Some BBC news posted by CSPANJUNKIEdotORG on Youtube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yMb522lWDmQ
I posted the following to a Yahoo newsgroup a little while ago. The group contains quite a few anarchists, but anyone is encouraged to reply.
My post as it appears on the Yahoo newsgroup:
(Firstly, this question is not about the U.S. nor the particularcourse they may or may not be taking in order to secure a missledefense program, whatever that program may consist of. Secondly, ifyou wish to discuss it in terms of the U.S.'s current policy, I'dprefer you address the idea of such a defensive technology moreabstractly before integrating it into the politics of our day)Would a technology that can insulate you from foreign nuclear missleattack be desirable?Within your preferred form of governance or societal arrangement,what percentage of your income would you be willing to pay to supportsuch a technology? This assumes there exists a significant nucleararmament, similar to the levels found in today's world, not currentlyunder the auscpices of your preferred societal arrangement orgovernance.Would you want the U.S. to have this technology and by proxy defendyou from nucear missle attack? Even if you oppose the coercivemeasures employed to finance such a defense system, would you restbetter at night knowing that it's there or do you think things wouldget worse? If worse, then in what way?:
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
Missile Defense is a scam.
The system is incapable of defending against a Russian scale attack, it could defend against maybe a few dozen missiles. So it can't be designed as a defensive system against the Russians. It is also being placed in Europe. The old pretense for its placement there was to defend against the Iranians, which is laughable just geographically. But the Iranians have neither missiles nor nukes which makes it a flat lie.
So whats it for? Its a offensive weapon against the Russian.
The system is worthless if the Russians launch first, obviously. But if the Americans launch first, they can destroy enough missiles on the ground that the missile defense would be able to stop the rest. Its sole purpose is make American first launch viable, thus intimidating the Russians. Period.
Peace
There isn't a justification for spending hundreds of billions of other peoples money in this effort. The whole concept of missle defense is a Cold War relic whose time never has come. Besides there are airplanes, cruise missles, boats, mules, oxen, cars, trucks etc capable of moving a nuclear weapon into the US for a lot less money than the cheapest ballistic missle.
JonBostwick:The system is incapable of defending against a Russian scale attack, it could defend against maybe a few dozen missiles. So it can't be designed as a defensive system against the Russians.
Any defense system would be part of an offense system - block punches and throw punches.
JonBostwick: Its sole purpose is make American first launch viable, thus intimidating the Russians. Period.
And you'd rather Russia's nuclear bombardment have a greater chance at succeeding? Do you think there's any correlation between the conduct of a country's domestic affairs and the conduct of it's foreign affairs? In other words, if a country were internally more oppressive toward it's own population, would you expect this oppression to resonate in it's foreign relations as well? If so, would you rather live under a Russian-like government or an American-like governmenr?
billott1:There isn't a justification for spending hundreds of billions of other peoples money in this effort. The whole concept of missle defense is a Cold War relic whose time never has come.
So if there existed a perfect or nearly perfect defense against nuclear missles being launched against you from an area outside your 'borders', you wouldn't feel safer?
billott1: Besides there are airplanes, cruise missles, boats, mules, oxen, cars, trucks etc capable of moving a nuclear weapon into the US for a lot less money than the cheapest ballistic missle.
Yes, other means could deliver nuclear blasts, but not at the volume of an aerial assault, right?
The question you're asking doesn't make any sense. If you have to use force to make people abide by a decision, then it doesn't matter how you feel about it. You don't have a decision and are being force to abide by a certain decision. In a free society, however, the picture changes. Free societies are characterized by the free exchange of ideas. People, through market pressure, ultimately dictate which ideas are adopted. People usually adopt ideas according to their utility, although cases of mania do sweep through the markets now and again. The need for missile defense would probably hinge on it's utility. If it were deemed necessary for defense, companies would be formed to meet that need for defense and/or established companies would expand operations to cover that need. Point being that people, voting with their money, would decide if missile defense would be necessary and proper for defense. Right now we have a system that steals from you (taxes) and is spent on all manner of things (usually to buy votes in the next election) or as pet projects of some bureaucrat who is beholden to no one.
Since we are talking about a coercive system of appropriation and deployment, based on historical trends, this is what will happen. Military technology is constantly in flux. When a better penetration aid is developed, it spurs development of new defensive techniques, which then spurs the development of better penetration aids, ad infinitum. Until, that is, the economy collapses because it can no longer carry the burden of eternal military development and deployment. It gets worse the larger the military. The United States has historically avoided this by downsizing the military after every war it has fought. Thus, when a new war breaks out they are forced to trade space for time. Which it is spectacularly equipped to do due to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. That is why missile defense has achieved such a mania in the US. For generations the US was invulnerable to invasion (except by the British who did not seem inclined to take over). Development of ICBM's changed all that. That's a major reason for the development of the MAD doctrine. Now for the first time in 40 years, the technological ability to defend against that threat is a possibility. Since the government loves projects like these; spends money to buy votes, protects people from a bogeyman, etc.; it seeks to fund these measures regardless of public opinion, foreign or domestic.
