To the Shores of Tripoli!

If we had listened to the interventionists, we would have been at war with Libya long ago.

It is reasonable to conclude that if John McCain had won the presidency, the United States military would be at this moment engaging in war with Libya, by enforcing a no-fly zone over the embattled country and probably arming the anti-Qadaffi rebels. After all, that's what the Arizona Senator has been advocating for the past two weeks.

But in fact an alternative-universe McCain presidency could have put us on war footing with Libya as early as January 2001, had he beaten George W. Bush in the Republican primaries back in the days of federal budget surpluses. After all, it was McCain during the 2000 campaign who was advocating pro-active regime change in Tripoli, asserting during one presidential debate that he would "revise our policies concerning these rogue states—Iraq, Libya, North Korea—those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them," and then "institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically-elected governments."

And as he made clear in his original speech unveiling this radical doctrine of pre-emptive pro-democracy war, President McCain would have backed these revolutionary operations with the full power of the U.S. military. "If you commit to supporting these forces, accept the seriousness of the obligation," he cautioned. "Don't abandon them to the mercies of tyrants whenever they meet with reversals as the administration did in the north of Iraq....The world's only superpower should never give its word insincerely. We should never make idle threats."

John McCain will never be president. But his aggressive strain of anti-dictator military interventionism is alive and kicking against President Barack Obama's Middle East reticence, with frustrated bombardiers from both major political parties agitating for action.

"Ronald Reagan bombed Libya," former Pennsylvania senator and current presidential aspirant (no really) Rick Santorum said in Iowa this week. "If you want to be Reaganesque, it seems the path is pretty clear here....We should be able to do whatever we want." Santorum competitor and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty concurred: "We've got a situation where we have a confirmed terrorist, sociopath and killer, Moammar [Qadaffi], mowing down his own people who are trying to bring forward their view of liberty and freedom." The undead Newt Gingrich called for a no-fly zone "this evening," adding: "The United States doesn't need anybody's permission. We don't need to have NATO, who frankly, won't bring much to the fight. We don't need to have the United Nations....This is a moment to get rid of [Qaddafi]. Do it. Get it over with."

Democrats, per usual, favor a more multilateral flavor of the same stiff drink. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) advocated a no-fly zone with the wishy-washy "hope" that it would be part of an international effort, then uncorked this beaut of a non-sequitur: "The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention....And I don't consider the fly zone stepping over that line." Socks-wearing tuff guy Eliot Spitzer demanded that "The U.S. must recognize the provisional government, enforce a no-fly zone, and arm the rebels," arguing that "Qaddafi's actions have been so inhumane and ruthless that he can be viewed an international criminal, and his crimes so great that we could justly intervene on humanitarian grounds," and then concluding "Now all we have to do is help them win." So simple!

It's not hard to understand the impulse here. Qadaffi is an evil sonofabitch mowing down his own people, and we have the most powerful military in the history of the world. There's a particularly rusty and nasty-looking nail sticking up right in the middle of the footpath, and we happen to have this marvelous hammer nearby. What kind of heartless and/or gutless bastard can stand idly by as the bodies pile up?

This kind: The one who worries about the myriad unintended consequences of war.

Look around the historic North African and Middle East uprisings of 2011, and what's missing? The Great Satan, that's who. The United States has such an outsized role in the world's affairs, and such an overwhelming military advantage, that it cannot help but massively distort any internal situation it gets involved in, and sponge up responsibility for the affairs of people who for too long have been spectators in their own lives. By mostly removing itself as the central protagonist of the Arab Spring, Washington is devolving that responsibility to the people who deserve it, and letting the focus remain instead on the brutal misgovernance of the region's dictators.  

If the indigineous people-power movements in the Muslim world succeed in removing most of their regimes and replacing them with governments even incrementally better, all without a superpower tilting the scales, imagine how much more potent that would be than a series of externally manipulated insurgencies backed by the U.S. Navy. Locally owned revolutions always have more sticking power; imperially fomented regime changes are always more fragile and costly (to the outside power) in the long term. It is an irony that humanitarian interventionists rarely grapple with: Helping out the "good guys" can in some cases prolong bad situations, all while lowering the bar for tomorrow's war, and creating incentives for America-fearing authoritarians to pursue nuclear weapons and clamp down still further on their populations.

