The War in Georgia

I am starting this thread in the hope that we can keep the discussion in one place. I invite those who aren't familiar with Georgia to take another look at this Western success story. Support for Georgia need not mean sending our troops to fight for savages. Georgia is one of the oldest extant civilizations on Earth. And the Georgians are fighting for themselves.

The image is of a Georgian civilian killed in the bombardment of the Georgian town of Gori.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/15, 12:06am)

Post 1

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 11:59pm

From an inspiring piece by Jack Wakeland at TIA Daily:

"...With the assault on the city on hold indefinitely, Tbilisi has become West Berlin, drawing leaders to impudently protest, in public, under Putin's guns. The big rally Wednesday night in Tbilisi of as many as 200,000 Georgians (10% of the refugee-swollen city's population), hosted by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and joined by the presidents of Georgia, Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia was a spectacle of besieged liberty. It is as good as one more armored division.

"It turns out that Georgia's greatest strategic asset is the attitude and the eloquence of President Mikheil Saakashvili. In his written essays, TV interviews, and public speeches he is a lion. We have found that he has Winston Churchill in his soul.

"President Saakashvili has Prime Minister Churchill's eloquence and his spirit—and his ideas. Saakashvili proved himself by turning Georgia into an engine of prosperity based on stable republican government, the rule of law, recognition of private property, and the effective suppression of corruption. Georgia's police forces were rated as one of the most corrupt in Eastern Europe, and that is some achievement. Opinion polls showed that only 5% thought that the police were generally trustworthy. Under President Saakashvili's leadership, this year 70% of Georgians polled thought they could trust the police...."

Post 2

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 9:56am

Saakashvili proved himself by turning Georgia into an engine of prosperity based on stable republican government, the rule of law, recognition of private property, and the effective suppression of corruption. Georgia's police forces were rated as one of the most corrupt in Eastern Europe, and that is some achievement. Opinion polls showed that only 5% thought that the police were generally trustworthy. Under President Saakashvili's leadership, this year 70% of Georgians polled thought they could trust the police...."

That is what is so remarkable about Georgia's progress. Russia on the other hand still has rampant corruption and has suppressed journalistic freedom and has shown their quest for a new era of Russian Imperialism.

Putin's own words:

"The collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century,"

Post 3

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 5:06pm

Rice Returns from Munich

According to NBC, one third of Georgia (significantly more than the breakaway, and heretofore de facto autonomous provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) is under Russian occupation.

Secretary Rice has offered a unilateral ratification of Russia's aggression, recognizing Russian control of the provinces, and allowing Russia a six-mile zone within Georgian territory around those provinces, if only they will withdraw to that limit. Russia has not responded.

We have heard here that they should "hold a referendum." But referenda are a mechanism of a proper peaceful and law respecting government - not a way to split the difference between an invader and the invaded.

We have heard that this is a border dispute, about which many Americans know little.* So little in fact that they are not yet prepared to describe Georgia as an innocent victim, but they are prepared to suspect a neocon plot here to waste money. Usually the facts are thought to drive the conclusions among Objectivists. In this case, are the non-pacifist, non-anarchist isolationist moderates happy to let their conclusions drive their evidence? Which nation has the moral high ground? They don't know, but they do know that the neo-cons must have something to do with it.

G. H. W. Bush had wanted to go slow in even thinking of admitting Poland and her sisters to NATO. We see now If we hadn't before) how Russia thinks of Poland. Ukraine and Georgia have most recently wanted to join NATO. Like Poland, and unlike France and Germany, they might even have acted as our allies within such an expanded alliance. Russia's response has been to threaten Western Europe with a cut off of oil, Eastern Europe with nuclear weapons, Ukraine with all this and assassination and blackmail, and Georgia with an actual full-scale pre-meditated invasion.

Georgia's Christianity, as mentioned in an aside in a link I provided merely for background, is not the issue. Georgia's position, like that of the Czech Republic before the might of Hitler and the Soviets is.

