Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Can a Real Libertarian Support the War in Iraq?
That's the question that libertarian law professor Randy Barnett asks in his op/ed today in the Wall Street Journal. A taste:
While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable libertarians may differ greatly.
Many libertarians, and perhaps most libertarian intellectuals, opposed the war in Iraq even before its inception. They believed Saddam's regime neither directly threatened the U.S. nor harbored or supported the terrorist network responsible for Sept. 11. They also feared the risk of harmful, unintended consequences. Some may also have believed that since the U.S. was not attacked by the government of Iraq, any such war was aggressive rather than defensive in nature.
Other libertarians, however, supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack...
These libertarians are still rooting for success in Iraq because it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine the fight against those who declared war on the U.S. They are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war--as Ron Paul does--and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people.
Whole Barnett op/ed here. reason's 2003 roundtable on "Forcing Freedom" here.
Hat tip to Reason Foundation co-founder Manny Klausner.
thoreau|7.17.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Addendum: Maybe, once upon a time, there was a case that could
have been made if one accepted faulty information at face value.
But given what we now know, and given that it's a failed program, I
don't see how a libertarian can support a failed and expensive
program.
For the record, I never supported it.
Anonymous Bastert|7.17.07 @ 2:41PM|#
I think we all know self described libertarians who were on
either side of this issue.
Compare our variety of views to those of Democrats, who either
supported the war because they liked it or supported the war
because they were afraid of appearing "weak."
|7.17.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Of course. But does this war serve any liberating
function, long term? Maybe, but it's looking increasingly likely
that an equally oppressive government to the one we toppled will
spring up after we leave.
Should've listened to me and partitioned (or at least strongly
federalized) Iraq in the first place. I told George, but he
wouldn't stop playing Sudoku.
I don't see how opposition or support to this war makes
libertarians question their support of Ron Paul. If his election
gave us an out-and-out defeat in Iraq--something I think is quite
unlikely--wouldn't the domestic effects of a libertarian president
far outweigh any consequences from that loss?
D.A. Ridgely|7.17.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Contra thoreau, I think Barnett's basic point is correct, though I quibble with some of his reasoning.
|7.17.07 @ 2:49PM|#
the problem is, if Iraq had really been a threat, preemption
could be construed as self-defense. As it was discovered he was not
a threat, there was no self-defense and therefore it was really
just an act of agression. Not knowing whether someone is a threat
or not, it depends on how much you value principle over
consequences and if its not obvious by now, Americans place very
little value on principle.
As the war stands today, neither principle nor consequences can
guide us because we simply don't know the right course. Most of us
think the right course is leaving, so we find ourselves in a place
where you could theoretically be a libertarian and have beliefs for
staying or leaving, but to err on the side of correct
libertarianism to start, you would have had to choose not to
invade.
|7.17.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Absolutely.
The war in Iraq is as justified as fighting the National Socialists
after the US was attacked by Japan. If you're going to have a war,
you go after your enemy's allies.
This is the same doctrine as ridding your backyard of all snakes,
not just the one that bit you.
robc|7.17.07 @ 2:51PM|#
They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in
part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle
East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic
reformers.
While I have no problem with Saddam being gone, if the above was
the reason, why would we have started with Iraq (well, after
Afghanistan)? It seems like it that is the rational, Saudi Arabia
should have been the target.
|7.17.07 @ 2:55PM|#
LIbertarian principles are a crummy guide to international relations, aside from trade issues. Sometimes it makes sense to use pressure on other governments to encourage them to act in pre-liberty ways, but the tools for such pressure are limited and crude.
|7.17.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Wholly aside from the merits of Randy Barnett's op-ed, what makes anyone think it's a good idea for libertarians to start fighting over who's "really" libertarian"? Is anyone else reminded of the "Splitter!" scene in Life of Brian?
|7.17.07 @ 2:59PM|#
"They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part
from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle
East..."
Didn't the corrupt dictator Saddam Hussein do a pretty fair job of
repressing radical Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq? I don't recall
any suicide terrorist attacks there before we invaded.
Charles|7.17.07 @ 3:03PM|#
A libertarian can support the war, but at this point I don't think a capital-L Libertarian can.
VM|7.17.07 @ 3:04PM|#
"J Golden Rockwell | July 17, 2007, 2:51pm | #
Absolutely.
The war in Iraq is as justified as fighting the National Socialists
after the US was attacked by Japan. If you're going to have a war,
you go after your enemy's allies."
who was Iraq allied with?
ed|7.17.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Why stop at Iraq?
Balkans? Horn of Africa? Lebanon? Grenada?
Anywhere at all? Or 19th-century isolationism?
Dave W.|7.17.07 @ 3:09PM|#
For the record, I never supported it.
You have gotten very clear about that this year. Which is good, of
course.
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.17.07 @ 3:11PM|#
They are concerned that Americans may get the misleading
impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war--as Ron Paul
does--and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to
this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation inhibited a
wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote
the general welfare of the American people.
We should be afraid people might reject libertarianism because they
think it stands in opposition to a disastrous war now opposed by
pretty much everyone who hasn't sworn eternal fealty to President
Dumbass?
|7.17.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Let's forget the absurd notion of "self-defense" and consider
the real point of our Middle East policy - control/protection of
the oil fields.
Can a libertarians support the use of the military for this
purpose? Shouldn't the oil companies be paying for this themselves
instead of taking money from taxpayers to do it?
|7.17.07 @ 3:16PM|#
This is the same doctrine as ridding your backyard of all
snakes, not just the one that bit you.
Uh, that would actually be really stupid. Most snakes don't bite
humans at all.
Though, stomping on every garter snake in sight because a few years
ago, you got bitten by a rattlesnake you wouldn't quit poking, does
sound like an accurate analogy to the Bush administration's Middle
East foreign policy.
|7.17.07 @ 3:21PM|#
those poor poor garter snakes.
Or you could kill the King Snake that was keeping your yard
venomous snake free all those years, thus inviting rattlesnakes to
come settle in your yard.
Maybe stomping on all snakes is not very useful.