Imagine for a second if rogue-state rollback had become the doctrine of the land. Not only would we have already had our wars with Iraq, Libya, and North Korea (producing Lord knows how many occupation problems), but almost certainly Iran, and maybe even Russia. All that before the Arab Spring, with its multilateral breakout of democracy-espousing citizen groups taking on rogue dictators. Each of these military interventions, as all wars inevitably do, would have required pragmatic deals with unsavory neighboring regimes, including those who in some cases might be more objectively oppressive than the target of our firepower. Would the world really be a safer place if all this had happened? With better prospects for future liberalization?

Perhaps that is unknowable. But what we know for sure in 2011 America is that We Are Out of Money. A broke country is not a country that can long maintain its leading role in the affairs of everybody else. As the historian Niall Ferguson wrote in a Foreign Policy essay last year,

[M]ost imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises....Alarm bells should therefore be ringing very loudly, indeed, as the United States contemplates a deficit for 2009 of more than $1.4 trillion—about 11.2 percent of GDP, the biggest deficit in 60 years—and another for 2010 that will not be much smaller. Public debt, meanwhile, is set to more than double in the coming decade, from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $14.3 trillion in 2019. Within the same timeframe, interest payments on that debt are forecast to leap from eight percent of federal revenues to 17 percent. [...]

There is a zero-sum game at the heart of the budgetary process: if interest payments consume a rising proportion of tax revenue, military expenditure is the item most likely to be cut because, unlike mandatory entitlements, it is discretionary. [...] U.S. fiscal policy today is preprogrammed to reduce the resources available for all overseas military operations in the years ahead.

The world, in other words, is slipping through America's grasp. There will be appalling, murderous moments in this process; there's no reason to sugarcoat that. But it might just be that the necessity of unipower rollback will reveal the virtues of devolving responsibility to the people who yearn most to be free.

Matt Welch (matt.welch@reason.com) is Editor in Chief of Reason, author of McCain: The Myth of a Maverick; and co-author with Nick Gillespie of the forthcoming The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Give Qadaffi a guitar and put a different hat on him and he might find a new career doing Carlos Santana impersonations.

  • ||

    "" Do it. Get it over with."""

    Uh yeah, and the war in Iraq with takes days, not weeks or years.

  • ||

    Sorry Brian, not meant to be a reply to your comment.

  • ChrisO||

    Actually, the war in Iraq only lasted a few weeks. The occupation, on the other hand, has been a long-running disaster.

    Libya would be an even bigger clusterfuck. There is no such thing as a "Libyan." They self-identify by tribe and clan, and trying to externally impose order upon that mess would be the height of arrogance and stupidity. Which is undoubtedly why McCain and Kerry are so gung-ho.

  • johnl||

    Slam dunk. Pays for itself.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It may come as a shock to many of you, but what presidential hopefuls say on the campaign trail or in the comfort of, say, Capitol Hill or Governor's Mansions tends to be vastly different from what they do once their ass is in the Oval Office for realz.

    Pacificists can suddenly get a taste for drinking wine from the skulls of their enemies, and warmongers can find diplomacy a virtue worth trying. A President McCain could be unleashing a different set of fuckups on America completely unrelated to interventionism.

  • ||

    McCain is serious about his war-mongering - it was his reason to be president. In 2008 the self-professed "economics is not my strong suit" wanted a land war against Russia in support of Georgia during that flare-up. Rest assured, we would be in Iran by now too.

    His judgment is rash and belligerent (see Sarah Palin) - definitely not fit for the Oval Office.

  • DNS||

    In 2008 the self-professed "economics is not my strong suit" wanted a land war against Russia in support of Georgia during that flare-up.