This does not, however, happen in a vacuum. Other people will see this development as a threat. It does make a first strike scenario viable. The Russians have little to worry about because they still have boomers that cannot be targeted and can be launched from the coast of the US if needed. Any missile shield to defend against that would need to saturate the air with missiles. China, India, Pakistan and others with smaller numbers of missiles could be defended against, if they ever develop the capability, which they will do now in order to convince their people they are doing everything in their power to protect them. It's much like the 1920's when the Allies of the last war began a naval race to see who would control the sea-lanes. That resulted in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, which limited the number of warships a nation could construct, otherwise they'd all have spend each other into bankruptcy. It's what happened to the Soviet Union and almost what happened to the US, or may still be happening to the US, depending on your view.
So in the end, they policy is good domestically for those in power for the time being, but the foreign repercussions will hang over the nation for decades to come. In a way the September 11th attacks were a culmination of the previous 50 years of power politics in the Middle East. A hundred years ago, the Empire of Japan approached the US to act as an intermediary between the Japanese Empire and the Empire of Russia. The Treaty of Portsmouth ended that conflict. Contrast that with today, a United States government that tries to enforce peace in the Middle East. The difference is that today, the good offices of the US are no longer as respected as they were in 1905, probably because we are not the nation we were in 1905.
Second point first:
If I am blown to bits in one nuclear blast or several then I am in the same position. Then you are still blown up. I have no like of the clowns in Washington DC or anywhere else. If I can be blasted then so can they and it is theft for my benefactors to build an unworkable system and send me the bill.
Now as for feeling safe from you Perfect System I have this to say: The AIN'T ONE!! System are only reliable to some statistical level of confidence. I have a hard time visualing the clowns that run the DOD and Congress being able to manage the men, machinery and technology to build a perfect system.
Even if there is a perfect system to keep out ballistic missles there ain't one to keep out a suicide boater from floating one up the Mississippi and putting the bomb on a truck and sending it to Washinton DC. So the whole thing is nothing but an outrageously expensive Self Esteem Program.
I never understand the warefare staters. They hate the public school feel good pro-self esteem crap but believe the same thing when it comes to wasting even more money.
pairunoyd:And you'd rather Russia's nuclear bombardment have a greater chance at succeeding? Do you think there's any correlation between the conduct of a country's domestic affairs and the conduct of it's foreign affairs? In other words, if a country were internally more oppressive toward it's own population, would you expect this oppression to resonate in it's foreign relations as well? If so, would you rather live under a Russian-like government or an American-like governmenr?
Actually, domestic oppression decreases a Nation's wealth and requires it to act very reserved in its foreign affairs. Socialist nations may talk big, but I am refering to action. In the last 2000 years, the richest nations became the most interventionist in their foreign affairs. That is, until they spent enough of their wealth that they just couldn't defend their holdings abroad.
pairunoyd: JonBostwick:The system is incapable of defending against a Russian scale attack, it could defend against maybe a few dozen missiles. So it can't be designed as a defensive system against the Russians. Any defense system would be part of an offense system - block punches and throw punches. JonBostwick: Its sole purpose is make American first launch viable, thus intimidating the Russians. Period. And you'd rather Russia's nuclear bombardment have a greater chance at succeeding? Do you think there's any correlation between the conduct of a country's domestic affairs and the conduct of it's foreign affairs? In other words, if a country were internally more oppressive toward it's own population, would you expect this oppression to resonate in it's foreign relations as well? If so, would you rather live under a Russian-like government or an American-like governmenr?
America is far more belligerent than the Russians.
I'd prefer if the US had 0 nuclear weapons, even if the Russians kept their entire stockpile. Russia is no threat to the USA. They only reason the Soviets and the Americans clashed was because they had competing imperial interests. The Soviets were Europe's problem.
rhys:Actually, domestic oppression decreases a Nation's wealth and requires it to act very reserved in its foreign affairs.
If internal coercion creates economic problems, wouldn't that coercion seek to extend it's realm so that new sources of wealth become available? However, it is fortunate that the destructive force of coercion tends to be self-defeating, especially if it bumps heads with a less coercive force, that has greater economic resources.
rhys: In the last 2000 years, the richest nations became the most interventionist in their foreign affairs.
I think it's important to clarify the nature of the intervention. A mugger can intervene between me and my money and a friend can intervene between me and the mugger. All interventions are not the same.
JonBostwick: America is far more belligerent than the Russians.
Tell that to the former Soviet satellites.
JonBostwick:I'd prefer if the US had 0 nuclear weapons, even if the Russians kept their entire stockpile.