NOT ERIC DONDERO|7.17.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Come on guys, 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11, and 9/11. Rudi Giuliani 9/11 9/11 9/11, with 9/11. [insert silly, inaccurate World war II analogy here] 9/11!
|7.17.07 @ 3:24PM|#
We need a National Libertarian Commitiee, so we can all know where to apply for Permission to be Considered a Libertarian. I nominate Warren and Thoreau to this committee, they seem to be the most qualified to judge.
Stephen the Goldberger|7.17.07 @ 3:25PM|#
not any more. With no weapons of mass destruction found, a
mounting death toll, billions of dollars spent, and nothing close
to a peaceful democracy in power, it's just not possible to be
libertarian and support the war in iraq as an essential government
program.
for the record, i did support it once.
|7.17.07 @ 3:27PM|#
They are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war--as Ron Paul does--and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war.
It would be nice if we could debate this issue like mature adults.
Unfortunately, the Eric Donderos of the world would rather scream,
launch f-bombs, and impose libertarian litmus tests, than to be
seen having rational discourse on the topic.
|7.17.07 @ 3:27PM|#
I think a large part of the reason libertarianism isn't a steady
guide for international relations is the fact that libertarianism
assumes that there will be only one entity, the govt, which
initiates force. The reality may approach this model in the
domestic sphere, but in the international one it doesn't hold at
all. Each nation is expected to initiate force to acheive its
goals.
But, while the philosophy of libertarianism doesn't specify when
force should be used overseas, I would think that the tendency of a
libertarian would be to try to minimize the exercise of such force.
In any case, I don't support withdrawal from Iraq because of my
libertarian beliefs, I support it because it's clearly in our
national self-interest whatever one's political philosophy is.
|7.17.07 @ 3:27PM|#
You know, if we would just get the government out of the military business a private group of volunteers would have...ah, never mind
|7.17.07 @ 3:28PM|#
It was like being bitten by a snake and then taking a whack at a wasp nest in retaliation.
Edward|7.17.07 @ 3:29PM|#
I wonder how could a truly libertarian mini-state defend itself against a big, belligerant super state. I guess we'll never know.
|7.17.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Todd Fletcher,
I think we need to nominate Eric FUCKING Dondero to that committee
to preserve balance. ;-)
|7.17.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Or you could kill the King Snake that was keeping your yard
venomous snake free all those years, thus inviting rattlesnakes to
come settle in your yard.
LiT, that's actually a much better analogy for Saddam, though I'm
not sure how much of a rattlesnake Iran is either.
But I think most of the poor bastards at Gitmo are the garter snake
variety (or possibly just really big earthworms).
Mike Laursen|7.17.07 @ 3:35PM|#
I know at least one prominent Libertarian, normally pretty sane, who completely buys into the idea that we are liberating the people of Iraq.
|7.17.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Edward,
You may want to look up "American Revolution" and "War of 1812" in
your local library's card catalog for more information on these
obscure conflicts between imperialist superpower and decentralized,
minarchist nation.
lunchstealer|7.17.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Can a Real Libertarian Support the War in Iraq?
Not without significant augments to the musculo-skeletal structure.
Heck, one tank would probably be enough to crush most libertarians,
although Radley could probably hold one of those Strikers if it was
empty.
|7.17.07 @ 3:36PM|#
The war in Iraq is as justified as fighting the National
Socialists after the US was attacked by Japan. If you're going to
have a war, you go after your enemy's allies.
You are aware, aren't you, that we didn't go to war against the
National Socialists because the US was attacked by Germany's ally
Japan. We only went to war against Germany when Germany declared
war on us, on December 11, 1941. Similarly, we went to war in 1942
against Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary when *they* declared war
against us. We *didn't* go to war with Finland (another of
Germany's allies) because they never declared war against us or
attacked us.
|7.17.07 @ 3:37PM|#
I think the libertarian position is to avoid permanent alliances
(note: this does not discount have temporary ones when our security
is threatened!), stay out of how other countries run their internal
affairs, truly free trade, and end end to public foreign aid.
Also, a scaling down of the cold-war era national security state,
and a rolling back of the warfare state.
With regard to humanitarian concerns (i.e. Darfur) we should only
get involvedled if there is a very wide international consensus and
we are acting in concert with various other nations.
This is just my opinion, I don't pretend to speak for
everybody.
|7.17.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Dan T.,
We get almost as much oil from Venezuela alone than from the entire
Middle East. And Venezuela is totally dependent on the U.S. market
for the foreseeable future, all the Hugo Fear™ notwithstanding. So
"War for Oil" is crap. War for a Big Base in the Middle East/War to
Try to Stabilize the Middle East is another issue.
|7.17.07 @ 3:40PM|#
"""Let's forget the absurd notion of "self-defense" and consider
the real point of our Middle East policy - control/protection of
the oil fields."""
And how's that one working out for us?
|7.17.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Seamus, good points. Mr Rockefeller should keep in mind that that declaration of war by Germany wasn't just a rhetorical act; it signaled their intent to attack our shipping on the Atlantic, so we really had no option but to declare war on them.
|7.17.07 @ 3:42PM|#
No nation in history has been able to stabilize the Middle East
unless the brutally conquer the whole territory and rule it with a
despotic iron fist.
Call me crazy, but I can't see the United States doing that anytime
soon.
|7.17.07 @ 3:43PM|#
The war in Iraq is as justified as fighting the National
Socialists after the US was attacked by Japan. If you're going to
have a war, you go after your enemy's allies.
Just for the record, Germany declared war on the U.S. prior to our
declaration of war on them.
|7.17.07 @ 3:43PM|#
"""But I think most of the poor bastards at Gitmo are the garter
snake variety (or possibly just really big earthworms).""""
To say the least, some are because some other tribal leader said
they were.
|7.17.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Can we all agree to something? No more World War II analogies to the "War on Terror".
|7.17.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Pro Lib,
I think the problem is that if the Middle East's oil becomes more
expensive or harder to get, the Middle East's oil customers in
Europe and India will start competing with us for oil from
Venezuela and Mexico, driving up our prices too.
|7.17.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Cesar,
Which is why I support restoring the Ottoman Empire. Or, better
yet, the Byzantine Empire.
rho|7.17.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Neal Boortz springs to mind.