    I seem to remember someone saying starting a land war in Asia was a classic blunder. Inconceivable.

  • Kolohe||

    MacArthur?

  • Sam Grove||

    Vizzini.

  • Resto Druid FTW||

    Lulz!

  • Realist||

    I agree! Both the Republicans and Democrats ran worthless assholes in the last few Presidential elections.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yeah, and Dubya went into office promising not to get involved in "nation-building." Didn't exactly work out that way.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I don't disagree with your general point, but I'm sure McBain would have found a way to stick America's nose in, if only through arming "rebels," etc.

    He's fucking Teddy Roosevelt - he never met a war he didn't like.

  • StriveforArete||

    Whats your position Matt? What do you think the US should do?

  • RyanXXX||

    Nothing.

    Now fuck off.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The time to invade Libya was in the mid '80s, it's a bit late now. I'm ambiguous as to whether we should arm the rebels but I'm leaning no. I'm getting really worried about the uprising though. I largely assumed Qadhafi was done but he seems to be staging a bit of a resurgence. Sadaam did this before in '91 I believe. Any military experty types have any thoughts on the ground situation in Libya?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Why would you be ambivalent about it? What possible arguments could there be for arming the rebels?

  • Brett L||

    Look how well Afghanistan turned out.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Pretty well. Huge loss for the Soviet Union and no reason to believe that AQ or the Taliban wouldn't have come about regardless.

  • Paul||

    I'm on the fence about helping the Rebellion. Tarkin has his sights on Dantooine and it seems like we could easily help the country topple their own dictator (to be replaced with what, I have no idea-- I mean, look how twisted Egypt's already getting in their bid for self-determination).

    However, it isn't the same as Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a proxy war between us and the Soviet Union. It had little to do with helping Afghanistan topple a crackpot dictator.

    What's going on in Libya is a war between Qaddaffi and his own people. It seems that helping to tip the balance toward the rebellion then leaving our grubby hands out of Libya after could be a reasonable option.

    Unfortunately, there's too much in it for us to avoid even the impression of impropriety.

    America can't win these arguments anyway. If we stay out of it, we get documentaries about how many people we let die. If we get mixed up in it, well, we know what happens when we get mixed up in it.

  • Paul||

  • Reason Editors||

    I largely assumed Qadhafi was done

    So did we. Boy, are our faces red!

  • ||

    we know who we would dis-empower but not who we'd empower.

  • ||

    No one.

  • sevo||

    OhioOrrin|3.9.11 @ 4:52PM|#
    "we know who we would dis-empower but not who we'd empower."

    "We"? Got something stinky in your pocket?

  • Gregory Smith||

    As much as I like war and seeing America kick ass, I admit that we're already too busy in Iraq and Afghanistan to take care of a few lousy Libyans. So here's my proposal.

    1. No $15 million humanitarian aid which Obama gave without asking me. Private charity? Fine. Public charity? No freaking way!

    2. Each European country has a military and the poor bastards are bored out of their minds. So, since the eurofarts don't like the way we fight wars, I invite them to liberate Libya.

    So I'm sorry Libya, but you're on your own.

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

  • ||

    War is a racket, Gregory, for gangsters, thieves, bullies, thugs and most of all, pussies.

    A libertarian's allegiance must be with liberty, not with a nation state and its empire.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Fuckin A

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh how clever. Lets just forget about attempting to actually think and make baseless sweeping statements.

  • ||

    Lets go Team Red, White and Blue

  • Gregory Smith||

    So libertarians can't be patriots? What kind of globalist citizen of the world nonsense is this? I am a proud AMERICAN, I do not have a greencard to work in Germany, Russia, Israel, or anywhere else but here.

    Scholarships for White Students - Racist or Fair?
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....hy-is.html

  • DNS||

    As much as I like war and seeing America kick ass

    Aside from your incessant blogwhoring, with statements like this, you wonder why few here take your so-con, freeper, Boortzian nonsense seriously.

  • jacob||

    LOL

    Boortzian - never heard that term before but you really nailed it

  • ||

    Stay out of the Libya mess.

