RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Machan's Musings - America Bashing Continues

Friday
April 1, 2005

Machan's Musings - America Bashing Continues by Tibor R. Machan

Whenever you encounter critics of the American system, please look out: If it is being put down for upholding the principles of individual rights, the critics are actually being anti-American in the important sense of that term, namely, turning against America’s central ideal. When the critic employs the standard of liberty, then he or she is urging America to be more like what it should be in the first place. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (23 messages)

Post 0

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 4:24am

Link

Edit

You know, Tibor, there's only so much eating of one's cake & having it too that one can get away with. One can't be a Saddamite & then eschew saddamy. What's happening in Iraq is a battle between western civilisation—warts & all—& Islamo-fascist barbarism (& its despicable appeasers, like ISIL & its associated NAMBLAphiles & their half-wit groupies). You oppose the American liberation of Iraq, meaning you oppose the toppling of Saddam, meaning you must want him restored. You can't hold that position & bitch about anti-Americanism. You & your Neville Chamberlainism are part of the problem; you are most certainly not part of the solution.

And I don't care who gets fucked off by this post.

Linz

Post 1

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 5:12am

Link

Edit

Linz, don't you make it too easy for yourself? Don't you think that those men in the Middle East are able to perceive what is right and wrong?
Perhaps they have at least the accountability to distinguish what the US government does and what the principles of the US consitution stood for.

I think what we see today is different from many assumptions. It is not only the exaggerated violence of some fanatic theocratic facist terrorists, but also some kind of violent resistance against something they perceive as a foreign occupation.
Just look at the way, they might perceive it (albeit a bit twisted but nonetheless rightfully). They see the US freeing them of this brutal dictator Saddam, but they are still sceptic because they know what happend in the early 90s of the last century.
Then they see that the US is still supporting the structures of old Saddam, thus the totalitarian attempt. They see that the US government seizes the oil wells and still hasn't privatized them. They see that every government they elect will still be under US observation. They have a fear that this will be a foreign occupation that will end in colonizing Iraq for the new alleged US empire.
They know what imperialism is like down there in the Middle East. And after all, they perceive the US not as a liberator, but as a foreigner to their way of life. They accept liberty and try to embrace it, but they see the inherit flaws of the US system by perceiving that they are on a way to theocratic hardlinership in some areas.
So, what is the message they get?

I think they see the US much more divers than many of us give them credit to.

I also think that opposing an aggressive war (even well meant) is not the same as wanting Saddam up their again. I don't have anything against a war on sound and open principles, but what Bush is doing is called nation-building and is very dangerous not only from an ideological background.

Post 2

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 7:57am

Link

Edit

"I also think that opposing an aggressive war (even well meant) is not the same as wanting Saddam up their again." said Max.

But Max, it is EXACTLY the same thing.

Post 3

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 10:08am

Link

Edit

What Traub also ignores, by listing only government giving, is that European nations are able to give away more tax revenue because they do not pay for their own defense. That burden is carried mostly by the US.

Post 4

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 6:31am

Link

Edit

I've been pleased to see some intelligent discussion on SOLO even among people I haven't agreed with. There have been some flames, but the S:N ratio seems undoubtedly higher than open Usenet.

However, I simply do not get the vitriolic comments of Lindsay on this thread. As far as I could tell from rereading, Tibor's article pertained to refuting people wanting to make America more altruistic, and mentioned nothing of Iraq. Linz' flame not only immediately shifted topic, but consisted of fallacy and primarily name-calling. Are use of false dichotomies and attacking the man instead of the idea founding concepts of SOLO?

Post 5

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 10:52am

Link

Edit

Linz, you are convicted.

Your first main point is that: "What's happening in Iraq is a battle between western civilisation—warts & all—& Islamo-fascist barbarism."