Neal Boortz is a libertarian because he doesn't like high taxes.
His support of a massive, unending war only proves it.
You can be a libertarian and support a war. You cannot be
a libertarian and support the Global War on Terrorism--an
undeclared war against an unspecified enemy without anything like
an end in sight. Since Iraq is largely sold as the front-line on
the GWoT, you can't support it and be considered a libertarian.
|7.17.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Not without significant augments to the musculo-skeletal
structure. Heck, one tank would probably be enough to crush most
libertarians, although Radley could probably hold one of those
Strikers if it was empty.
lunchstealer wins the thread!
Mike Laursen|7.17.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Call me crazy, but I can't see the United States doing that
anytime soon.
Ah, but we could outsource the brutality and iron-fisted
ruling.
|7.17.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Ah, but we could outsource the brutality and iron-fisted
ruling.
Which would make us complicit in it, which makes people resent
American power and then the United States. Which leads to terrorism
abroad and at home.
No thanks.
|7.17.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Edward | July 17, 2007, 3:52pm | #
Crimethink,
What's a card catalog?
Ding, Ding! And Edward shows his age(and by proxy experience).
|7.17.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Heaven forbid that the two people in Mississippi who still think the Iraq war was a good idea get the impression that libertarians opposed it.
Fluffy|7.17.07 @ 4:06PM|#
I think the progress of the "War on Terror" to date has
demonstrated better than anything else why Trostkyite Libertarians
like Barnett are way off base.
The real reason not to support aggressive war to export liberty is
because the actions you are likely to have to take in the course of
that war undermine liberty both in the target of your aggression
and at home.
We saw the true face of the violent export of liberty at Abu
Ghraib. That's what happens when you realize too late that forcing
people into a subordinate status is not likely to make them love
you or your ideology.
We continue to see the true face of the violent export of liberty
every day when LGF types and Freepers rant on and on about
defeatists and traitors, when Glenn Beck tells a Congressman-elect
that his default assumption is that he's a traitor, when our
government decides it has to tap everyone's phones without a
warrant, etc.
This is what frivolous war looks like, people. This is what empires
DO. I have to admit I didn't see it coming. I guess some lessons
have to be relearned every couple of generations.
|7.17.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Other libertarians, however, supported the War on
Poverty because they viewed it as part of a larger effort to
promote functioning markets in low-income areas. They
viewed generational poverty as resulting in part from the
corrupt governments, which have effectively repressed
entrepreneurs in urban neighborhoods. Although opposed to
welfare generally, these libertarians believed that a
strategy of fomenting people with money in poor
neighborhoods might well be the best way to promote the
development of functioning markets there rather than solely
trying to deal with the consequences of poverty...
These libertarians are still rooting for success in the War on
Poverty because it would make Americans more
prosperous, while defeat would greatly undermine the
effort to raise living standards in poor areas They are
concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all
libertarians oppose the War on Poverty--as Ron Paul
does--and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to
this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation inhibited a
wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote
the general welfare of the American people.
Libertarianism, more than any other ideology I'm aware of, is
concerned with means, not ends. It doesn't matter if your Big
Government program is aimed at achieving things libertarians likew;
it's still a Big Government program.
|7.17.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Compare our variety of views to those of Democrats, who
either supported the war because they liked it or supported the war
because they were afraid of appearing "weak."
58% of the Democrats in Congress voted against the AUMF, in the
runup to the 2002 elections, and ordinary Democrats opposed it by
even more a landslide.
|7.17.07 @ 4:13PM|#
There are two real conflicts between the war in Iraq and
libertarianism.
The first is that Iraq, as a nation, posed no threat to our
country. Even with WMD they don't have the capability to attack us
directly. That is the reason that the Bush admin tied it in to the
GWoT (or the "Hunt for Bin Laden" as it was called at the time). As
for attacking our "interests", that is another matter, but then why
are our "interests" in the middle east to begin with?
The second is that of "nation building". Libertarians (little l)
generally believe that the best government is a small government
and that which leaves us to our devices. In the case of Iraq, prior
to invasion we were "directing" their nation by instituting no-fly
zones, economic embargoes and "oil for food" programs. Just how is
that laissez-faire?
If the Bush admin had truly wanted to invade a country with ties to
Bin Laden, radical extremism and terrorism, we'd be ass deep in
Saudi Arabia right now not fomenting unrest in a country that was
previously stable and one of the few "secular" governments of the
region.
thoreau|7.17.07 @ 4:14PM|#
joe, you kicked ass there. Seriously. I remember a couple weeks
ago when you totally pwned Eric Dondero on libertarianism.
You may not be one of us, but you understand us on a very deep
level. For that I salute you, joe, and I'm glad you're here..
|7.17.07 @ 4:14PM|#
joe-
The Democrats that voted against it were almost entirely secure in
their Senate seats. Name me one Senate democrat that took
a brave political stand, being from a red state and soon to face
re-election.
The Democrats also proceeded to pass over Howard Dean (an anti-war
candidate) for John Kerry, who voted for the war.
|7.17.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Dan T.,
We get almost as much oil from Venezuela alone than from the entire
Middle East. And Venezuela is totally dependent on the U.S. market
for the foreseeable future, all the Hugo Fear™ notwithstanding. So
"War for Oil" is crap. War for a Big Base in the Middle East/War to
Try to Stabilize the Middle East is another issue.
So why would we want to stablize the Middle East and/or put
military bases there if not for oil? Oil is the whole reason
anybody cares about the place.
|7.17.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Libertarianism, more than any other ideology I'm aware of,
is concerned with means, not ends. It doesn't matter if your Big
Government program is aimed at achieving things libertarians likew;
it's still a Big Government program.
When all other ends become subordinate to Liberty, it only seems
like it's a focus on means.
|7.17.07 @ 4:16PM|#
We saw the true face of the violent export of liberty at Abu
Ghraib. That's what happens when you realize too late that forcing
people into a subordinate status is not likely to make them love
you or your ideology.