    Assisting them would allow Gadaffi to tar the rebels as "western stooges."

    I hope the rebels win, but I oppose any intervention or assistance. We should not deprive them of "that share of the glory which is theirs."

  • Hugh Akston||

    Intervening in Libya only distracts resources from the more present goals to protect national security. Like invading Canada.

  • ||

    You could use the Western Carolina University Pride of the Mountains Marching Band for that.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I wouldn't want to mess with some of the girls in the woodwind section.

  • ||

    We will welcome them the way we do all visitors: With a friendly smile while fleecing them for every dime in their pockets.

  • Paul||

    Word. I'll be in Whistler at the end of this month... being fleeced.

  • SIV||

    Go Catamounts!
    Sting those Canucks

  • ||

    At most, we should drop off some anti-air and anti-tank missiles.

    These things all have electronics in them. I wonder if we couldn't set them up to brick in, say, six months. Take Gaddafi's armor and air away, and he won't last nearly that long.

  • DJF||

    The way our military industrial complex works it would probably take ten years and 10 billion dollars to come up with a missile that deactivates in 6 months and probably take some 16 year old kid 15 minutes to reprogram it.

  • Paul||

    I remember everyone was worried that when we invaded Afghanistan that they'd be dusting off all of their Stinger Missiles. Turns out the batteries were all dead. Apparently storing batteries in a cave for 25 years isn't a 'best practice'.

  • ||

    I'm thinking it's a lose/lose situation for us. If we help it will cost a fair amount of money and will probably be a thankless job. Supporting OBL and crew against the Russians didn't work out well in the long run. But if we do nothing then when the rebels take power, they may hate us for not helping.

  • ChrisO||

    If we stay out of way and the rebels win, I'm sure they'll still be quite willing to sell all the oil they can pump. And other than that, who really gives a shit what they think of us?

  • Barack Obama||

    And other than that, who really gives a shit what they think of us?

    I do.

  • ||

    If we involve ourselves on the side of the rebels, there are all sorts of possibilities for blowback of the sort that happened as a result of our involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980's. However, it's at least conceivable that we could get a moderately more civilized and humane government out of the new Libya. There are both good and bad potential outcomes.

    If we sit it out, one of three things happens - A.)the rebels win after a long, bloody struggle which opens the gates to post-revolution civil war, with most factions likely resenting us for our unwillingness to help topple Gaddafi; B.)Gaddafi wins, re-consolidates power after a Rwanda-style massacre of anyone and everyone who took part in the failed coup, and goes back to hating us and sponsoring the terrorist attacks against the west because we froze his bank accounts, denounced him at the UN, and put the kibosh on Saif's Carribean beach vacations; C.)neither side is able to completely overthrow the other, and Libya degenerates into a failed state which produces God knows what sorts of militarily trained extremist groups. All three of these outcomes are very bad, albeit worse for Europe than for us.

    Therefore, I think we're better off seeing to it that the rebels win. I think an open-ended no fly zone is a very bad idea for all the reasons Welch mentions, to say nothing of anything that might get us involved in a land war, but gifting the Libyan rebels a few Stingers with which to shoot down Gaddafi's crappy antique warplanes along with some satellite intelligence with which to plan attacks against remaining regime strongholds might tip the balance without having too much potential to blow up in our faces in the future.

  • ||

    Except we never supported OBL (he was in Saudi Arabia) or the Taliban ever. In fact the Taliban was why we left afghanistan, for them to sort it out on their own. Read Ahmed Rashid

  • Noninterventionist||

    for them to sort it out on their own

    How could it go wrong?

  • ||

    military expenditure is the item most likely to be cut because, unlike mandatory entitlements, it is discretionary

    Psst, hey, Niall. Its all discretionary. Congress is under no enforceable obligation to write welfare checks.

  • ||

    ""Congress is under no enforceable obligation to write welfare checks.""

    Except pretty much everyone on the hill is obligated if they want to get re-elected. Assuming welfare = SS and Medicare.