I agree. But 2 things need to be consciously retained here:

1) What "western civilization" is ...
AND ...
2) How western civilization ought to go about battling "Islamo-fascist barbarism"

Related to point 1, Tibor consistent fights for what western civilization is (and ought to be). You critique him for focusing too much on the internal consistency of western civilization--for spending too much time, energy, and talent: Rooting out the skeletons in our closet. And you critique him for not endeavoring full-throttle in expanding western civilization to other parts of the world. Your argument can be distilled down to the following:

With an enemy in place, we must fight tooth and nail, we should not be concerned with cleaning our own closet (our individual utility as citizens)--not when there are dirtier closets (e.g. Iraq) to be cleaned elsewhere. These dirtier closets, if left uncleaned by us, will eventually draw dust into our own closet--and the cleaning purpose will be all for naught. Which brings up point 2: How do we go about cleaning others' closets?

ONE WAY to attempt to clean others' closets for them, is "the American liberation of Iraq," and on this point you are clear and unmistakable. Linz, you seem fully-convicted that this was the right war, right place, and right time. In other words, it is the one best thing that was right for the fight. But to argue that there may be other ways to conduct this fight is not, in itself, treasonous. The point is that it may be--in the future--seen as the most patriotic thing that one could do, in this current predicament.

Let me ask you this, would it still be "the one best thing to do" if the average cost to US citizens exceeds $10,000? How about $100,000? Would it still be the one best thing if the US lives lost exceeds 10,000? How about 100,000? Is it the one best thing, no matter what the consequences are (a Kantian solution that is true without reflection on experience)?

Linz, if you gave Tibor the following 2-question quiz, what do you--honestly--think his answers would be?

1) Would you like Saddam back in power?
2) Would you like a looming threat of terrorism to hang over your head everyday?

Tibor is fighting for principles and you are fighting for pragmatism, and that is that.

It remains to be evident which of these emphases was the more appropriate in this context. War is hell and often escapes consequential analysis.

Don't fault Tibor for having alleged wrong convictions, he's cleaning our closet so that we don't drag dust out into the world.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 4/01, 10:56am)

Post 6

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:10am

Link

Edit

Aaron asks:

Are use of false dichotomies and attacking the man instead of the idea founding concepts of SOLO?

No, SOLO's founding concept is to attack false dichotomies (and other evil ideas) and then the men that hold them!

It is stated on the SOLO credo page:

SOLO kicks ass first, then takes names. Then it kicks ass again.

There's nothing wrong with being passionate about the defence of your values and ideals.

Post 7

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:30am

Link

Edit

Excellent piece, Tibor.

I might quarrel with your closing sentences, however. I don't think "pro-Americanism" always can be reliably detected by virtue of one's nominal endorsement of American principles when coupled with criticisms of bad American policies. There is also the matter of the context in which the criticisms appear.

Suppose I went to Iraq right now, and in front of an Iraqi audience, I scathingly denounced U. S. policies and the war -- calling the U. S. leadership a bunch of hypocrites for talking about "freedom" while behaving like imperialists. Would you call that the behavior of one who "employs the standard of liberty," and "is urging America to be more like what it should be in the first place"?

I would point out that Jane Fonda did exactly that in North Vietnam. According to the March 31 online Drudge Report, previewing a Fonda interview on CBS's "60 Minutes,"

She does not regret, however, visiting the enemy capital, Hanoi, or being photographed with American prisoners of war there - despite the propaganda value it afforded the enemy. "There are hundreds of American delegations that had met with the POWs," says Fonda. "Both sides were using the POWs for propaganda....It's not something that I will apologize for," she says.

Nor is she sorry for the broadcasts she made on Radio Hanoi, something she asked the North Vietnamese to do. "Our government was lying to us and men were dying because of it, and I felt I had to do anything that I could to expose the lies and help end the war," she tells Stahl. She went on Radio Hanoi at least 10 times, speaking directly to American pilots and criticizing their bombing of North Vietnam.

Would anyone seriously argue that by these statements -- given their timing, place and audiences -- Jane Fonda was just patriotically calling on America to live up to its highest ideals?

Or was this treason?