Even if isolation were a reasonable course (it is not) it would not be the proper response in the face of Russian aggression. Perhpas one should stay out of dangerous neighborhoods, (I don't think so) but one doesn't respond to a mugging in front of one by walking away in the middle of it. Georgia is not looking for a bailout. Given their, until now, booming economy, one can presume that they might even pay us for arms we could provide them. But such a calculation is penny wise and pound foolish. What would have been the cost of stopping Hitler in the Rhineland? In Austria? In Czechoslovakia? Compared to the cost of WWII?

But even worse than this niggling concern with "cost" is the stipulation of moral equivalence. NATO is not a club for thugs. NATO has no territorial ambitions. NATO is not engaged in the rape of Venezuela and her once thriving private economy. Were Russia truly to form an alliance (who, but dictators, would join it?) with the end solely of non-aggression, who could object? Not the usual neo-con suspects - they've already given away Georgia. Maybe we'd hear an objection from some bogey man invented to fill that empty place where a bad guy is missing in the isolationist's postulates? In any case, the isolationists can open up their eyes and see a real bad guy, if they are interested in concrete facts. Russia's aggression here is meditated and calculating. And by recognizing and acting on this now (immediate NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, arms, aid, and military back up in the Black Sea) we might actually achieve a lasting peace, rather than another peace of Chamberlain at Munich.

Chamberlain on his return from Munich:

"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you ..."

----

* "I don't know the history of the interactions in Georgia, but I know that the rolling of the Russian tanks is not the first incident. And I know that there is more to the story when I read this in the article: "Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians..." And when I read, "Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia..." I am NOT claiming that Russia wasn't an aggressor, but only that reading that article raised warning flags for me rather than making we want to jump onto a band wagon."

This, if taken as anything more than the momentary caution which it is claimed to be, would be disgusting. It cannot be a valid long term position. I recall the principle at my middle school giving me a detention for getting attacked by a bully. "I don't know what's going on, but this is not the first incident," she said. The proper course in the face of such ignorance is silence and investigation of the facts - not a retreat into the slime of moral equivalence. There is time for those who had never heard of Ossetia and Abkhazia before last week to learn the facts.

My apologies for the duplicate post, this was the rougher unedited version, and I have attempted to fix it.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/15, 6:02pm)

Post 4

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 5:07pm

THE LESSON OF GEORGIA: BRING UKRAINE INTO NATO

By DICK MORRIS

Published on August 14, 2008.

As we watched Russian tanks and planes attack yet another small neighbor, the world had to be reminded of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan, three other countries that had to watch their freedom crushed beneath tank treads. The blatant, outrageous, and long planned invasion of Georgia should make it clear to the United States and Europe that there is an urgent need to pre-empt further Russian expansionism by spreading the NATO umbrella more widely.

In Eastern Europe, Ukraine is the name of the game. With close to fifty million people, is, by far, more populous and important than any other former Soviet republic or satellite. Russia, with a population of 142 million and dropping, needs to take over Ukraine to reassert itself as a global power. Moscow is terrified that Ukraine will become part of the west. That�s why Russian operatives poisoned democracy advocate Viktor Yushchenko, now the president of Ukraine, permanently scarring his face and almost killing him and why Moscow refuses to extradite the agent responsible for the attack. And it is why the Kremlin tried to engineer the election of a pro-Russian puppet by cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine and then tripled the price it charged. The Ukrainians have voted again and again for democracy and ties to the west. Putin has tried repeatedly to force the nation back into the Russian orbit.

The clear implication of the invasion of Georgia is that Russia cannot be trusted to live in peace with its neighbors. The impetus to imperial conquest predated and has outlasted communism. As Henry Kissinger argues, Russia must either be expanding or contracting. With so many divergent and often hostile nationalities inside and around Russia, the momentum of conquest is the only way to avoid an inertia which leads to decomposition.

Ukraine wants to enter NATO but our European allies, led by Germany, are so dependent on Russian gas that they are reluctant to antagonize the bear. Until now, the case of expanding NATO�s protection to Ukraine has been hypothetical, based on fear of Russian intentions. But by breaking the civilized rules of national conduct, Russia has demonstrated the folly of leaving smaller democracies exposed on its border.