  • ChrisO||

    True. It's much easier to just debase the currency and keep on writing checks for the same nominal amount.

    Not that anything like that would ever happen.

  • DNS||

    Congress is under no enforceable obligation to write welfare checks.

    Or write Social Security checks either. Or pay Medicare claims, for that matter.

  • ||

    Or to fund the war department and its parasite pussies.

  • Richared ||

    If anybody was going to invade Libya it should be the Europeans. If Libya turns into Somalia on the Med, Europe is going to be flooded with refugees from all over Africa.

    Europeans won't use their militaries on a brutal dictator, but watch how fast they turn them on boat people.

  • sevo||

    Richared |3.9.11 @ 5:10PM|#
    "Europeans won't use their militaries on a brutal dictator, but watch how fast they turn them on boat people."

    Euros don't *have* a military; they've blown all their money on free stuff to buy votes.

  • ||

    The kind who worries about the myriad unintended consequences of war.

    Frivolous libertarian handwringing; what could possibly go wrong?

  • Cruz||

    lol touche`

  • ||

    No quarrel with the article of any consequence, and I hate to cavil but ....Who am I kidding? I LOVE to cavil.

    I think "indigineous" was supposed to be "indigenous". I get paid by the word. That will be 8 cents please.

    But really, it was a fine article.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Actually he meant to write "disingenuous." Fast typing skillz can sometimes be a curse.

  • ||

    Not only no, but fuck no. This is an internal matter and doesn't pose a threat to us at all.

    Humanitarian assistance at the refugee camps, at most.

  • SpongePaul||

    I say dont help per say. but do estqablish a no fly to hold off the crazy bastards jets. This could be done in a few hours and cost the US nothing. Fly in from the rebel controlled east and cover the skys. take on all comers. that way you need not defend an entire country, just a few forward and key areas. Now here is the Genius, Use the billions that the world has frozen from the ghadafi family to pay for the planes and the crews. thereby making gadafi pay for his own destruction. poetic if i must say so, poetic and brilliantly simple!

  • Realist||

    Should be....I am just guessing English is not your first language.

  • DJF||

    Let me guess, you have never been in the US military and have no clue on what it takes to set up a no fly zone?

  • Realist||

    I am just guessing English is not your first language.

  • ola||

    dick morris says we should drug test every libyan before we commit to a no fly zone.

  • Qadaffi||

    Indeed. Drugs and Al Qaeda caused this mess

  • ||

    I will give Obama credit when it's due. His hands-off approach to Libya has been great so far. If only he'd take the hands-off approach to domestic policy.

  • RyanXXX||

    From the deranged mind of Christopher Hitchens:

    "American Inaction Favors Qadaffi"
    http://www.slate.com/id/2287506/

    The guy's gone off the deep end. Apparently he thinks two American wars in Muslim lands isn't enough

  • Cytotoxic||

    I don't like Hitchens and the US should stay out of Libya, but I hate this idea of 'enough wars'. It doesn't matter whether we are fighting no wars or 5 wars; the merit of armed action against a nation stands independently. There is no basis for a 'war quota' or 'war limit'.

  • philosophiere||

    What merits are those, precisely?

  • Cytotoxic||

    The only criterion is whether that nation/organization is a threat to the rights of Americans. This doesn't seem to be the case with Qaddafi at least since 2003.

  • Bradley||

    Spending money and blowing shit up!

  • DJF||

    “””””But the pilots of Qaddafi's own air force, who flew their planes to Malta rather than let themselves be used against civilians, have demonstrated more courage and principle than the entire U.S. Sixth Fleet.”””

    He is so deranged and confused that he thinks that the US Sixth Fleet are the ones who make the decision to attack Libya.

  • DJF||

    Also the Sixth Fleet is not what it once was, most of the ships are now part of the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean involved in the other two wars the Hitchens supported but will never fight in.

  • ||

    Inaction favors Qadaffi - he has more guns. Send humanitarian aid, park a hospital ship in the Med, and punch some large holes in his airstrips. Let the Euros deal with it from there.