Fonda posing on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun

Context matters -- decisively -- in judging the real intention and moral meaning of statements and actions.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 4/01, 11:52am)

Post 8

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:34am

Link

Edit

I believe that the true consequences of 9/11 were understood almost instantly by this administration, but are are still not understood by most people- both friends and enemies of American principles. To me, the truth of 9/ll is that America no longer has the luxury of remaining isolated from individual and state terrorism in other parts of the world. When one nation can put in the hands of a small band of haters the ability to kill millions of people- indeed, when one individual can do the same shortly- it is necessary to completely re-evaluate how we defend ourselves, and we DO have the right to defend ourselves.
A handful of people saw the consequences of this realistic assessment of our technological capabilities before 9/11- more understand it today. For others, it will take at least one more catastrophe.

Post 9

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 1:37pm

Link

Edit

Robert, you bring up a great message about what we show our enemies.

On this point, we both seem to know that, when you are trying to export your philosophy, that you should not present your philosophy as a failure at home. However, the flipside of this issue is what the US ought to show the world, in terms of nation-wide agreement over domestic & foreign policy.

Should the US adopt to the stance of the former USSR--and outright lie to other countries, claiming to have met the needs of each and every citizen, and claiming to be progressing so fast that we don't know what to do with our excess prosperity?

That may've sounded crass, but it is the message that I sometimes feel is being conveyed by pro-war advocates--a trumped up idealism that could backfire and thwart our long-range goals.

Ed

Post 10

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 2:02pm

Link

Edit

James - You are 100% on the mark.

Max, the problem I have with your statements are that for the most part they are not based on facts. This is likely due to the fact that all you ever see in Europe is anti-American propoganda. For instance:
" It is not only the exaggerated violence of some fanatic theocratic fascist terrorists, but also some kind of violent resistance against something they perceive as a foreign occupation."
This is not true. The majority are either religious fanatics, or Sunni Iraqis who are supportive of the previous system, because they gained the benefits of it. In other words, insurgents who basically supported Sadaam, and those who are terrorists make up the bulk of the insurgency.
They see that the US government seizes the oil wells and still hasn't privatized them.
This is laughable. I can just see the insurgents attacking the US, or better yet their own civilian populace, because they haven't privatized the oil wells. Yeah, sure!

Again, why is there even a question about "aggressive war" when dealing with a Nation that had 0% legitimacy? The rules that apply to normal, functioning Nations mean nothing when dealing with thugs like Sadaam. Get over it, we won't invade Germany again. By the way, Germany still has the draft, the US does not.

Max, was "Nation building" so dangerous that you would prefer being a Nazi? Had these guys had their way, you would be on this board telling us why we need to kill all the Jews. I am not saying that to try to be nasty, I am pointing out the ACTUAL consequences of non-intervention. That future Max in Iraq won't have to be an Iraqi Nazi now.

Post 11

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 7:05pm

Link

Edit

Linz, you say: "You oppose the American liberation of Iraq, meaning you oppose the toppling of Saddam, meaning you must want him restored." Doesn't follow--happy to have him gone, more happy having him sent away by other than then American military. A little attention to my argument would help here. I consider the duty of the American military to defend Americans against aggressors, not to right all the wrongs around the globe. I am a soft not a hard Wilsonian--sell constitutional democracy by example and exhortation, not at the point of the gun. Doesn't mean much anyway if they are coerced into being free.

Post 12

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 7:17pm

Link

Edit

Doesn't mean much anyway if they are coerced into being free.

"They" - you talk like they're just a collectivist blob. It means *a lot* to depose a dictatorship and allow the people who want freedom to be free.

Post 13

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 8:16pm

Link

Edit

At who's expense - don't see you over there shooting the insurgents.....

Post 14

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 8:17pm

Link

Edit

James makes the monumental point. We have most likely witnessed a revolution in national security threats, in accordance to which the Bush Doctrine is also revolutionary.

Terrorism experts have been claiming this for years. Some important thinkers, most notably Victor Davis Hanson and Wolfowitz and certain "neocons", have advocated the line. It's looking more and more like they were right.

