Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page

Post 20

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 1:11pmSanction this postReply
Thank you. Even on the basis of all that, it seems Iran would have been far better, by my principles.

But there are so many positives about the Iraq invasion that I have to support it in these times.

Post 21

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 3:27pmSanction this postReply

Patience, Rodney. Iran is now nearly surrounded.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 5:10amSanction this postReply
Saudi Arabia is a more complicated mess. Sure, they are a funding source for Wahhabism globally; but they are also a huge source of our oil, and the royal family is also battling al Qaeda. This harmony of major interests, and the instability of the regime, means they are more tractable to U. S. pressure. Better to push the Sauds in our direction, then, rather than push them out of power and perhaps hand it over to even more radical Islamicists. 

I’m bothered by this analysis. Since when do we prostitute ourselves and sanction our savage enemy? Since when do O'ists support such cowardly appeasement? Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam, has constructed a worldwide network of educational institutions that pump hate into the minds of the faithful turning people into bombs. It is pure cowardness not to confront Saudi Arabia, to continue to sanction this ideology, and to lie to the American people.


By the way, Saudi Arabia doesn’t sell us oil – they sell oil into the market. And they do it to keep from starving.

Post 23

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 5:21pmSanction this postReply
I have a question for Robert Bidinotto (or anyone else who cares to take it up): What about some sort of very strong pro-freedom attack on Iran, but not an invasion? 

What about a sudden devastating assault which aims to harm their evil tyrannical leadership alone? Only the worst of Iran's slave-masters could be targeted by cruise missiles, smart bombs, and perhaps a small number of special operations forces. This low-cost, low-risk, low-collateral-damage tactic might be especially effective if America could find a time when many high-ranking mullahs and government officials were in just one place. The most oppressive of the security forces, secret police stations, torture prisons, munitions factories, etc. could also be specially bombed, along with the worst of their propaganda t'v' and radio stations, and their most radical religious colleges, mosques, and so forth.

The US could try to stage a lightning strike of overwhelming power and precision, and then pointedly NOT invade. We could publicize this non-invasion right after via blanket radio, t'v', internet, leaflet, etc. announcements. 

This way their natural nationalism and anti-Americanism might be severely vitiated, and any resultant revolution would be their own. It would be home grown, grass roots based, probably bloody, and something they could all be very proud of and patriotic about latter -- assuming a revolution was actually sparked by the military strikes.

Even if all else failed, I tend to favor this type of foreign policy maneuver because it would serve as a warning to world leaders: In the future, if they promote tyranny and terrorism too vigorously, they and their cronies might eventually be personally targeted.  

Post 24

Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 10:07pmSanction this postReply
I agree with Linz on this one.
Preemptive retaliatory theory is the way forward. It is now abundantly clear to me that one rogue nation is a clear and present danger to peace on this planet. This nation is involved in subverting international trade and politics using various economic inducements, extortion, trade barriers, foreign aid, secret black ops, and military muscle. This nation has become a militaristic war state backed by a crony industrial branch that buys favours from a corrupt and overly powerful ruling elite. This nation must be stopped before more countries are invaded and more innocents lose their lives and loved ones. We only have to look at the levelling of Fallujha to see what will happen if preemptive action is not taken immediately.
We will have to Nuke the USA. There is no other way.

Post 25

Monday, February 7, 2005 - 2:52amSanction this postReply
"We will have to Nuke the USA. There is no other way."

Goddammit No6, have you read ANYTHING on SOLO about the evils of attempting to morally equate the U.S. with sinkholes like Saddam's Iraq? Poor Tibor is trying to knock some sense into the anti-war position, to root it in something other than knee-jerk anti-Americanism, and you go around making posts like that.

If you really want to do the anti-war side some good, you'll bite that sneering little tongue of yours.

Post 26

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 2:06amSanction this postReply
No. 6: "We will have to Nuke the USA. There is no other way."

Wow, man you have put yourself into a sick hole.

Post 27

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 9:30amSanction this postReply
Come in No 6, your time is up!!!

Your village just called, their idiot is missing!!!

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 2/08, 9:32am)

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
A sick idiot perhaps. But my point seems to be lost on Bush style statists. My comments above are the logical conclusion of using Bush and Linz' own reasoning. And believe me, many out their have already come to this conclusion with perhaps an unhappy end for the US.