We continue to see the true face of the violent export of liberty
every day when LGF types and Freepers rant on and on about
defeatists and traitors, when Glenn Beck tells a Congressman-elect
that his default assumption is that he's a traitor, when our
government decides it has to tap everyone's phones without a
warrant, etc.
This is what frivolous war looks like, people. This is what empires
DO. I have to admit I didn't see it coming. I guess some lessons
have to be relearned every couple of generations.
Quoted for truth.
|7.17.07 @ 4:17PM|#
I'me afraid your father has been very badly pwned. I don't know
if he's going to make it.
If you look at this CAT scan, you can see that he's been pwned
here, here, and here. We'll know more in a few hours.
|7.17.07 @ 4:20PM|#
As for attacking our "interests", that is another matter,
but then why are our "interests" in the middle east to begin
with?
Because we need the oil.
It's really pretty amazing how obvious it all is, and yet
Americans, not willing to come to terms with exactly what it takes
to keep our spot on top of the world, feel the need to debate
"self-defense" and "spreading liberty" and what not.
thoreau|7.17.07 @ 4:24PM|#
joe, if I ever meet you in person I'm going to buy you a beer.
And even though I don't drink, I'll also buy a beer for myself just
so I can raise it in salute to you.
I'll be in Rhode Island for a week in August, FWIW. I won't have a
car, sadly, but if you feel like venturing into RI I'll gladly buy
you a beer.
seer|7.17.07 @ 4:31PM|#
We don't need the oil itself. We need the oil to be traded in US Dollars. That's right, the whole war actually comes back to the dangers of fiat money.
|7.17.07 @ 4:32PM|#
I must say that I'm kind of nostalgic for the card catalogs. While I'm very much a pro-technology guy, I don't think that completely eliminating ink-and-paper records in favor of computer records is a wise thing, given the possibility of power outages, network problems, etc.
|7.17.07 @ 4:32PM|#
By god, we won the War on Education. Now that was a good war. By
banding together, standing as a nation, we've been able to stamp
out any vestige of education, in just two generations. I think we
can all be proud of what Americans can do when we put our mind to
it.
Not a snake has been left behind, not even the garden variety.
|7.17.07 @ 4:32PM|#
joe,
sweet, you're getting 2 beers, rockin
crimethink,
I just like snakes, the poor misunderstood creatures, :(
|7.17.07 @ 4:33PM|#
So why would we want to stablize the Middle East and/or put
military bases there if not for oil? Oil is the whole reason
anybody cares about the place.
But George said it was to liberate the EYE-RACK-EEE people from a
ruthless dictator! That's why we're there, Dan! It's a humanitarian
mission..... a hum..an..i..tarian....mis..sion......
*sobs*
|7.17.07 @ 4:34PM|#
crimethink,
I got a papercut from a card catalog. I vowed revenge that day. It
is almost complete now. Fucking Dewey.
|7.17.07 @ 4:36PM|#
"So why would we want to stablize the Middle East and/or put
military bases there if not for oil? Oil is the whole reason
anybody cares about the place."
Stabilization of the oil market is only one of the reasons for our
interventionism in the Middle East. We are also there trying to
create democracies so Israel will have frienlier neighbors and also
for a Wilsonian concept of spreading democracy and being the
policeman of the world. I don't agree with our involvement over
there for any of those reasons.
|7.17.07 @ 4:37PM|#
LiT,
Are you and thoreau trying to get joe drunk so you can have your
way with him? His dainty Irish physique can't handle alcohol, you
know.
|7.17.07 @ 4:38PM|#
War is the health of the state... and libertarians want people
to be healthy... so the answer is YES!
But really, the answer will emerge from the Paul vs. Barnett
steel-cage match next month. We'll just have to be patient.
lunchstealer|7.17.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Cesar,
Which is why I support restoring the Ottoman Empire. Or, better
yet, the Byzantine Empire.
Yeah, but that would make the lyrics to "Byzantium (not Istanbul
(not Constantinople))" kind of complicated.
|7.17.07 @ 4:44PM|#
I support restoring the Caveman Empire. Back in the day, you could just sit around munching on brontosaurus drumsticks, and have sex with any chick you happened to see, without having to worry about the whole marriage and dating shit.
|7.17.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Dan T.,
It's not that oil is irrelevant; it just isn't the sole reason for
our invasion. If all we cared about was oil, why not just take over
control of the oil wells? Heck, why not just conquer Mexico and
Venezuela? And Canada? Then we'd control all the resources we could
possibly need until Mr. Fusion comes along.
Our interest in the Middle East is oil based, but it's not all some
selfish, evil plot. We got dragged into the active involvement some
time ago to protect Europe's interests, something they and
people like you like to forget. And, of course, there's the spooky
religious motivations that may very well be the numero uno reason
for our intervention.
Of course, whatever our past motivations may have been, our
frustration after 9/11 is obviously our principal motivation today.
We wanted to try to use force to stabilize the Middle East. I'd say
we got that about 20% right, with some successes, but the remaining
80% is why we should stop intervening in the Middle East at all.
It's not about cutting and running, it's about focusing our
energies and our resources on more productive areas. We could've
designed and built a low-cost ground-to-orbit solution and
colonized several other worlds in the solar system for the cost of
this war--it's been that expensive.
|7.17.07 @ 4:54PM|#
We could've designed and built a low-cost ground-to-orbit
solution and colonized several other worlds in the solar system for
the cost of this war--it's been that expensive.
Holy hyperbole, Batman! All the money in the world wouldn't
accomplish those things, since we don't have the technology.
Anonymous Bastert|7.17.07 @ 4:58PM|#
I don't understand why it's an issue that "libertarianism
doesn't provide a guide to foreign policy."
It's as if our lack of dogmatic thinking on complex issues is a
weakness? What? The realm of international relations is
fascinating, and libertarianism is neither in conflict with nor in
perfect accordance with many of the mainstream ideologies there.
For example, a libertarian can reasonably be a foreign policy
liberal or a foreign policy realist. We probably all know
libertarians who are either of these, and that's not a
problem.
The discipline of international relations is best thought of in a
vacuum; Democrats can be realists, Republicans can be liberals, we
can all be institutionalists, so on and so forth.