  • RyanXXX||

    Inaction=action, nonintervention=intervention, neutrality=war crime,
    war=peace,
    2+2=5

  • bigT||

    Experts seem to agree that Qadaffi will win without intervention of some sort.

    "James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee that Gaddafi has consolidated his position in recent days and that his forces are far better equipped than the rebels, giving him a clear advantage."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02000.html

  • Socrates||

    Regretting following the path of non-intervention is akin to regretting that you didn’t win the lottery because you declined to purchase a ticket. Of course, no thought is given to whether your ticket would have been the winner.

    http://solutionproblem.wordpre.....libya-yet/

  • NotSure||

    It is actually European nations that should be more concerned over Libya, especially Britain and Italy, not that I believe they should intervene either.

    Those governments had such a cozy relationship with that thug, ignoring his gross violations long before even this civil war started, now suddenly they discover their morals and righteousness regarding Khadafi.

  • ||

    like France and Germany's relationship with Saddam. But no one on the left nor anyone in europe cares.

  • Hugh Akston||

    What is up with all the blogwhoring here lately? It was bad enough with rectal, but now we have Gregory Dondero and Socrates.

    I know self-promotion is a typicla libertarian thing to do, but this is getting ridiculous.

  • Paul||

    I looked at your blog once. All the posts were the same!!11!!one!!

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • Balbo||

    "Locally owned revolutions always have more sticking power."

    Not necessarily. The American revolution was won in part due to French intervention on the side of the revolutionaries. The French sold us arms, used warships, and even landed troops on American soil.

  • Balbo||

    I should clarify. Although there was French intervention, there's no doubt the revolution was "owned" by Americans. Why can't the same model be applied elsewhere?

  • sevo||

    Balbo|3.9.11 @ 8:49PM|#
    "Not necessarily. The American revolution was won in part due to French intervention on the side of the revolutionaries. The French sold us arms,"
    Cite, please.

    "...used warships..."
    Nope; they weren't about to put their fleet in harm's way.

    "and even landed troops on American soil."
    As did the Brits; Hessians, ~1/4 of the troops fighting the rebels.

  • ||

    And look how well that decision worked for Louis XVI.

  • Angus MacAskill||

    "Ronald Reagan bombed Libya," former Pennsylvania senator and current presidential aspirant (no really) Rick Santorum said in Iowa this week. "If you want to be Reaganesque, it seems the path is pretty clear here....

    The Great Reagan teaches us that we should lob a lot of very expensive munitions at Tripoli, miss Qaddaffi, and kill a few dozen Libyan civilians. Since it worked so well last time.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Well, for a lame bombing campaign, it did. Qaddafi fucked right off. Of course, we really should have invaded and had Qaddafi killed.

  • Secret Travel Agent||

    What's wrong with the 80's bombing? Seemed to keep Libya in line. In fact it was Bush's foreign adventures that made Qaddaffi relent on the nuke program just a few years ago without even firing a shot. Unfortunately our Captain Zero has no teeth, so the bad regions are running amok again, instead of ducking for cover.

    No need to invade, just bomb, hand them a list of rules and draw a box for them to sit inside. If they break a rule or go outside the box, bring back the hammer, repeat. It worked like a charm in WWII with post-war German resistance. Its a natural millions of years old strategy, try watching some nature documentaries Angus, less utopia fantasy comics.

    Its what Clinton should have done with Iraq in the 90s instead of getting clumsy sex from fugly chicks. It's why Democrats make lousy foreign policy presidents, too busy knob polishing and not enough bully punching.

    I'll take a crazy Bush over a wimp Obama anyday - at least he's got two dictator scum notches on his belt. O's only got a vegetable garden and a stutter.

  • DJF||

    “””No need to invade, just bomb, hand them a list of rules and draw a box for them to sit inside. If they break a rule or go outside the box, bring back the hammer, repeat. It worked like a charm in WWII with post-war German resistance.”””