Post 29

Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 1:29amSanction this postReply
I would urge everyone to adopt my policy of not responding to cowards who post under pseudonyms. I pass their excrement from the moderator queue only because it shows up the soul of a Saddamite for what it is—cowardly & vicious. I note that not a single supporter of the liberation of Iraq hides behind a pseudonym.

No wonder Tibor saw fit to dissociate himself from the filth that shares his view of the liberation. I would argue that he can't have his cake & eat it too, but at least he's fastidious enough to be offended by the maggots crawling around in the cake.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 6:05amSanction this postReply
Honest men can disagree on foreign policy, especially the merits of a particular war. While I disagree with Tibor, Chris Sciabarra and some of the folks at Cato on these matters, they are honest intellectuals and I don't put them in the same category as the Saddamites (as I know you don't, either, Linz). Those who simply disagree with U. S. foreign policy are one thing; those who caricature the U. S. as The Evil Empire are something quite different.

Post 31

Sunday, May 8, 2011 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
I sanctioned the original post.  Does anyone see it differently than they did six years ago, and with a change in the Administration, especially ? Iraq has fallen from the news.  Must be as nice as Andorra now.  Or maybe not:

Iraq's Duraid H. Tobiya Zoma: "The situation is not normal"
by The Chaldean News April 28, 2011
Dr. Duraid H. Tobiya Zoma is a political consultant for minority affairs of Nineveh Governor in Iraq. He was in Michigan last month; Co-publisher and Editor in Chief Vanessa Denha Garmo sat down with him at Shenandoah following a luncheon with Ambassador Peter Bodde of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
From the LA TIMES online here
IRAQ: At least 14 dead in attempted escape by Al Qaeda-linked prisoners
May 8, 2011 4:43 am
A man accused of attacking a Baghdad church last year wrestled a gun from a guard overnight to free fellow Al Qaeda-affiliated detainees and launch an assault that killed at least 14 people, including a top counterterrorism officer, according to Iraqi officials and Associated Press reports.

 From Reuters Canada
Iraq Sunni fighters still waiting for promised jobs
Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:48am EST  By Waleed Ibrahim
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - After years of fighting al Qaeda, Ahmed Ali gave up on Iraqi politicians' promises of a new government job, put down his weapons and moved away from his village to work as a fruit and vegetable peddler.
Ali, a member of the government-backed Sunni Sahwa militia, left his home in Mishahda, north of the Iraqi capital, at the beginning of January, a few days after al Qaeda killed five of his fellow Sahwa in a growing wave of reprisals.
"There was no choice but to leave. We have been neglected, left with no salaries, and our weapons were taken by the army, which encouraged al Qaeda to take revenge on us," said Ali as he arranged groceries at his stalls in Baghdad's Adhamiya district.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/08, 4:48pm)

Post 32

Monday, March 31, 2014 - 1:12pmSanction this postReply

My opinion is that Professor Machan is owed apologies by some, and the recognition from all of us that he took an ethical position that wasn't popular at the time. That's a virtue to be prized.  For example, we all agree that a communist has the right to get up on a soap-box and make false claims about the imaginary benefits of communism.  Those who defend his right to free speech, even during a time when we are under a threat of attack by communisim is to be commended for staying with reason and basic principles in a time of high emotions.


He didn't argue that Saddam wasn't an aggressor - which many of those who disagreed with him implied - but that Saddam wasn't aggressing against the United States in anyway that would require us to go to war.  He didn't say that it would be wrong for other organizations to attack Saddam (the UN, or some civilian organization), but that it was not the proper job of the US military whose job is to defend our nation from attack (actual or immediately imminent) and to retaliate against a nation that has already attacked.


The idea of "preemptive retaliation" is such nonsense.  "Retaliation" is always after the intiation of force - by definition.  There is only defense and/or retaliation that can be moral and legal and both require initiation of force by the aggressor and that force has to be at us - otherwise we are the world's policeman.  Some would say that we shouldn't wait till the missles have landed before we act. Of course!  But there have to be weapons and unrefutable evidence they are going to be used against us.  Any argument to the contrary means that we would be morally right to attack every country whose leaders hate the US and might be secretly getting WMD right now, or already have weapons.