Put another way, just because libertarians didn't have a
pre-conceived dogmatic approach to assaulting Iwo Jima doesn't mean
that we're less adept at marshalling armies than Democrats.
|7.17.07 @ 5:02PM|#
Libertarianism, more than any other ideology I'm aware of,
is concerned with means, not ends. It doesn't matter if your Big
Government program is aimed at achieving things libertarians likew;
it's still a Big Government program.
Accurate, insofar as it goes. However, libertarians (especially
former leftists like myself) distrust government mainly because a
government bureaucracy rarely accomplishes its ends and become
another burden on the taxpayer. In fact, government bureaucracies
often perpetuate the problem by undermining the real
solution.
The government bureaucracies also are prone to "mission creep" [eg:
Going from determining nutrional requirements to promoting bans on
"unhealthy choices"] and become self-promoting political
constituencies in themselves.
It is this tendency to become their own constituency - where they
influence the decisions as to whether their services are effective
or not - that makes libertarians wary of Big Government. Just as
militarists accuse those who oppose unneccessary weapons programs
of "trying to weaken the country", supporters of social programs
are quick to label their critics as "being against the poor." Once
started, Government programs are almost impossible to kill.
Anoynmous Bastard|7.17.07 @ 5:04PM|#
I should add, though, that only quasi Marxists like James
subscribe to the absurd-on-its-face Dependency Theory.
Go ahead an have a gander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory
|7.17.07 @ 5:05PM|#
I should add, though, that only quasi Marxists like James
subscribe to the absurd-on-its-face Dependency Theory.
Very true. That theory has been disproven especially in the last
thirty years, yet people still hold onto it.
|7.17.07 @ 5:05PM|#
His dainty Irish physique can't handle alcohol, you know.
Page 2 of my Stereotypes of the World says very
specifically:
Irish: Red haired, short, frail, lots of freckles,
believe in fairies, talk like leprechauns and drink ale and whisky
like fish.
|7.17.07 @ 5:11PM|#
Cesar,
Had Anonymous Baster written Compare our variety of views to
those of "Senate democrats that took a brave political stand, being
from a red state and soon to face re-election," who either...
I would have agreed. That minority faction of the party did support
the war.
But to answer your question, Chairman Bob Graham, a Senator from a
red state who was planning to run for president, voted against the
AUMF.
Can we all agree to something? No more World War II analogies
to the "War on Terror".
No, we can't. Iraq is too much like Stalingrad, Afghanistan is too
much like North Africa, and the soldiers there are too much like
the apolitical Afrika Corps, neglected by the ideologue fanatics in
the capital who only care about the second front in the two-front
war they started, for the World War II analogies to ever
disappear.
|7.17.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Joe-
Bob Grahm is an exception, in both that hes from a red state and
voted against the war, and in that he actually read the
intellegence report.
No, we can't. Iraq is too much like Stalingrad, Afghanistan is
too much like North Africa, and the soldiers there are too much
like the apolitical Afrika Corps, neglected by the ideologue
fanatics in the capital who only care about the second front in the
two-front war they started, for the World War II analogies to ever
disappear.
Best WWII analogy I've ever heard in relation to the War on
Terror.
|7.17.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Are you and thoreau trying to get joe drunk so you can have
your way with him? His dainty Irish physique can't handle alcohol,
you know.
Screw you, crimethinks! I'll take on all three of you, and kick
your arses! ;-)
|7.17.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Cesar,
Not one step back, you defeatists! No, you can't shorten the lines.
When we are on the offensive, we're winning.
The only way we can lose this war is if the enemy within undermines
our will.
|7.17.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Not one step back, you defeatists! No, you can't shorten the
lines. When we are on the offensive, we're winning.
The only way we can lose this war is if the enemy within undermines
our will.
Now THAT sounds like a drunken Irishman :)
|7.17.07 @ 5:42PM|#
It's not entirely insane to posit a WWII analogy, provided that
you think the Middle East poses a long-term threat comparable to
Nazi Germany. I think that viewpoint is entirely mistaken, myself,
but, taking that assumption as a given, well, we're still
occupying Germany.
For anyone who remains in favor of the war, just come out and say
that it took decades of occupation to ensure that Germany and Japan
made the full conversion to nonexpansionistic liberal societies and
that it'll take even longer to convert Iraq into a liberal society.
Are we willing to stay there like we have in Europe and in South
Korea? I just don't see our interests being the same in the Middle
East, despite the hype.
We're maintaining a relatively peaceful and stable Europe and East
Asia with our willingness to provide military protection and
guarantees to those regions. However, would we face utter chaos if
we pulled out and let Japan, South Korea, and the European nations
fend for themselves? And let them deal with the Middle East, which
is really their problem more than ours?
lunchstealer|7.17.07 @ 5:50PM|#
We could always stabilize the mideast the way we stabilized the midwest. Massive genocide of the population.
Anonymous Bastert|7.17.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Speaking of which... wasn't massive genocide how we pacified Japan and Germany as well?
|7.17.07 @ 6:51PM|#
lunchstealer,
I like you thinking. I've been advocating massive nuking since the
very beginning, but no one ever listens to me. Just think how
simple and quiet things would be if all potential terrorists were
vapor clouds drifting harmlessly over overpopulate India and China.
All the peace we would enjoy, only the sound of the voices in our
head to disturb us.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 8:03PM|#
We could always stabilize the mideast the way we stabilized
the midwest. Massive genocide of the population.
What "massive genocide"?
Got a cite? No you can't use Ward Churchill.
|7.17.07 @ 8:22PM|#
SIV is right. There was no genocide in the American West. Sand Creek and Wounded Knee were simply military operations against militant insurgents and the trail of tears was a relocation program that insured the safety of the natives.
|7.17.07 @ 8:34PM|#
"It would be a shame if this misinterpretation inhibited a
wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote
the general welfare of the American people."
I think it's possible to derive support for the war from
Libertarian Principles.
Name the Libertarian Principles at stake and I might be able to
tell whether you support the war, but I won't know for certain
whether you're a Real Libertarian. Theoretically, it's possible,
and sometimes happens, that non-Libertarians believe in and espouse
Libertarian Principles.