    The US occupied Germany after WW2 and still has troops there today. To follow the German example the US would have to occupy Libya for at least 60 years.

  • ||

    and bombing only did not work in kosovo, despite how much our government said it did. remember the whistleblower who exposed the "plinking tanks" controversy? that our hit percent was extremely low, even though the Clinton administration along with DoD lied and said it was high.

    No, you can't win war if you don't go on the ground.

  • Brian||

    And the hundreds of thousand dead Iraqi's are worth getting "a dictator scum"? You really don't mind that you were lied to about all those non-existent wmd's do you just as long as America get's to blow shit up? It's fucked up pathetic war-mongering idiot's like you that make the whole of the Muslim world hate America retard.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Those Iraqis were killed by those America hating Moslems you just mentioned. I think their motivations are a little more complex than you think.

  • ||

    Actually it did work very well;there were no more terrorist attacks against the USA for almost 5 years.

  • ||

    I read the article linked:
    http://reason.com/archives/200.....-hyperbole
    about Russia ambitions.
    But - stop here - why did I write here "ambitions"? Why do you think that Russia does not deserve to rebound itself? [sans Poland and other nations and lands naturally]. If Russia is to grow - again - peacefully - it has the right to do so. It even has a right to have, say, 12 airplane carriers!
    On the other hand: why USA do not drop, say, Hawaii? and numerous, numerous, numerous other "possessions"? Why USA does not rollback to the original England, leaving for the Indian people _their_ lands? [Poland was under Russian carving 200 years, until 1918]. America is too grand, too righteous, and has a big army - and that is the reason that it is so globally arrogant.
    Dear Mr. Matt Welch - scribble something from the perspective of the _others_. Like Dale Carnegie was always suggesting. Besides - I am Pole, so I do not support _any_ militaristic organisations or designs.
    Especially, nowadays - the American ones, dotted with aggression after aggression and establishing even a bear poking post on the Polish soil. Is this annexation, step-by-step, anew? Poles extended their "hospitality", may regret it after a longer time. Many, many did, who "hosted" Americans. Not much is written about 250,000 killed Filipinos? The "Russkies" were far from that single number, as far as Poland is concerned - at that same time.

  • Peenchy||

    Someone once told me Poles were complete window-lickers. You, my friend, have completely blown that stereotype out of the water.

    Thank you.

  • 0x90||

    "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically-elected governments." (McCain)

    Give the guy a chance -- he only meant that he wanted to invent facebook.

  • ||

    I'll take a crazy Bush over a wimp Obama anyday - at least he's got two dictator scum notches on his belt. O's only got a vegetable garden and a stutter.
    http://elwood.blog.hr/

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    But just imagine how many jobs our protracted involvement in a civil war would create? We could save the economy by getting involved, and who knows, all that misplaced stolen money might accidentally cure cancer or create flying cars or sex-robots or...

    ...it will look more like every other foreign civil war this government drunkenly marched into.

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • ||

    You won't have to now; this country is lost... Worse yet, to al-Qaeda. http://bit.ly/eho88b

    I do not favor war at all... But it is TOO LATE to do anything now... I would, however, have preferred that our US leader tell the protestors that Democracy is not anger in the streets...

  • ||

    so nice,air max 90 current support you.

  • ||

    I'm reading Bob Timberg's book on McCain;if I'd read it 20 years ago I'd have realized the only good thing he ever did was refuse to make a statement against the war while he was a prisoner.

  • sophie||

    Film is a different medium than print. Rather than characters making speeches, Rand's philosophy ought to be shown via the characters doing something interesting.

  • kelly||

    Whoa...since when did you guys start doing game commentary?

  • nike running shoes||

    so helpful

  • tory burch||

    oh,good post,good point of view.
    thanks for your shanring,it's valuable information.

  • beiduibei||

    thank u

  • xiingguan||

    This movie has some lebron 9 for sale of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen...That is, it lebron 9 china for sale struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel

  • xiingguan||

    asdvgasvcasv

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement