Questions from a former neo-con

 I was a neo-con up until this summer. I mean I have all of Ann Coulters books and was a Rush Limbaugh 24/7 member for 2 years. I read The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo and realized that I had been lied to my entire life.  That led me to here. It was really listening to Ron Paul that converted me. I don't know why the democrats can't make anti-war arguments like he can. Maybe it's because he actullay takes the constitution into consideration. So anyways, I'm still transitioning into libertarianism and I've got some questions.

 

1. Back in the old days, I read on National Review that Saddam was big on record keeping. After we went in, we found all of these records that showed terrorists (I think it said a few were involved in 9-11) who were on the Iraqi government payroll. The government gave them housing and everything. This was the connection of 9-11 to Iraq that I told my friends about. So what what was that all about?

 

2. I recently read in a neo-con article that Ron Paul is a hypocrite for attempting to pass legislation that would put term limits on Congressmen and yet he himself is a 10 term congressman. Any thoughts?

 

3. I believe  blowback is correct, but how do we deal with the current blowback? Removing our troops from around the world won't suddenly make us safe. So how do we deal with it?

 

Hi Erik, Well, I made the same trip a while ago, so I can commiserate. These are not "definitive answers" or anything, I just saw your post and wanted to talk.

1. No idea. Not really a big concern of mine. If we'd mind our own business then there would be fewer people who wanted us dead. When the enemy has a huge military then you are stupid to fight them in their strength unless you want to die quickly without achieving any of your goals. Assymetric warfare, worked against Britain in 1776.
2. Is there some sort of moral principle that it is WRONG to serve longer than some number of terms? There are practical reasons to limit congressional terms. Dr. Paul term limited himself. His years in office were not consecutive, and it isn't because he lost. It is funny listening to people who have no principles call Dr. Paul a hypocrite.
3. Continuing our interventions will make us MORE unsafe than discontinuing them will. That doesn't assure us we won't still have some danger because of our past intervention, but at least we won't be earning MORE payback.

Best,
Jim

1. I'm pretty sure any terrorists he payrolled were Palestinians. They definitely were not 9/11 hijackers. 

2. He can't be a hypocrite for breaking a parliamentary rule that doesn't exist. That is a matter of procedure, not ethics.

3. Leaving would make us slowly more safe, a much better alternative to staying. But that doesn't matter, being there in the first place is criminal.

Hi Erik! I'll do my best to address these, with my own views of course.

 1. I actually was not privy to this, and would love to know the sources. And of course, more specific questions come to mind. What terrorist organization, etc. Do you know of a place where this information was put?

2. it isn't hypocritical if he himself would also be kicked out of office by his own law. To me this just speaks volumes of his belief in the integrity of government as opposed to his own personal welfare.

3. Our borders at home here are unprotected. We've even sent the National Guard overseas. Who is here to protect us while we attempt to build nations? This is a large concern to me. By extending ourselves militarily the way we have, we run the risk of hitting hard financial times, which could make us more vulnerable at home as well. I feel that we would be safest with a smaller, better trained and higher paid force at home than the most expansive military overseas. And you are correct, we wont be made instantly safe, but over time we will be safer, and our children will be safer as well. I come to this with the thinking that, when we aren't involved militarily in the affairs of third world countries, no one can blame us for the loss of innocent lives.

1. Wasn't Saddam on the CIA payroll? Didn't our government support him in his little war against Iran? If Saddam was "supporting" terrorism back then, what does that make us? 

2. The Constitution didn't specify term limits. The reason was simple: at the next election, throw the bum out and replace him/her with a new bum! Of course, Ron Paul is no bum. I wouldn't say the same about Teddy Kennedy, Lindsey Graham or Nancy Pelosi.

3. The best thing we could possibly do is bring all of our military men and women home. Close all of our bases overseas and let stop meddling in the affairs of other sovereign countries. We sure as hell don't like other countries meddling in our affairs (except Israel), so why is it okay to for us to do it? We will defend ourselves. Our allies are quite capable of defending themselves.

ErikMalin:

It was really listening to Ron Paul that converted me. I don't know why the democrats can't make anti-war arguments like he can. Maybe it's because he actullay takes the constitution into consideration.