So the answer is yes, a Real Libertarian can support the War in
Iraq.
My opposition, by the way, was predicated on pragmatic concerns as
much as it was on Libertarian Principles. ...which would suggest, I
think, that it's also possible to oppose the Iraq War on
Libertarian Principles and not be a Real Libertarian.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 8:53PM|#
SIV is right. There was no genocide in the American West.
Sand Creek and Wounded Knee were simply military operations against
militant insurgents and the trail of tears was a relocation program
that insured the safety of the natives.
None of your examples constitute "genocide" even under a loose
definition of the term.
Rick H.|7.17.07 @ 8:59PM|#
SIV, how about you explain your own tight definition of genocide? I'm not up on the latest in historical revisionism.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 9:43PM|#
"Genocide" against indigenous peoples in the United States by
any definitioin is recent historical revisionism.
Genocide has been asserted without citation.
The obligation is on those making the assertion to provide a
citation of fact to support it.
|7.17.07 @ 9:47PM|#
SIV,
The US govt hired marksmen to shoot massive numbers of bison in an
effort to starve the Sioux. Not to mention the fact that we handed
out smallpox-laden blankets to various tribes.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 9:58PM|#
Cesar,
Had to look that one up! Can't say I'm ashamed to be unfamiliar
with the use of the term. The root is clear but does not indicate
the definition or usage.
I did find a good example of the "loose" definition of genocide-
... the denial of ethnic Hawaiian culture by the American
run public school system in Hawaii.....
By the "strict" definition of democide various depredations by
aboriginal Americans against those of non-aboriginal identity would
constitute democide. Guess they weren't quite as good at it
though.
|7.17.07 @ 10:02PM|#
SIV-
I got my definition after a quick google search. It comes from the
U.N. Convention on Genocide. And before you deride it because its
from the U.N., this is the U.N. of 1948, not Kofi Annon's U.U. The
declaration was in fact primarily drafted by the United States. It
reads:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 10:03PM|#
Not to mention the fact that we handed out smallpox-laden
blankets to various tribes.
Cite! Cite! Cite!
When, where, who is we?
|7.17.07 @ 10:08PM|#
SIV-
What is your personal definition of genocide? What would
constitute a genocide in your world? And what do you think happened
to the Natives in this country? "Transfer"?
SIV|7.17.07 @ 10:09PM|#
Cesar,
A rather "loose" definition.
Try The systematic and planned extermination of an entire
national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 10:15PM|#
The above is not "my personal definition" I found it as a "quick
google search".
I did not make the assertion of a genocide of indigenous Americans
so the burden of proof lies
with those who do.
|7.17.07 @ 10:21PM|#
I'm consumed with National Guilt over the Hawaiian school
thing though.
Keep burning that strawman. No one is asking you to feel guilty.
You didn't do anything to the Native Americans. This isn't about
"guilt" its about historical facts.
The Aztecs ripped the hearts out of human sacrifices daily. But
when I say this, Mexicans don't scream YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE ME
FEEL MESTIZO GUILT (tm).
SIV|7.17.07 @ 10:24PM|#
Where are your "facts" Cesar?
That is what I keep asking for.
The United States did not commit genocide against
the indigenous people of this continent.
GILMORE|7.17.07 @ 10:26PM|#
Thats funny
I came to read the posts just to see if Dondero showed up and got
his ass handed to him. The funny part is, I searched for dondero,
and all I find are 10 people making fun of him in
absentia
Fluffy|7.17.07 @ 10:48PM|#
Perhaps what SIV is tryig to say is that there was no systematic
"attempt" to actually exterminate the Native Americans.
Over a three century period, there were a series of encounters
between Native American groups and European groups. Each of these
encounters resulted in a further increase in pressure on the Native
Americans, and a gradual reduction in the geographical area under
their control. Did this overall process have quasi-genocidal
effects? Yes. But it's hard to call an ad hoc process that took
place over such a long time period with no real long term plan or
direction a systematic extermination.
|7.17.07 @ 10:52PM|#
SIV-
Go read your American history textbook to find out what happened.
I'm not going to give you a laundry list, quite frankly its not
worth my time when you could easily go find out about it on your
own.
And I think fluffy defined it best--it was a kind of quasi, ad-hoc
genocide.
I never asserted it was a genocide--only that what happened was
clearly a demographic catastrophe brought on by their encounter
with Europeans settlers which I did not have an appropriate name
for.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 10:55PM|#
Fluffy,
I'm asking those asserting there was genocide to prove it- or even
attempt to support the argument. This seems to be one of those
"Everybody knows....." things that no one here seems to know.Where
did you "learn" about this supposed genocide? I'm really
curious.
|7.17.07 @ 11:03PM|#
"I came to read the posts just to see if Dondero showed up and
got his ass handed to him. The funny part is, I searched for
dondero, and all I find are 10 people making fun of him in
absentia"
Real Libertarians are too busy trying to purge faux libertarians
from Congress to participate in these feckless amateur debates
about the essence of the True Faith. If you had a functioning
decoder ring, you'd already know who's who.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 11:06PM|#
Go read your American history textbook
What the one by Howard Zinn or Ward Churchill?
Seriously, that is what I am getting at, there is nothing
indicating a genocide of Indians in our history.It is one of those
things "everybody knows" oft asserted, often for identity political
reasons that has no factual grounding.
I'm on EDT this week so it is getting late.
Feel free to support your assertion here or in another thread. I'm
outta here.
|7.17.07 @ 11:13PM|#
What the one by Howard Zinn or Ward Churchill?
Burn strawman, burn! Hey, SIV--not everyone that disagrees with you
is a leftist. The person who is defending Zinn or Churchill is the
Cesar in your head, not the one on this thread.
Whichever one they used in your high school. Maybe The American
Pageant.
Can't say for sure if it was a genocide (and most mainstream
historians don't go that far, either) but what happened to the
Native Americans was often an act of agression by the federal
government, whether it be a broken treaty, forcible removal, the
killing of buffaloes, or the grabbing of land.