You MUST want to see America utterly destoryed. There's no way in hell America wouldn't be nuked if they suddenly had no nukes of their own!
JonBostwick:They only reason the Soviets and the Americans clashed was because they had competing imperial interests.
Do you not see the differences between what used to be East and West Germany? If you'd lived in the western part of Germany post World War II, would you have wished for the Soviet's imperial interest to trump that of the US's? Why did East Germany succumb liberty-crushing communism and West Germany did not?
billott1: Even if there is a perfect system to keep out ballistic missles there ain't one to keep out a suicide boater from floating one up the Mississippi and putting the bomb on a truck and sending it to Washinton DC. So the whole thing is nothing but an outrageously expensive Self Esteem Program.
So if a defense system can protect you from a major vulnerability but not from every vulnerability it is of no use? In your personal life, do you take self-preservation measures?
It could make sense if:
1) every single component was located in US territory
2) it was used exclusively to defend the metropolitan territory by an attack
3) it wasn't backed up by thousands of nuclear tipped offensive weapons
4) it was shown to be viable and cost effective into stopping as many nuclear warheads as possible
Not a single one of these points is respected so I guess the system is not defendable.
I have not any idea of much the United States have spent on missile defence in the past thirty years. Some systems have been shown to have limited capabilities against small-scale attacks using obsolete weaponry and very little countermeasures (for example the US Navy's Standard/AEGIS combination or the US Army Patriot PAC 2/3/3+ system), others have been buried and forgotten after insane amounts of money had been spent on it (the THAAD for example), others have benefited, at least on the paper, allied nations at the US taxpayers' expenses (the Arrow 1 and 2 antimissile systems), others still have been in development for at least a generation without very much to show at their credit (the whole "Star Wars" project).
The US has probably the strongest and most efficient armed forces ever seen, yet in 2001, at the height of its might, they were struck by a group of hijackers using penknifes. Hundreds of lethal warplanes flown by highly trained pilots could not stop a "bunch of ragheads".
When I grew up I was constantly told that the Red Army was the most powerful fighting force in the world and only nuclear weapons aimed at Moscow were keeping their armoured divisions from come pouring into Western Europe. According to many members of my family it was only a matter of time before the "Comrades" would be strong enough to disregard even this deterrent. Yet in 1987 a 19 year old "inexperienced" German pilot flew a French-built Cessna 172 throught Soviet airspace to land right into the Red Square.
It was back then that I started to wonder if bulding immense and expensive war machines is the best way to keep your country safe.
Hi Austrian folks,
I'm quite sad to see a great people like the USA showing such a low self-esteem and poor opinion of their own history and records, and to see the structures of American success history deeply corroded from inside by the so-called "intellectuals" and mainstream media.
Payrunoid, fully agree with your comments.
Specifically on the issue of the former Sovietic block x USA political/ military balance, I strongly recommend everyone to read the following article, written by the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, one of the most eminent conservative intellectuals of our time, currently living in the USA. Please don't allow any political or religious prejudices prevent you from reading this article with an open mind, and reflect on these words!!
http://laiglesforum.com/2008/01/30/the-weakened-american-soul/
Wish you all the best, all the way down from Rio de Janeiro.
Halevy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pairunoyd: JonBostwick:They only reason the Soviets and the Americans clashed was because they had competing imperial interests. Do you not see the differences between what used to be East and West Germany? If you'd lived in the western part of Germany post World War II, would you have wished for the Soviet's imperial interest to trump that of the US's? Why did East Germany succumb liberty-crushing communism and West Germany did not?
What a joke!
Germany wanted to be united. The nation was divided up as spoils of war by the allied US and Soviets. You are defending the American annexation of Germany, but attacking the Soviet annexation of German. Even though they were a single joint act! Your argument doesn't stem from logic, its dependent only on zip code.
Why would I want to see America destroyed? Now Washington, DC on the other hand....
If the USA had no nukes of course it would not be attacked. The USA has no natural enemies. Every enemy it has ever had has been an enemy it has chosen for itself. Every nation, even "evil" ones, have always wanted to be America's friend. The USA meddles in pre-existing conflicts and chooses sides. (The USA had intervened in the Pacific War on the side of the Chinese long before the Pearl Harbor attack.) And as many time as not, America's enemies have been former friends that have outlived their usefulness; like the USSR, Osama Bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein.
Yea, and the West Germans were just dying to climb over that wall and be a part of the great Soviet empire!
How many West Germans died trying to escape to East Germany to escape the tyrany of the Americans?
How many East Germans died trying to escape to West Germany to escape the tyrany of Russians?
Who built the wall? Why'd they build the wall? Why wouldn't East Germany let it's citizens travel freely to other parts of Europe?
What were the rights of East vs West Germany?
These Russians, these beacons of liberty, are to be respected more than the US???