I think its because Ron Paul actually takes a principled stand against war, and believes unnecissary war is immoral. If you think that all politicians consider war immoral, I'd take a closer look at their actions. Many so-called "anti war" politicians have absolutely no problem with engaging in wars against anyone and everyone (including their own citizens, e.g. the "war on drugs") if popular opinion supports them. Witness how few voted against the Iraq war, and how few cared about the starvation caused by the sanctions prior to the war.

 Wow, good stuff. I appreciate the feedback. Joe, I tried to find that National Review article, and it might be this but you have to pay to read it so forget that. And as for the term limit question the only thing I have to add is shouldn't Ron have term limited himself on principle alone? Isn't that what George Washington did?

 

Saddam and the Terrorists.
By: Ijaz, Mansoor
6/30/2003

This article focuses on evidences which support the ties that bound Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. According to the author, the Iraqis were intimately involved in helping al-Qaeda develop chemical-weapons capabilities--and this continues to have consequences. It is reported that documents found in Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence headquarters by reporters for London, England's newspaper "Daily Telegraph" show that Iraqi military and intelligence officials sought out al-Qaeda leaders much earlier than previously thought, and met with Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden on at least two occasions. It is also pointed that some of the world's terrorists have turned up in the postwar cleanup of Iraq. The legendary terrorist Abu Nidal committed suicide in the country.

The democrats don't talk about the constitution because they are part of the same system as the republicans. They form two sides of a single ruling class. On game day they may be opponents, but off the field they are in the same profession. When the republicans roll back constitutional restraints, the democrats benefit. When democrats roll back constitutional restraints, the republicans benefit.

A lot of people were incredulous that Al Gore did not contest the 2000 election. Had he done so it would have jeopardized the legitimacy of the political system itself, and threatened the ruling class of which he is part.

ErikMalin:

 

Saddam and the Terrorists.
By: Ijaz, Mansoor
6/30/2003

This article focuses on evidences which support the ties that bound Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. According to the author, the Iraqis were intimately involved in helping al-Qaeda develop chemical-weapons capabilities--and this continues to have consequences. It is reported that documents found in Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence headquarters by reporters for London, England's newspaper "Daily Telegraph" show that Iraqi military and intelligence officials sought out al-Qaeda leaders much earlier than previously thought, and met with Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden on at least two occasions. It is also pointed that some of the world's terrorists have turned up in the postwar cleanup of Iraq. The legendary terrorist Abu Nidal committed suicide in the country.

 

 A quick critique:

Date. Its a preliminary report from 4 years ago, why didn't anything come of it?

Language. Still using 2003's War against WMDs rhetoric. "Post war cleanup" sounds more like White House press Release than news report.

Facts: Neither Iraq nor al-Qaeda had chemical weapons in 2003.

P.S.

Its important to remember that talking about the war in terms of WMDs, al Qaeda, or spreading democracy is falling into the war propaganda. Saddam had offered to leave Iraq if he would be allowed to take a billion dollars of his UN oil funds, it was denied.

War is never about peace, the war criminals setup up these justification as distractions.

We are meant to wrestle with the paper tiger that is the validity of the Casus Belli rather than look for the true motives.

ErikMalin:

Saddam and the Terrorists.

By: Ijaz, Mansoor
6/30/2003

This article focuses on evidences which support the ties that bound Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. According to the author, the Iraqis were intimately involved in helping al-Qaeda develop chemical-weapons capabilities--and this continues to have consequences. It is reported that documents found in Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence headquarters by reporters for London, England's newspaper "Daily Telegraph" show that Iraqi military and intelligence officials sought out al-Qaeda leaders much earlier than previously thought, and met with Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden on at least two occasions. It is also pointed that some of the world's terrorists have turned up in the postwar cleanup of Iraq. The legendary terrorist Abu Nidal committed suicide in the country.

 

 

Saddam's regime certainly had contacts with al-Qaeda and probably gave them some funding when they moved from Sudan to Afganistan. But this Mansoor Ijaz character you are quoting has a long history of outlandish reporting and warnings about immanent dangers that never come to pass. I haven't seen him on Fox News in a long time. When your credibility is actually below that of Geraldo, well... 

The Article you are quoting was debunked a long time ago. Where are these documents? That was four years ago. These aleged reporters for the DT sure are taking a long time writing their scoop.