Some - initially including Barack Obama - treated the Russian invasion as a border war for which both sides were responsible. The Democratic candidate called for mutual restraint and, only after two days had elapsed, did he label the Russian actions as �aggression�. Others have sought to blame Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili for the war because he sent troops into South Ossetia, long a part of Georgia which the Russians have egged on to seek its independence. The breakaway province is an example of Moscow�s oft-used strategy of encouraging emigration to other countries so as to use the new demographics to justify a takeover.

Of course NATO cannot extend its protection to every nation in Europe. It is, in the final analysis, a military alliance and it must be certain that it can back its guarantees with adequate might. The location of Georgia makes this difficult to assure. But Ukraine, located right next to NATO members Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania, can and must be defended by NATO.

Russia is rapidly losing its population. It has the lowest birth rate in Europe and loses half a million people every year. Its GDP is only $1.7 trillion, a tenth of the Euro Zone�s. It is only through energy reserves that Russia is able to project its influence. And Russia must realize that the West�s likely movement away from oil and toward alternative fuels may make the energy card obsolete in the future. It is only through blunt, blatant military force that Russia can expand and trouble its neighbors. And if the U.S. and NATO stand up to it, Russia will back down. And Ukraine is where we must make a stand.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!
(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/15, 5:11pm)

Post 5

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 5:42pm

Ted:

We have heard that this is a border dispute, about which many Americans know little.* So little in fact that they are not prepared to describe Georgia as an innocent victim, but they are prepared to suspect a neocon plot here to waste money. . Usually the facts are thought to drive the conclusions among Objectivists. In this case, the non-pacifist, non-anarchist isolationist moderates are happy to let their conclusions drive their evidence. Which nation has the moral high ground? they don't know, but they do know that the neo-cons must have something to do with it.

It is infuriating that this is a so-called neocon plot to drag Russia into a conflict with us. In the absence of any context and with a paranoid mind I can see how someone can jump to that conclusion. Let's look at how accommodating Bush was with Russia

Bush "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul."

Then, after Putin throws his temper tantrums over installing missile defense technologies to defend against a possible rogue nuclear states (was Putin ignoring the past 8 years of American foreign policy to take on rogue states with or suspected of having WMD? Hello! N. Korea, Iraq and Iran??!!) Bush OFFERS HIM THE TECHNOLOGY!!!

Mind you, every step of the way Putin has propped up and supported America's enemies, including a huge firesale of Russian arms to Venezuela and the constant blocking and watering down of UN resolutions against Iran.

What else can you say about Putin the ex-KGB chief? Who would trust a man who has consolidated political power to himself, who has stripped his country of journalistic freedom, who has done nothing to reign in rampant corruption in his country, and has rigged foreign elections and carried out assassinations against journalists and political candidates? Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? There is no moral ambiguity here. Russia's belligerence is what has dragged the rest of the free world into dealing with this bully.

Post 6

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 5:52pm

That�s why Russian operatives poisoned democracy advocate Viktor Yushchenko, now the president of Ukraine, permanently scarring his face and almost killing him and why Moscow refuses to extradite the agent responsible for the attack. And it is why the Kremlin tried to engineer the election of a pro-Russian puppet by cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine and then tripled the price it charged.

And this was possible by Putin's nationalization of the energy industry in his country. What's the first step for a facist Imperialist to wield power over other nations? Take control of the industry that makes the most money for your country first.

Let's hear about the neocon plot for nationalizing some American industry to use it as an economic weapon. Waiting....

Post 7

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 6:07pm

"What else can you say about Putin the ex-KGB chief? Who would trust a man who has consolidated political power to himself, who has stripped his country of journalistic freedom, who has done nothing to reign in rampant corruption in his country, and has rigged foreign elections and carried out assassinations against journalists and political candidates? Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? There is no moral ambiguity here. Russia's belligerence is what has dragged the rest of the free world into dealing with this bully."