Given that Professor Machan favors a strong defense of our country, it was a bit obscene to see people ignoring his argument that our military should not be acting outside of its proper role.  How can one be in favor of a limited government yet twist their mind around to the point of seeing the initiation of massive force where not a single American's rights were being infringed?  Do we just make up what the "limits" are as we go along?


What I saw in many of the arguments for war in Iraq was emotionalism.  It was an emotional drive to stop tyranny and rescue innocents.  Those motivations are good, but one can't institute liberty by ignoring the very principles it depends upon.  We don't arrest, convict and imprison people who are very angry at their spouses and MIGHT attack them.  


And because of the level of emotionalism, there was no place for commonsense recognition that you can't install the intellectual/cultural base that freedom requires by using bombs and guns alone.  And ignoring what Professor Machan pointed out - Democracy can vote in tyranny every bit as easily as freedom.  Actually, easier given that tyranny is still the bedrock intellectual and cultural foundation in that country.


There were two kinds of opposition to Professor Machan's views.  Those that were presented in a civil fashion, and those that were rude and used the kind of tone an Objectivist should reserve for dicators, not the professor.  Reasoned, civil arguments, particularly in areas like foriegn affairs are good things, and will help us all evolve better positions.


In the interests of honest disclosure:  I was in favor of the war in Iraq.... but only for a few weeks.  I got caught up in the emotional arguments, the hatred for people like Saddam, and the false promises of a democratic middle-east.  I was turned around, in part, by reasoned arguments against the war that went to the basic principles.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Monday, March 31, 2014 - 4:57pmSanction this postReply

I am an isolationist.  If some rogue nation uses terror against you as in the case of 911.  Blow them back to the Stone Age.  No mercy, hit them hard hit them with everything you have and then leave.  Men women children non combatants?  You get the government you deserve so civilians are passive supporters and deserve no special consideration when you go to war with a nation. No you don't actively TARGET them but you do not compromise your mission objectives just because some civilians may die.  If an aggressor tries to hide behind the skirts of women by stockpiling their rockets under a school? You blow the hell out of the school.  You go to war to win the war.  Then you leave! You don't sit there and build their roads and schools and infrastructure you just destroyed!  You make them too scared to even fart in your direction.

Although Saddam was an evil Baathdard it was not a war in Iraq it was a pointless police action and not the Americans right to play dictator to depose another dictator. 

Bush was a coward, he totally dropped the ball after 911.  If he was actually interested in fighting the "war on Terror" why go into Afghanistan?  He should have taken out the leadership of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  Every single country that harbours and trains jihadists either with money, arms, training or sanctuary.  Oops that would be every country in the Middle East can't have that now that wouldn't be politically correct.  Take it up the tailpipe instead.  

My point being you don't kill a snake by chasing its tail...

13 years later and what objective has been accomplished?  Nothing.

Post 34

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 8:20amSanction this postReply

Iraq was a debt of national honor.     If this nation could leave that debt unpaid, then blow this nation to Hell.


Gulf War I:   Should the world have let Saddam eat Kuwait?   The world decided not.  The US participated, and kicked Saddam out of Kuwait.  We intervened, because when a thug is beating the crap out of someone acriss the street, sometimes it is in your best interest to cross the street.  No problem, we came home and threw parades.  Was over in less than 100days. Overwhelming force with a clear mission. Powell Doctrine in action.



1996.   The US is enforcing 'No Fly Zones' in northern and southern Iraq.    But we are doing more.    And here is where Gulf War II in Iraq was born.   We had covert ops on the ground in Northern Iraq, actively encouraging the Kurds to revolt against Saddam.  (This, according to Sen Bob Kerry, once head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, speaking at the JFK Library Foundation in March 2003.   Candidly.  "I could go to jail for saying this, but ...".  Because that was the mood then, too, by once honorable men in government who bit their lip.)    Authorized agents of our government were on the ground in Iraq post GWI, speaking for the US governmenrt, covertly, actively telling Kurds to revolt, that America would 'have their backs' when they did.    And they did, and America did nothing but watch from $30M fighters overhead as Saddam's ground troops went into Northern Iraq and ...what was the euphemism that permitted America to accept this? ... 'rolled them up.'    Thousands of Kurds, killed, expecting the US to 'have their back' when they revolted, because that is what our government, in our name, told them.