Oh and yes, Abu Nidal was indeed reported by the Iraqis to have commited suicide just before the war. As I recall, he shot himself in the back of the head four times. Great reporting Mansoor.

 

 

 

 

JonBostwick:

Saddam had offered to leave Iraq if he would be allowed to take a billion dollars of his UN oil funds, it was denied.

 

 

Sounds fishy. Do you have a source for this?

Saddam was given an ultimatum to leave just before the invasion. I don't recall there being any conditions such as leave all the money behind. I think he stayed because he really thought he could ultimately come out on top. He had always done so in the past.

 

DBratton:

Saddam's regime certainly had contacts with al-Qaeda and probably gave them some funding when they moved from Sudan to Afganistan. But this Mansoor Ijaz character you are quoting has a long history of outlandish reporting and warnings about immanent dangers that never come to pass. I haven't seen him on Fox News in a long time. When your credibility is actually below that of Geraldo, well... 

The Article you are quoting was debunked a long time ago. Where are these documents? That was four years ago. These aleged reporters for the DT sure are taking a long time writing their scoop.

Oh and yes, Abu Nidal was indeed reported by the Iraqis to have commited suicide just before the war. As I recall, he shot himself in the back of the head four times. Great reporting Mansoor.

 

 

 

Yeah I looked up Mansoor. Looks like he's taking his crack(pot) reporting skills into Iran.

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/01/27/10014400.html

01/27/2006

A well-known US nuclear proliferation and terrorism expert told Gulf News yesterday that Tehran not only has the nuclear bomb, it is seeking to "duplicate them in large numbers before revealing their existence to the world".

... 

He said US think-tanks were already formulating strategies for an option that would rely on preparing an insurgency force to enter Iran from Iraq or other neighbouring countries. This force could in "close coordination with sympathetic Iranians who seek regime change" target Iran's vital infrastructure systems (water supply, electricity, trucking, rail lines, etc) to shut the country down and bring thousands of demonstrators out into the streets.

"This would usher in a bloodless revolution, effect regime change and avoid devastating military attacks."

DBratton:

JonBostwick:

Saddam had offered to leave Iraq if he would be allowed to take a billion dollars of his UN oil funds, it was denied.

 

 

Sounds fishy. Do you have a source for this?

Saddam was given an ultimatum to leave just before the invasion. I don't recall there being any conditions such as leave all the money behind. I think he stayed because he really thought he could ultimately come out on top. He had always done so in the past.

 

 

Do you really still trust George WMD Bush? 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23414014-details/Saddam+asked+Bush+for+$1bn+to+go+into+exile/article.do 

JonBostwick:

Do you really still trust George WMD Bush? 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23414014-details/Saddam+asked+Bush+for+$1bn+to+go+into+exile/article.do 

 

 

I don't believe that article either. It's an entertainment gossip rag. A story like that would attract attention if it were credible.

 

 

Frankly, in retrospect I don't find paleocons to be much better. Just bad about different issues.

1. You might consider reading the book The Connection, by Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard. That is without a doubt the finest and most important neocon work attempting to link Saddam to the attacks of September 11th. The author was quoted by vice president Cheney for support. Still, in the first chapter Hayes admits that the flimsiest of evidence (that Iraqi agents met with Atta in Prague) isn't proof and is probably not credible. That's all for that. Also I'd highly recommend you search around in the archives of antiwar.com They cover almost all of the war prty's propaganda, and counter it very well with facts. 2. Paul did apply term limits to himself in his first congressional administrations. He only came back to congress in 1996 when he thought (like Rothbard did) that the Republican Revolution of 1994 was real. It turns out that it wasn't, and so he's stayed in congress to be the lone voice for Liberty in the federal government. To the best of my knowledge he hasn't made term limits an issue since returning. 3. No, we will not instantly be safe. The government has done too much evil world wide for that to happen. But we will start to become safe. What the US should maintain as a policy is Catallaxy. Catallaxy comes from the Greek word Katallasseiin, one meaning of which is to turn an enemy into a friend, but Austrians and other free marketers use the term in its other meaning: trade. Trade is our policy, and with that we will eliminate war. My breaks may not work on this forum for some reason.