funded, harbored, trained, or supported anyone who has attacked America. The sole purpose of the American military is for the DEFENSE of American soil and ships. Not to police the world, not to tell other sovereign nations what weapons they may or may not own. Not to overthrow the leaders of other nations or to make “regime” changes. Not to practice imperialism. Not to defend any nation other than our own. You conveniently left out the fact that Iraq has never attacked America ever, but they were the victims of unwarranted and illegal attacks on the part of America in 1991. After that they were starved and kept from medicine. They were told they couldn’t fly planes over their own country, and bullied for 12 years by a nation that has no legal or moral authority over them.

It seems as if we keep coming back to this, while I feel like you haven't really addressed the issue of the original Gulf War. Do you honestly feel as if Iraq marching upon Kuwait, regardless of the "almost" reasons I addressed in a previous post, was a legitimate action? That we were somehow in the wrong to assist Kuwait from the occupation by the Iraqi military? That, by consequence, we were wrong to enforce the terms of that treaty by which the Gulf War was ended?

You make an excellent chain of transitive connections, but your original premise is flawed, or at least you believe differently that most about what really happened 12 years ago. Can you explain that for me/us?

My only other comment to you Radar might be to attempt to hold off on the ad hominem regardless of what others might say. While I'm inclined to agree with them :p , we can keep this from being a 12-year-old mud slinging INTARNET FITE GR0UnDZ!! if we all try to stay mature, right?

[ChrisD]

Originally posted by Radar
What makes you think the U.N. or America has the authority to disarm anyone? America is no more legally or morally authorized to disarm Iraq than they are of disarming America. What would those who support the forced disarmament of Iraq based on a U.N. resolution say if the U.N. security council told America that we had to disarm entirely and that they would send inspectors from China, Russia, France, and Iraq to inspect the white house, pentagon, military bases, missle silos, and even American homes 24 hours a day 7 days a week without notice?

Primarily because Iraq/Hussein has shown a somewhat fearful tendency to abuse self-restraint in the use of the aforementioned arsenal, we have the "legal" and "moral" obligation to lighten his load.

In response to the second question, as I stated in the post above, those actions were based on the treaty of the Gulf War, in response to Iraq's aggression and attempt to take by force the independent and sovereign nation of Kuwait. Do you believe that such action was unwarranted, or that we should have "let those stinky arabs deal with it themselves?" I believe in liberty for all humans, and personally sometimes we're better equipped to deal with it than others. If your neighbor was abusing (trying to kill?) his child, wouldn't you call the police or attempt to help as well? It might not be "your business", but some things require the aid of those who can.

Bush is using unverified non-compliance with the U.N. resolution against Iraq as an excuse to start an unconstitutional war while at the same time fipping the U.N. the bird and telling them we won't listen to them if they tell us not to use force. Why should Iraq listen to the U.N. if America won't?

This is an excellent point and one that I still have trouble with. Personally I feel as if we should make every effort to verify more than minor non-compliance with the UN resolutions.

However, that being said, as Colin Powell and Bush have stated many times (and the UN has not disputed), vast quantities of chemical weapons (mustard gas), biological weapons (anthrax) and deployment mechanisms (scud missiles, drones, etc) were present and accounted for several years ago. That kind of merchandise does not simply "get lost".

Saddam is not dumb - perhaps disillusioned, but not dumb. He's made a life work of hiding these items, and he has had plenty of time to prepare for inspections.

Furthermore, it has to be made poignantly clear that these inspections are a farce from an ineffectual organization in an environment that cannot yield true inspections.

The inspectors provide (or are provided, I forget, sorry) a list of potential inspection sites. Their rooms are bugged. They travel in huge caravans of marked cars by which spies/guards of Hussein can phone the locations ahead of time. Fake accidents are staged to delay traffic when the inspectee site cannot prepare in time. Phone conversations have been recorded and played in which this game of hiding all the material and payments for "clean inspections" exist. Scientists are "interviewed" in a room bugged, taped, and with a military guard present.

Can you honestly tell me that you believe in your heart that the inspections are proving that those weapons must not exist because the inspections aren't showing anything? If anything, logic dictates that the inspections coming up empty handed proves clear violation of the original resolution, as it mentioned that proof of weapons disposal/destruction must be given, while it has not.

ChrisD