And our government did nothing.


Until Bush 43 used the national psyche post 9/11 to go fulfill a national debt of honor seven years late, without telling the nation why.


If we are a nation of people who can tolerate that kind of weaseldom, then fuck this nation, it is already dead.


And we should fix the fuindamental cause of this calamity, which is, covert ops making weasely promises unkept in this nation's name.   Where is the accounting for these out of all control weasels?   If our covert operators on the ground were being fed a line of shit by their command, then where is the command accounting today?    Those at the pointy end of the stick always pay the price; the weasels hunkered around the Bistros in Georgetown skulk away to their soft landings in IKE's MIC.   It is so far past time to drain the fucking swamps around DC that it isn't funny.


This nation can know these things, and not demand heads on pikes of its leaders and the apparatus who did it.  And so, screw this nation, it is already long fucked.


No undeclared wars.   No covert undeclared encouragement of others to go to war.    The realpoliticks of weaseldom is not a firm foundation for the spine of a nation unless it is a nation of gutless weasels.

Post 35

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 8:27amSanction this postReply

And guess who paid that price in Iraq;  it wasn't the fucking weasels hunkered around the Bistros in Georgetown, making their deals to cash in on the debt paying.


They made the mess.  They made money off of directing others to clean up the mess.   And they waved the Red, White, and Blue all the way to the fucking bank.  Wore their flag pins.   Slapped each other on the back.   Flashed the unit medallions/coins.   Wink wink.     DC 24/7/365, plus necessary drones, human and otherwise.


(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/01, 8:28am)

Post 36

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 8:36amSanction this postReply

I am not saying that was the -only- reason for going to Iraq in 2003.


The other reason was based on looking at a map, but also never justified to this nation.  Also done anyway..


What two nations bracket Iran?


And just to be clear, the US wasn't just in Iraq; the US was, and is, in bases in 15 nations in the M.E.    Bush paved an 8 lane highway into the M.E., straight from Ike's MIC, bracketing Iran.


There was a confluence of reasons behind Bush taking the nation to Iraq.  Poorly explained to the nation.  And by poorly, I mean, not at all.


So why is Obama still in Afghanistan, to this day?

Post 37

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 8:55amSanction this postReply





I don't know how long the US has had fighters stationed in Jordan, but I'm thinking at least 20 years.   Probably much longer.


A US WO maintaining F16s in Jordan once complained to me about not being able to scrounge up enough tires to keep his F16s flying.  He was cannibalizing aircraft to keep other aircraft flying.   Pretty sure, that was in the late 90s.   (I had a system deployed at that same base, that is what he was contacting me about.  I was providing free spare parts for him, he was complaining to me about his budget.)


What F16s based in Jordan?


(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/01, 8:58am)

Post 38

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 11:03amSanction this postReply



We disagree, somewhat, on the Iraq war.


I completely agree that there should be no undeclared wars.
I completely agree that swamps around DC should be cleared of covert trouble makers.
I completely agree that when military force should be used, it should be overwhelming, and it must have a clear mission.


I believe that war requires not just a proper declaration by congress, but that it must be in our national interest (not the world's national interest, or the best interests of some other nation's people, or for some other goal like world peace, or stopping bullies).   And I believe that it is long past the time when the phrase "national security" be tossed out - it no longer has any real meaning, if it ever did.


I don't agree that promises made to the Kurds by people who weren't authorized to "declare war," which is what their promises amounted to, could or should ever commit this nation to going to war. The obligation we have is to not go to war unless we are under attack or about to be attacked, and with a level of threat/attack that justifies a war. The obligation we have is to honor the constitution's demand that war be declared by congress. The final obligation we have is root out the covert weasels - punish them, and put in protections against further weasle-like actions.


My honor is tied to my actions. It isn't tied to promises secretly made to third parties by people never authorized to make the promises they did. And the same is true for this nation.


I see lots of things that could be labeled a positive in that war, but not when you add up the negatives. Yes, Saddam was a monster, but that doesn't answer the arguments about observing the constitution, not being a world policeman, etc.


Yes we got, for the time being, air bases in a key location, but that is also something that doesn't rise to level needed to justify unleasing the dogs of war.