It's easy to see why libertarians are slow to get this. It undermines the whole idea of libertarian isolationism. I am slow to get it myself. But the possibility that we are living in radically different times and circumstances must be acknowledged, if one's foreign policy ideology is to be based on self-defense and not dogma.

As James said, the sad thing is that it will probably take another catastrophe for libertarians and others to realize this. But there is an even scarier catch to that. For if the next catastrophe is in turned blamed on the "interventionism" of the Bush Doctrine, it will likely mean the end of our civilization.

Alec

Post 15

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 8:27pm

Link

Edit

A wonderful article. I like the spirit in which it was written. And, of course, the distinction between affirming our core libertarian values and criticizing our abandonment of them.The America-basher does the opposite in both cases.

Post 16

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 10:27pm

Link

Edit

Tibor Machan's point that the "anti-American" means attacking that which is essential to Americanism is right on target. What is essential to Americanism is individual freedom, which in turn requires respect for voluntarism and individual rights. As we all know so well, by far the greatest threat to our freedom is our own government's insatiable appetite for shoveling people and their property around like so much sand and gravel in the name of "national emergency". The Iraq War is a prime example of politically-inspired emergency whipped up to justify much higher government spending that we'll all be forced to pay in years ahead, and the massive killing of foreign "religious fanatics" and anyone in their proximity. As the occupation continues to flounder, the neo-conservative movement works to sell Americans on the notion that Iraqis are not individuals (with rights), but are a cultural blob of fanatacism, a poisoned collective that ought to be wiped off the face of the earth.

I enjoyed reading Max's comments on the war, because he described well what is probably the reaction of many Iraqi's to the American invasion. His description is effective and laudable, because Max sees what many otherwise good and decent people seem to forget: that people from an authoritarian, alien culture may be wrong about a great deal that is important. However, they are still humans with the desire to live, to protect their loved ones and property. Many of them are hostile to and mistrustful of the American military hegemon because of the massive killings and destruction it rains down on them--the happy departure of Saddam Hussein notwithstanding.

Post 17

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 10:51pm

Link

Edit

Mark, you are appalling. It is disgusting to think that Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam. It is maliciously mendacious to characterize the neocons as you do, when in fact they have been more concerned with the rights and lives of Iraqis than anyone else in the world. And it is pure posturing to assume that most Iraqis are resentful of the U.S. when you've never been to Iraq and others -- who report a far different picture -- have.

It seems you are one of those libertarians whose dogma will never be neutered.

Alec

Post 18

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 5:06am

Link

Edit

Post 19

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 9:57am

Link

Edit

@Kurt Eichert:

I anticipated this question, because my remarks where not loosely based on some kind of fiction I read in a European socialist magazine.

I have shown this piece of information twice, but can't get a proper discussion around, because people tend to ignore evidence that is against their notion (as I have done several times, by not pointing out that I draw the line between the consequence of Iraq's liberty and the REASONS for the WAR that WERE PRESENTED by Bush and not what he wanted us to believe AFTERWARDS.).

Just look at this piece and you get a better identified perception of the Western Civilisation and especially of the US from the Arab Streets.

http://www.css-jordan.org/new/

I'd also want to point that I have nothing against a war fought on sound principles, but when I have a commander-in-chief who lies to me at every corner to get me into this war, then I am highly sceptical of his true goals.

I am sorry, but I am a man who judges other men by what they preach and what they do. If they lie to me, they lose a lot of reputation and being a politician is no excuse for me.

There are several differences between Bushs argumentation for a strike against Afghanistan and Iraq. Had he gone after Saddam at once and not held up information that was no information but based on some phantasy, then I would have accepted and cheered the war.

And if you read this piece:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12725209%255E2703,00.html

You will also get an insight of why the Iraqis don't need the US military inside their country anymore. So, why does Mr. Bush stay in Iraq? Why doesn't he accelerate the privatisation of the oil wells? Why does he still talk about a War on Iraq that will continue for 50 years ( http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=1092&srch= ) ?

So, it is not everything as unfounded as some people always suspect, but rather a point of view problem...