At what cost? The current cost of such a system would bankrupt several future generations and has destroy the wealth of millions of investors through inflation. And it still does not relieve us from nuclear attack. In other words it is a hundred plus billion dollar safety blanket/self esteem improver.
pairunoyd:If internal coercion creates economic problems, wouldn't that coercion seek to extend it's realm so that new sources of wealth become available?
Rarely. While the coercion would like to extend its realm, it also knows that its wealth will not allow it to extend much without becoming over-extended. I cannot imagine the Chinese government trying to nation-build in the middle east after attacking Iraq for supposed WMD's.
pairunoyd:I think it's important to clarify the nature of the intervention. A mugger can intervene between me and my money and a friend can intervene between me and the mugger. All interventions are not the same.
I don't think the nature of the intervention has anything to do with it. What if the mugger tries to rob you, and you knock him out and call the police and he is arrested? What if when your friend intervenes, the mugger shoots him, then shoots you so there won't be a witness? The outcome matters much more. But, none of that really matters for my point. My point is that interventionism, right or wrong, is expensive. Think of the costs involved in mugging - the mugger might get injured or arrested. Just think of the cost of your friend jumping in - your friend might get injured or mugged as well.
Since interventionism is expensive, interventionist governments will make themselves poorer over time. Since interventionism is expensive, only the richest governments can afford to be internationally adventure-some. Oh! I see the problem; I forgot to include a premise: All governments seek to expand their intervention capabilities. Does that make more sense?
Well, if the US govt did what the founding fathers intended, taxes would mainly be going to finance a justice system and a defense system. If that was all they did, and our taxes were well under 10% instead of WELL over 50% (see hidden taxes too), our economy would be many factors richer. 5-10% of a 'many factors richer' economy would be a nice revenue for national defense. Also, w/i that richer economy there would exist a more advanced technology and more educated citizen, all contributing to the defense against nuclear attack.
Here's how I tend to see the nuclear situation.
We were finally able to harness the awesome power of the atom roughly 60-70 years ago. At that point, we had discovered the maximum necesssary explosive power to destroy our enemies. Once you've invented a weapon that can destory the world many times over, it's to no avail that other sources of explosive power be explored. Before this point in time, the race toward greater arms generally meant going from spear throwing to bows and arrows. It meant going from bows and arrows to cross bows. Man's progression into the truly rigorous scientific age quickly thrusted this arms race to the unsurmountable nuclear age. (I'm basically addressing arms and defense in the sense of brute force)
Once you've discovered maximum brute force, where do you go from there? You could concentrate on being faster on the draw and hitting your foe's nuclear missles before they can fire a shot. You can pursue missle defense, which seeks to knock the foe's 'already fired' nukes out of the sky. You could try to convert your foes to friends and hope the retention rate of those conversions is roughly 100%.
Unfortunately, since the invention of nuclear power/weaponry, there has been no significant counter. When there is potential power, it is better that the entity possessing such power tend more toward liberty. It is better for you and I if we find ourselves subjugated to the more liberal entity. This more liberal entity, as well as less liberal entities, survey all other nuclear powers or potential nuclear powers. They assess the character of the nuclear-possessing entities. The less libertarian they tend to be, the more suspect they become. In other words, a gun in the hands of someone that beats his wife and kids is in all likelihood to be more feared than one in the hands of someone that loves his wife and kids (or at least doesnt beat them nearly as much. lol)
Now that the threshold of 'maximum necessary power' has been unveiled by science, do we continue advancing defensive measures (anti-missles, cyber, psychology, conversions, etc)? Do we try to thwart our foes' attempts at gaining that same nuclear capability? In the pursuit of any of these courses, you come against opposition. For the most part, if you tend to be the more libertarian entity, your opposition comes from an entity that not only frets over self-preservation, but frets over a more libertarian entity's libertarian tendencies prevailing. Evil doesn't want good to prevail.
In the interim of nuclear discovery, the US has not made significant gains in it's counters to nuclear power. As such, it is attempting to hinder non-nuclear nations from advancing to the point the US advanced to 60-70 yrs ago. As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to suppress such an advancement and the suppression there of requires greater and greater entangling alliances and sordid affairs. In the midst of coercive actions, other techniques are employed, such as propaganda. As the alternatives to coercion prove unsuccessful, partially exacerbated by coercion itself and the critics of such coercive measures (esp. useful idiots), the U.S. must employ more coercion. As coercion escalates, the US diminishes the grayness of it's foreign relations and enhances the hues of black and white, friend and foe, ally and enemy, good and evil. This delineation moralizes it actions, making them just.