There is no utopia. There are bad people with power, like Saddam was. There are occasions where our military have the opportunity and the capacity to stop them. But to take those shots requires violating the principles that protect our individual rights.


Those in the world that value liberty need to join in effective ways to stop tyranny. That requirment will be more obvious and more likely to come into being when we stop being the World's policeman.  Our stopping those police actions will actually increase the boldness of the bad guys, and that along with whatever fortitude and understanding of liberty that people around the world possess, will increase their efforts to find ways of fighting tyranny.  But even then, it isn't likely to be as nearly as effective as we'd want. The temptation keeps arising to do what one can where one can, but that's a trap when it takes us into using our government, or letting it run off on its own, to do things that stray from the strict interpetation of protecting the individual rights of its citizens.

Post 39

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply



I don't agree that promises made to the Kurds by people who weren't authorized to "declare war," which is what their promises amounted to, could or should ever commit this nation to going to war.


We don't disagree so much.  (What should have happened was, heads at CIA ... or whover gave the orders to CIA...should have rolled. They shouldn't have gotten away with what happened in 1996.)


They shouldn't but they did; Democratic Sen Bob Kerrey, in that context, at that time (Mar 2003)was telegraphing the reason for his support of the Iraqi invasion. He didn't mention revenge for Pappy Bush assassination attempts, going after Iraqi oil, or revenge for 9/11, or any of the other pablum fed to America.   So what was once commitments that were not made by you and I, without our consent or knowledge, become commitments that we tolerated, made by our political leaders, without consequence for making them in such a weasely fashion.


But in our representative form of government, what role was Bob Kerry in when he learned what he learned about this, on our behalf?   As then vice chairmen the Senate Intelligence Committee(served as vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee from 1995 to 1999, not in 2003, how is it he learned what we were doing in Iraq in 1996?  Was it after the fact of its doing?  Or before?  And if so, what was he told, what was he promised?   Did elected representatives of our government actually put in place, as a policy, "Let's encourage the Kurds to revolt by telling them lies-- that America will have their back-- and see what happens when we then do nothing?   Because maybe they will win.   And if they don't, they lose, and who gives a shit? They are Kurds."


And do we, hearing about this, just say "They shouldn't have believed those men who had no authority but were funded and paid for by Americans by way of their elected officials and doing the People's Business in Iraq.   Dont those dumbass Kurds know not to trust Americans, because that is the kind of thing that is in America's long term interests, which is, fucking over every loose swinging dick in the world?"


We can disagree by saying we don't believe Sen Bob Kerry when he says what he says this nation once did.   What we can't do is hear it, ignore it, and blink it away without weighing in on it.   By doing so, we defacto tolerate it, accept it, and are complicit.  If you believe Bob Kerry, then what happened on the ground in 1996 in this nation's name can't be tolerated as acceptable.    Such crap is the foundation not only of the senseless death and harm of thousands of Kurds, but all that followed.   If you believe Kerry was not telling the truth, then moot, but ... cui bono?   He risked going to jail by saying what he said, where he said it.  And nothing happened, because to make more out of that would have put national focus on it..


The covert command that encouraged making those commitments in this nations name  need to be held accountable.   Was it the operators in the field, acting rogue?   Or were they handed their orders? Was the CIA acting rogue?  Or was the CIA executing national policy?  Set by who?  It wasn't you and me. 


No.  Nothing was done.   Nothing.   Even after the nation became aware of it.   So like it or not, that nationally tolerated action did create a national debt of honor, accepted after the fact without consequences-- no matter how many fringe individuals do not support and do condemn the acts on the ground in 1996.     The nation did not, and we, as individuals who still benefit from, have not withdrawn our support from this nation, must accept the national consequences and shame of that which we continue to support, as a nation.   


Just one example of many of lurches by this government that this nation tolerates, without much question at all.  Few cranks, that's it.  This nation is earning its Benghazigates, because it is the same fundamental issue of what we tolerate by government in our name.    There are never any heads on pikes to wave off the next petty schemers.


The problem is not that we are world policemen; the problem is, we aren't policing our own government being world policemen.


We were for sure world policemen in WWII.   It gave the world a few more years of freedom.   Not many.


There is nothing left of America, to speak of.   Not sure what we are talking about these days.




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page

User ID Password or create a free account.