But white-washing what happened to the Natives--which you seem to
be doing--is simply being a right-wing version of Zinn.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 11:15PM|#
I never asserted it was a genocide--only that what happened
was clearly a demographic catastrophe brought on by their encounter
with Europeans settlers which I did not have an appropriate name
for.
Victory! Don't feel bad, I got a similar answer from a Professor in
an Anthropology class on the contact period in relation to the
military reconnaisance(sp) of SE North America by the Explorer
Hernando DeSoto.
Anyone else care to bring up those smallpox blankets again?
|7.17.07 @ 11:18PM|#
SIV--
Considering there was no knowledge of germ theory at the time the
alleged small-pox blankets incident took place, most mainstream
historians have concluded its a black legend.
And what victory did you exactly have, since I never said it
was a full-blown genocide?
|7.17.07 @ 11:19PM|#
SIV,
I suppose you need a citation to prove that Europeans took land
forcibly from the Native Americans, too.
Frankly, I don't have enough invested in this issue to do any
serious research, but you're a fool if you don't think white people
treated the natives in an extremely shameful manner, whether it
rises to the level of genocide or not.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 11:20PM|#
(and most mainstream historians don't go that far,
either)
VICTORY!!!!
I'm whitewashing nothing- just denying it was in any way genocide.
I would suggest that everyone question what "everyone knows...." on
a lot of other matters as well.
Grotius|7.17.07 @ 11:22PM|#
SIV,
The massacre of the Pequots as described in Bradford's work Of
Plymouth Plantation looks like genocide to me. In the mid-18th
century the Susquehannock people were wiped off the map by as I
recall a militia group associated with the fighting in the French
and Indian war.
Grotius|7.17.07 @ 11:25PM|#
Cesar,
White North Americans did commit genocidal acts and actrocities
against the original indigenous populations of the Americas. Then
again, acts of genocide were perpetrated against the Mormons and
the Acadians.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 11:26PM|#
Considering there was no knowledge of germ theory at the
time the alleged small-pox blankets incident took place, most
mainstream historians have concluded its a black legend.
And a pervasive one.
Crimethink,
you don't think white people treated the natives in an
extremely shameful manner, whether it rises to the level of
genocide or not.
it doesn't rise to that level. unlike say the treatment of
aboriginal peoples by the Australians.Our treatment of indigenous
people puts Canada to shame by comparison.
American Exceptionalism.....
|7.17.07 @ 11:28PM|#
Then again, acts of genocide were perpetrated against the
Mormons and the Acadians.
Everyone forgets about the Acadians, even though it had a big
effect on how the American colonists viewed the British after it
happened.
|7.17.07 @ 11:32PM|#
the treatment of aboriginal peoples by the
Australians
Quasi-genocide.
Our treatment of indigenous people puts Canada to shame by
comparison.
Quasi-genocide.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up Argentina, they probably come
closest to actually having a full-blown genocide.
There, happy now we got all the bases covered?
Grotius|7.17.07 @ 11:32PM|#
Cesar,
Well, note that I am referring to specific genocidal acts. The
entire history of post-Columbian contact can't be described that
way.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 11:32PM|#
Wow, SIV, your life must be pretty pitiful.
Hey ,I waste a whole lot less time here than you.
The purported "genocide" of Native Americans is one of those
irritatingly wrong things that "everybody knows...."
I consider it a "victory" that there might now be a few less of
"everybody" now.
|7.17.07 @ 11:34PM|#
Well, note that I am referring to specific genocidal acts.
The entire history of post-Columbian contact can't be described
that way.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Grotius|7.17.07 @ 11:34PM|#
Cesar,
Anyway, American policy for many years was in part informed by the
notion that segregating the indigenous population will more quickly
lead to their complete demise. That was a very common notion in
fact in the 19th century. While not genocide it isn't praiseworthy
either.
SIV|7.17.07 @ 11:39PM|#
Well, note that I am referring to specific genocidal
acts
Suprised no one brought up California.
Closest thing to "genocide" of the natives in our history. Largely
lacked the government component.
I in no way deny bad treatment of native peoples in our country. It
was not a one sided contest of good vs evil or victim and oppressor
though.
Fluffy|7.17.07 @ 11:41PM|#
I think New Zealand was a full-blown actual genocide, though. One of the few genocides in history that actually succeeded.
|7.17.07 @ 11:54PM|#
SIV,
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're referencing genocides left and right
without citations. Do you have proof, or shall I do a victory dance
of my own?
|7.17.07 @ 11:57PM|#
These comments explain why we'll never move beyond the margins of political thought. Of course, we have rockin avatars!
|7.17.07 @ 11:57PM|#
SIV,
I wasn't referring to the amount of time you spend here, I was
referring to the fact that you're "shouting" VICTORY because no one
really cares enough to look up sources on a topic.
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.18.07 @ 12:16AM|#
Considering there was no knowledge of germ theory at the
time the alleged small-pox blankets incident took place, most
mainstream historians have concluded its a black legend.
(At the moment, for purposes of this discussion, not that
interested in the historical particulars here so take this question
at face value, nothing more, nothing less...) Do you really need
the whole germ theory of disease to do the smallpox blankets thing?
Couldn't you have noticed, without fully understanding why, that
contact with blankets used by former smallpox patients/casualties
seemed to be a risk factor for others' smallpox infections? Just
curious cause I'd never heard that assertion before.
(Again, just asking what I'm asking, not arguing about alleged
genocides etc.)
Anonymous Bastert|7.18.07 @ 2:46AM|#
Anonymo,
I doubt very seriously that anyone back then had any idea about the
connection between smallpox blankets and subsequent illness /
deaths.
I'm looking (unsuccessfully) on Wikipedia for the anecdote of the
European doctor who attempted (and failed) to get doctors to wash
their hands when shifting from performing autopsies to delivering
babies. I believe it was in the 18th century. Couldn't find it. But
I did find this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory
Anonymous Bastert|7.18.07 @ 2:50AM|#
Found it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (July 1, 1818 - August 13, 1865), also
Ignac Semmelweis (born Semmelweis Ignác Fülöp), [1] was an
Austrian-Hungarian physician called the "savior of mothers" [2] [3]
who discovered, by 1847,[2] that the incidence of puerperal fever
could be drastically cut by use of hand washing standards in
obstetrical clinics.[2] Puerperal fever (or childbed fever) was
common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal, with
mortality at 10%-35%. [4] Semmelweis [spelling[5]] postulated the
theory of washing with "chlorinated lime solutions"[3] in 1847[2]
as head of Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic,
where doctor wards had 3 times the mortality of midwife wards.[3]
In 1851, Semmelweis moved to work in Hungary, which accepted the
theory by 1857 (see below).
Despite his publications by 1861[4] of statistical/clinical trials
where hand-washing reduced mortality below 1%,[4] Semmelweis'
practice only earned widespread acceptance years after his death,
when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory.
---
So, yeah, in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and maybe even into the early
19th centuries, any link between blankets and disease would
probably not have been very widely believed... to put it
mildly.
|7.18.07 @ 4:40AM|#
The war in Iraq was sold partially on Libertarian grounds, if
we'll all recall. Saddam's wasn't exactly an enlightened
despotism.
Anyways, that war's not the one real libertarians ought to be
worried about. The real one is the war in Laos. Repeal the
neutrality act! Free General Vang Pao! The right to go
filibustering is under the penumbra and emanations of our second
amendment.
Gray Ghost|7.18.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Agree with SIV regarding California. The treatment of their
navives by Whites/Hispanics probably comes the closest to the
definition of genocide. I do not know how much of their decimation
was due to their susceptibility to disease, rather than "active
efforts" by the white population to exterminate them.
The smallpox blanket guy you're looking for is probably Amherst.
I wouldn't call RC Dean a warmonger, though we have disagreed in
the past about how dangerous Iraq is then and now. Save that
language for Donderooooooo (damn it, now you've got me doing it...)
and his ilk from LGF, et al.
Doesn't Ron's question require a distinguishing between domestic
liberty and foreign policy? I see no requirement that a libertarian
be an isolationist. Foreign action may improve our security, so
much so that it would be worth the decreased liberty implicit with
the increased taxes needed to fund it. I don't agree that Iraq was
one of those situations, but I can see that a libertarian could
make the argument. By contrast, I thought that Afghanistan was one
of those situations that required military action, as
anti-libertarian as troops tend to be.
Agree with Fluffy though that the Iraq war is a very good example
of wars that empires engage in, and being in an empire is very
anti-libertarianist.
Gray Ghost|7.18.07 @ 11:15AM|#
"By closest to genocide", I meant of all of the US's dealings in the US with Indians. (Though we've certainly supported far more brutal regimes: Chomsky's favorite of East Timor, the Khmer Rouge, my sleeper candidate of the war by the Guatamalan military against their natives, etc, bloody etc...)
Mike Laursen|7.18.07 @ 11:43AM|#
I get the sense that SIV is not denying abuse of Native
Americans, but just being really, really pedantic. Maybe just for
the sake of making this thread really, really long. I guess the
only way he would consider their treatment to be genocide is if it
had actually succeeded in totally wiping them out.
By the way, Cesar, it looks like you may not have picked up on my
"outsourcing" remark being a cynical joke. I would hope it goes
without saying, but I don't really think we should
outsource iron fisted rule for the Middle East.
|7.18.07 @ 11:55AM|#
http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/webpages/indianssmallpox.html
"An additional source of information on the matter is the Journal
of William Trent, commander of the local militia of the townspeople
of Pittsburgh during Pontiac's seige of the fort. This Journal has
been described as "... the most detailed contemporary account of
the anxious days and nights in the beleaguered stronghold." [Pen
Pictures of Early Western Pennsylvania, John W. Harpster, ed.
(University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938).]
Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following
statement:
... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small
Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."
So, yeah, in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and maybe even into the
early 19th centuries, any link between blankets and disease would
probably not have been very widely believed... to put it
mildly.
As Gray Ghost points out, the evidence indicates differently.
Amherst's letters provide direct evidence that people of the period
would have considered exposure to infected articles a way to infect
others.
Anonymous Bastert|7.18.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Yep, looks like you're right.
Still, something doesn't really scan here. Why would doctors in
Europe _100 years later_ not be willing to so much as wash their
hands after performing autopsies? I guess the corpses weren't
"sick" maybe? It just doesn't seem to add up...
But those journal entries are strong evidence that the link was
known. So there we go.
It's an Anonymous Bastert certified genocide.
|7.18.07 @ 12:26PM|#
I get the sense that SIV is not denying abuse of Native
Americans, but just being really, really pedantic.
Being pedantic would mean showing greater knowledge by correcting,
pointing out errors, etc...
SIV is demonstrating a lack of knowledge...
|7.18.07 @ 12:31PM|#
"libertarian first principles of individual rights and the
rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and
effective self-defense after an attack."
And if you just drink a little Kool Aid, Iraq might start to look
like self defense. Up becomes down, black becomes white and wars of
choice become wars of necessity.
|7.18.07 @ 3:23PM|#
I think New Zealand was a full-blown actual genocide, though. One of the few genocides in history that actually succeeded.
I think you may have New Zealand confused with Tasmania.
That's OK. Many people do. It's best, however, not do it within
earshot of a New Zealander or Tasmanian.
Actually the Maoris survived their wars with the English colonists
pretty much intact. But then they were a more advanced culture than
the Tasmanians and in their environment acquitted themselves quite
well militarily.
|7.18.07 @ 9:17PM|#
thoreau PhD:
No. Next!
The man's a physicist and a libertarian. Listen to what he
says.
I may be excused an appeal to authority in this matter cuz it was
here, in this sublime place in cyberspace, that I opposed this
tragic deception of a war from before the start. I said that the
government and the war's neocon supporters were lying to trick us
into supporting the attack on Iraq. I said that among the war's
chief motivators were folks whom the evidence has shown put the
Israeli government and the Likkudnik agenda first. I said these
things while proudly proclaiming both my libertarian philosophy and
my Republican registration, and still do.
Now, after thousands of American lives and over a million other's
have been ruined, many of the same crowd that lied us into the Iraq
war hsve a propaganda campaign going full throttle with the purpose
to condition the American public to accept both staying in Iraq and
attacking Iran.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245