I see this vicious cycle, unfortunately, reaching what many will conclude is a peaceful end, but this so-called peace will most likely be the beginning of the end. Eventually, the 'problem of nuclear power' will be addressed by bundling competing interests into a single, governing body. This body will consist of representatives especially from and most likely, exclusively from, nuclear power nations. Each representative will jointly own, with all the other representatives, the entire nuclear stockpile or the control thereof. They will employ a system that requires unanimous consent before missles can be launched. This in essence means, they want be used. Who is there to use them against. This will be made possible by the use of computers. Each nation would have to enter it's own password before the next nation's password could be entered. Or, it could even be done in a more hands-on way or a mechanical way, if the nations don't trust the technology. However it comes about, there will be a joint, international administrative body that will oversee the use of nuclear weapons. This abdication of national defense to international committee will mean a centralization of power and and this absolutist entity will indeed be corrupted - and corrupted absolutely.
So, I think that whenever you hear that the nuclear problem has been solved by the conjoining of libertarian realms and oppressive realms into a single, administrating body, you are hearing about the last days, you are hearing about the sovereignty of good being being engulfed by the insatiable appetite of evil. You will be hearing about the final judgement of mankind.
rhys:I cannot imagine the Chinese government trying to nation-build in the middle east after attacking Iraq for supposed WMD's.
And how much does the existence of the US discourage any Chinese ambitions? How can a nation so ambitious to oppress it's very own people not have strong international ambitions? What more closely approximates statism than absolute statism, ie communism? Of course China isnt likely to invade a fellow thug, this would weaken their alliance against libertarian interests. Why doesn't China allow it's citizenry to critique it's actions like the US does if China is so innocent?
rhys:My point is that interventionism, right or wrong, is expensive.
I agree. But you have to consider the enironment you find yourself in and the expense of non-intervention. Trust me, I'm not a war hawk. I'm just offering some defense on some of America's actions because I think the criticism is grossly disproportionate and naively de-emphasizes the culpability of of not only imperfect states but nearly perfectly imperfect. I've stated many times, my ideal is anarchy, but until those ideals come about, I pledge my allegiance to the US and everything good about it.
rhys:All governments seek to expand their intervention capabilities. Does that make more sense?
I like that quote. Fortunately, the founding of our government was based upon certain inalienable rights, rights not derived from government but given to us by God. So to the extent we retain such natural rights is the extent to which our interventions must be qualified in accordance with such assumed rights.
I appreciate your post, friend.
pairunoyd: And you'd rather Russia's nuclear bombardment have a greater chance at succeeding? Do you think there's any correlation between the conduct of a country's domestic affairs and the conduct of it's foreign affairs? In other words, if a country were internally more oppressive toward it's own population, would you expect this oppression to resonate in it's foreign relations as well? If so, would you rather live under a Russian-like government or an American-like governmenr?
It's not about the Russians or whether we should liberate Russians living under whoever's yoke. The real issue is the viability of Mutually Assured Destruction. If Russians feel they can not be guaranteed a second-launch sucess, they will feel itchy and need to launch first while they still can. It's back to the age before submarine-based second-launch ability. That Cold War period was a lot more dangerous than the later period when both superpowers were assured of second-launch success.
rlynn:Do you really believe that "boomers" are invisible to spy satellites in orbit? Wake signatures, magnetic anomilies, clear water, etc. In a way the September 11th attacks were a culmination of the previous 1400 years of power politics in the Middle East not the last 50 years. Face the facts there are real dangers in the world today and they will not go away by Americans wearing flowers in their hair and flashing the peace sign. Bush has at least recognized the danger but his competence has been suspect. The Democratic Party has been taken over by marxists and who will commit any treason to achieve power. The Republican Party has many of the same power grubbers but it is still the best vehicle to re-establish the Republic and limit central power. If you do not want the Republicans to go the way of the Democrats and probably cause another world war then you better hold your nose and get involved. I'm a Canadian which makes me a third class American. Canada has been ruled by the neo- or just plain marxists for just about my whole life. I get really sick of Americans whining about how they have got to restore their respect in the world and how it's all Bush's fault. It's time to get your heads out of your butts. The United States is all that has stood between the mass murdering cemtral planners since WW2. I get sick when I hear the bleating about Guantanamo and Abu Graib. So what if a few murdering dickless wonders said they were humiliated by women. Where are the death camps? Where are the meat hooks? Give your heads a shake and get it together.
That was a most excellent speech! Bravo. It seems more and more it's taking 'outsiders', people exposed to the heroes of the left, to give some Americans the perspective they need. While I'm probably a bit more radical than you, I stand shoulder to shoulder with you. Thanks!
pairunoyd:And how much does the existence of the US discourage any Chinese ambitions? How can a nation so ambitious to oppress it's very own people not have strong international ambitions?
And how much does the existence of the US discourage any Chinese ambitions? How can a nation so ambitious to oppress it's very own people not have strong international ambitions?
How can a nation so ambitious to defeat its foreign enemies not have strong ambitions to oppress its own people?
pairunoyd:Of course China isnt likely to invade a fellow thug, this would weaken their alliance against libertarian interests. Why doesn't China allow it's citizenry to critique it's actions like the US does if China is so innocent?
China isn't likely to invade either a fellow thug or one of its enemies. China doesn't allow critique because it is run on tight margins. China doesn't allow dissent because dissent may be all that is necessary to blow that stack of cards down.
pairunoyd:I've stated many times, my ideal is anarchy, but until those ideals come about, I pledge my allegiance to the US and everything good about it.
If your ideal is anarchy, then you should be happy. We live in a state of anarchy now. People in a state of anarchy are free to form governments. To the extent that this government operates with your consent, you are free; to the extent that this government operates despite your consent, you are enslaved.
pairunoyd:Fortunately, the founding of our government was based upon certain inalienable rights, rights not derived from government but given to us by God. So to the extent we retain such natural rights is the extent to which our interventions must be qualified in accordance with such assumed rights.
We can't fail but to retain such natural rights because they are inalienable. The government cannot take away rights; we are incapable of giving them away; they are inalienable. If you believe that our natural rights are not inalienable, then that explains your belief that we don't live in anarchy.
We live in anarchy, because our natural rights are inalienable.
rlynn:I get sick when I hear the bleating about Guantanamo and Abu Graib. So what if a few murdering dickless wonders said they were humiliated by women. Where are the death camps? Where are the meat hooks? Give your heads a shake and get it together.
They're not here yet, of course, but with an attitude like yours, death camps can't be far behind. Are you really so ignorant to believe that all the people the government has in custody are guilty. Let me clue you in on something you might not know. Any time there is an abrupt change in the government, people play a game. The name of the game is Find the Loyalist. Ever read The Crucible? After the Revolution in the US, 1/2 of Toryland (ie the South), were exiled, most to Canada, some to Great Britian. Fact is they fled for their lives. How many of those people were not loyalist, their only crime being that they angered someone, or someone hated them and denounced them? I get sick when I hear of the callous indifference to suffering.
rlynn: I'm a Canadian which makes me a third class American. Canada has been ruled by the neo- or just plain marxists for just about my whole life.
Guess that's where the US will be in about 10 years or so.
I'm not drunk enough to want to try to defend "missile defense". I thought it was a boondoggle in the 80s, and it's probably a boondoggle today. I'm more afraid of Washington than I am of Moscow, but if Moscow wants to nuke Washington I wish them the joy of it. I'll just watch for an increase in ***-waving on the Kremlin's part so I know when to pack up my wife and head for Australia.
Matthew Graybosch:I'm more afraid of Washington than I am of Moscow
Are one's past actions taken into consideration when you assess threat level?
Can you compare the history and Russian and America in the last 100 yrs?
Would you have rather lived in Russia or America in the last 100 yrs?
Imp03 - What people that the government has in custody are you talking about? If it's the people at Gitmo then they are damn lucky that they were not summarily executed on the battlefield in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. The woulda, coulda, shoulda school of history doesn't always accomplish much. It is often necessary to determine "What is" and then act accordingly to protect yourself.
Western liberal democracy has been under assault for at least 100 years from so-called progressives and now also from Islamists. I don't believe that all cultures are morally equivalent and that you can successfully reason and negotiate with them. How would you reason and negotiate with a person having the mindset of the taxi driver in Texas that murdered his teenage daughters last month? It is not noble to lay down and let tyranny prevail..
pairunoyd:Are one's past actions taken into consideration when you assess threat level?
Yes, and the post-Soviet regime in Russia hasn't done enough to merit my concern compared to the gorram Feds. The Soviet Union is dead. Now, if you had asked me this question prior to Gorbachev, my answer would be different.
rlynn:Western liberal democracy has been under assault for at least 100 years from so-called progressives and now also from Islamists. I don't believe that all cultures are morally equivalent and that you can successfully reason and negotiate with them. How would you reason and negotiate with a person having the mindset of the taxi driver in Texas that murdered his teenage daughters last month? It is not noble to lay down and let tyranny prevail.
'Islamists' are not assaulting some theoretical political system like so-called 'western liberal democracy'; they are attacking a foreign nation which has very real non-liberal, non-democratic ideas about how some people's society should be organized. Western liberal democracy is safe as long as the US continues to ignore its precepts while it plays power politics with nations that are so poor and under-equipped that they are unable to really fight back with conventional means.
As far as reasoning and negotiating, have you ever tried to negotiate or reason with a government agent? It is impossible to negotiate or reason with anyone who believes that they represent justice or the law, but that doesn't mean that we should shoot judges or police officers. It is not noble to embrace tyranny to oppress dissent.
We went into Iraq to 1. dipose Saddam, and 2. uphold UN resolutions concerning WMDs. We have achieved both of our mission objectives! Even if we are trying to get even for the 'tyranny' of the hi-jackers, I think we have 'tyrannized' enough civilian muslims with our bombs, depleted uranium, and trade sanctions! When are we going to stop helping them?
rhys, dont you ever question your assessment when it keeps leading you to take the side of Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, etc? These are the countries you'd rather not be subject to, but somehow they're always in the right with these countries deal w/ the US. You dont think this is the least bit weird???
Rys it seems that you have decided that the US is the source of all evil and that the whole world is its victum. Well if that's what you wish to believe against all common sense and evidence so be it. If you really wish to know why the US went to Iraq look at a map and forget all the canards put out by the left. Remember if the US goes home the war is not over.
pairunoyd:ont you ever question your assessment when it keeps leading you to take the side of Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, etc? These are the countries you'd rather not be subject to, but somehow they're always in the right with these countries deal w/ the US. You dont think this is the least bit weird???
ont you ever question your assessment when it keeps leading you to take the side of Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, etc? These are the countries you'd rather not be subject to, but somehow they're always in the right with these countries deal w/ the US. You dont think this is the least bit weird???
I take the side of the victim. I never take the side of the aggressor. But, morally, there is a porportional degree of violence that may be used to dissuade further victimization. I believe that the US government reserves for itself the task of holding those people responsible who collaborated in the 9/11 terrorist attack. It has the authority to co-ordinate international efforts to bring the terrorists, who were responsible, to justice. I don't see the national security risk posed by Saddam as anything other than insignificant, while the amount of money his deposition costs, as we find more and more soldiers with dibilitating brain injuries, is all too significant.
I think it's weird that we should worry more about other government's misbehavior than our own. When I was a child, I would try to defend my own bad behavior by pointing out the bad behavior of others, but my mom told me to worry about myself first. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." When are we going to demand that our Federal government be limited by the Constitution?
The reason why the US has been a more desirable place to live in the past couple hundred years than much of the rest of the world is because we have a constitutional limited government. If those running the government gets the power to do whatever they want in the name of national security, we'd be no better than Iraq, Iran, Russia and China, all of which have a history of running bureacratic national security states.
Back to the issue of missile defense. It's not about taking whose side, it's about taking a course of action that's most beneficial to ourselves. If the Russians can not feel secure in their second-strike capability, they will be tempted to launch missiles first ask questions later when they are confronted by a computer glitch or a rogue launch. That's not good for ourselves. Not to mention the enormous amount of wealth spent on such a project of dubious value. The "rogue states" are not going to use ICBM's against us when they have all sorts of ground transportation available to them. The likely victims of their ICBM's are their fellow "rogue state" neighbors. Then we get into the touchy issue of who gets to come under our umbrella, who doesn't; and whether those coming under our umbrella get to tount their neighbors. Do we really want to get into that?
Rhys whenever I hear stuff like I'm always for the victum I think that somebody has bought into the marxist claptrap. Who is the victum.
As Robert Frost once said a liberal was a man so broad-minded he refused to take his own side in argument.
You obviously don't believe that there is any danger in the current world situation other than the US defending itself. It doesn't really matter who was right or who was wrong in a chicken or the egg situation, what matters is the survival of free markets which are the basis of all personal freedoms.
rhys: I think it's weird that we should worry more about other government's misbehavior than our own. When I was a child, I would try to defend my own bad behavior by pointing out the bad behavior of others, but my mom told me to worry about myself first. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." When are we going to demand that our Federal government be limited by the Constitution?
I agree with this statement. However, I think you should base your critique on the US's actions upon principles and not upon their actions as it relates to other nations actions. If you choose to examine nations actions toward one another, be honest about it. You're being biased because you're judging each instance of nation-to-nation exchange in light of your anti-interventionists objective and not upon the particular facts of each case.
The evidence you have, that makes any assessment begin to even be possible, is evidence that comes to light because of America's less-oppressive nature when compared to it's combatants. The countries of Iran and China REPRESS this evidence. So if one combatant hides 95% of it's potentially culpable actions and the other combatant hides 50%, who are you most likely to decide in favor of. It's not like the evidence in a free and open trial. It's a kangaroo court.
Yes, I too believe the US is WAY too involved abroad, but I truly question it when the US is ALWAYS in the wrong when discussing it's relations with other countries. Unfortunately though, sometimes the badness of others forces the better people to involve themselves in things they'd rather not be involved in. My going to a rowdy neighbor and requesting quiet doesn't mean I'm trying to deny my own bad behaviors.
Judges are imperfect. Can they judge others? Police are imperfect. Can they arrest suspects?
pairunoyd: Some BBC news posted by CSPANJUNKIEdotORG on Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yMb522lWDmQ I posted the following to a Yahoo newsgroup a little while ago. The group contains quite a few anarchists, but anyone is encouraged to reply. My post as it appears on the Yahoo newsgroup: (Firstly, this question is not about the U.S. nor the particularcourse they may or may not be taking in order to secure a missledefense program, whatever that program may consist of. Secondly, ifyou wish to discuss it in terms of the U.S.'s current policy, I'dprefer you address the idea of such a defensive technology moreabstractly before integrating it into the politics of our day)Would a technology that can insulate you from foreign nuclear missleattack be desirable?Within your preferred form of governance or societal arrangement,what percentage of your income would you be willing to pay to supportsuch a technology? This assumes there exists a significant nucleararmament, similar to the levels found in today's world, not currentlyunder the auscpices of your preferred societal arrangement orgovernance.Would you want the U.S. to have this technology and by proxy defendyou from nucear missle attack? Even if you oppose the coercivemeasures employed to finance such a defense system, would you restbetter at night knowing that it's there or do you think things wouldget worse? If worse, then in what way?:
I think a US missile defence is a good idea. But I would favour the late Harry Browne's approach and let private companies design and build it.
rlynn:Rhys whenever I hear stuff like I'm always for the victum I think that somebody has bought into the marxist claptrap. Who is the victum. As Robert Frost once said a liberal was a man so broad-minded he refused to take his own side in argument. You obviously don't believe that there is any danger in the current world situation other than the US defending itself. It doesn't really matter who was right or who was wrong in a chicken or the egg situation, what matters is the survival of free markets which are the basis of all personal freedoms.
Victim: a person who incurs loss or harm as a result of a crime. This has nothing to do with Marx; most people understand that victims are not responsible for their hardship and are owed retribution by the aggressor. It is almost a tautology to claim that the side of the victim must be defended to have a just society.
I believe that there is much danger in the world in addition to the US 'defending' itself at its citizen's expense. I could die driving to work tomorrow.
pairunoyd:...I think you should base your critique on the US's actions upon principles and not upon their actions as it relates to other nations actions.
This is exactly my point. Why should we base our judgement of the US's actions on what other nations do? We shouldn't. We should only base our judgement of our national policies on the principles which our government is charged with the task to uphold.
pairunoyd:The evidence you have, that makes any assessment begin to even be possible, is evidence that comes to light because of America's less-oppressive nature when compared to it's combatants. The countries of Iran and China REPRESS this evidence. So if one combatant hides 95% of it's potentially culpable actions and the other combatant hides 50%, who are you most likely to decide in favor of.
I am not deciding in favor of anything. I am only judging US foreign policy based upon the principles our policy is supposed to uphold. I don't care if China represses all of its culpability. That is no excuse for US foreign policy to fall into lawlessness. We have invaded a foreign nation without any chance that we were in imminent danger. That is wrong, and no amount of Chinese, Iraqi, or Iranian under-handedness can erase this fact.
pairunoyd:Unfortunately though, sometimes the badness of others forces the better people to involve themselves in things they'd rather not be involved in. My going to a rowdy neighbor and requesting quiet doesn't mean I'm trying to deny my own bad behaviors.
I would not disagree. But would you be justified in shooting him if he spat on your car? No, defense must be proportional. Was our policy of defense against Iraq proportional to the threat they posed to us?
pairunoyd:Judges are imperfect. Can they judge others? Police are imperfect. Can they arrest suspects?
Yes, but when they do thier job poorly, we don't apologize for it by claiming, "But look at how rotten the defendant was?" Instead, we challenge the authority of the judge to preside. Even one little mistake can allow a criminal to go free. The State must be held to the highest standard of ethical behavior - even higher than individuals, which means that even highly ethical people may be dismissed from public service if they make a small error in ethical judgement. We shouldn't dismiss the mistakes of policy and government action because other governments are bad, any more than we should dismiss the behavior of crooked cops or judges just because criminals are bad.
rhys: pairunoyd:...I think you should base your critique on the US's actions upon principles and not upon their actions as it relates to other nations actions. This is exactly my point. Why should we base our judgement of the US's actions on what other nations do? We shouldn't. We should only base our judgement of our national policies on the principles which our government is charged with the task to uphold.
No, I'm not talking about what America did and then what China did. I'm talking about the scenario that takes place between them being judge based upon what they did. If you want to oppose ANY actions America takes against China, then your criticism should pretend to objectively discuss the facts of each interaction. In other words, if two bad guys came together and you opposed their fighting but they fought anyway and you judged the fight, that judgement should be based on the actual punches or you shouldn't comment about the actual fight. You can say, American shouldnt do this or that because it complicates matters, etc., but if you wish the judge the ACTUAL exchange between America and China, judge it objectively. America did this. China did that. Did America really do this? Did China really do that? You just seem to be saying, Yes, America did this and China didn't do that, regardles of the facts, simply because you dont want America there in the first place. Which is a perfectly legitimate argument.