"And this was possible by Putin's nationalization of the energy industry in his country. What's the first step for a facist Imperialist to wield power over other nations? Take control of the industry that makes the most money for your country first."

Excellent points.

Post 8

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 6:30pm

The immediate recourse to the term neo-con infuriates me. It's the argument from intimidation, fact free, a substitute for thought. I can understand people not knowing about Georgia. I myself was a staunch cold warrior before I was an Objectivist. I came of age watching Carter in Iran. (At least he pulled out of the Olympics over Afghanistan!) I am half Rusyn (Ruthenian/Little Russian) and have always paid attention both to Russia and her subject peoples. I have long known about Georgia, Ossetia, Abkzhia, Shevardnadze, the Rose Revolution, and so forth. I can identify the Georgian language by sight and by ear. In fact, I won a free taxi ride from a driver when I guessed from his name, Mikhail Iacobvili, that he was a Georgian Jew. It is possible to have been blissfully ignorant of such things. But it is not possible to justify treating some imagined neo-con as the new Dreyfuss.

Post 9

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 6:59pm

What an arms race would mean for Russia;

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#USMilitarySpending

The US and Europe combined account for almost 70% of the world�s military budget. Russia comes in at a measly 5% of that total.

US military expenditures in recent years were roughly half a trillion dollars (higher than usual because of Iraq and Afghanistan) which is almost 30% of Russia�s entire GDP. As a percentage of American GDP, American military spending is only 4% of American GDP.

Combine the fact is has a declining population, and its only real source of income come from oil and natural gas (to which a few good energy substitutes from technological innovation would snuff out most of Russia's income), I think it's clear Russia can't afford this belligerence.

Will they look at the numbers or are they still economically challenged as they've historically always been?

Post 10

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 9:49pm

I see the purpose of government differently in some ways than those posting on this thread. That's fine, and if it isn't, there isn't anything further I can do about it anyway.

Here is what I resent. That the most shining examples of moral rightness are thrust in front of me with an accusing tone. Like I were responsible for the rape of Georgia. Then while riding this great white charger of moral rectitude, altruism gets pulled in through the backdoor.

Citizens of America are asked to make this or that sacrifice to suit what the these righteous souls call the necessary battle against evil - this holy battle that begins by labeling those who oppose it as pacifist, isolationist trolls, appeasers, ignorant, and morally irresponsible. I'm pissed because those are label that have been applied to ME!

Ted says, "The immediate recourse to the term neo-con infuriates me. It's the argument from intimidation, fact free, a substitute for thought." Well, Ted, you can stay irritated, because I'll continue to have recourse to pointing out that dubious motives of the current powers in our government for as long at they continue to substitute their corruption and faith-based idiocy for principled behavior. It isn't anything personal, Ted, it is just that I make it a point not to side with those whose agendas are Christian crusades, stopping gay marriages, and stem-cell research.

Note that this thread is as much about an attack on Objectivists who don't agree as it is about establishing the moral high ground for Georgia. If Georgia were Atlantis itself, that would still not make it in our self-interest to abandon the concept of self-interest and go with altruism.

Ted has said that is possible for Objectivists to err by exercising their principles without possession of the facts. I will point out that it is also possible to get so wrought up in the facts as to forget those principles.

Let me attempt to forestall the angry attacks that are coming my way when this post is displayed - I am not against Georgia. I am not for Russia. I do not see this as other than naked aggression by Russia. I have far more sympathy for Georgia knowing it's good qualities. But none of that means that I will give up my right to live my own life and not be treated as a sacrificial animal by those who want to fund either foreign adventures or humanitarian activities out of my pocket. If it isn't self-defense, then they have no right to take my money.

The whole thrust of these arguments is, "See how worthy this victim is! [Lots of emotional picture painting goes here]. Their dire need therefore becomes your duty."

Post 11

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 9:55pm

Russian lies.

Russia claims it has honored cease-fire agreement and not in Georgian territory: VIDEO by BBC reporters show otherwise.

Post 12

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 10:09pm

Steve, you are not the only person who has used the neo-con term. For example, Robert Tracinski didn't criticize the use of it because he read you.

And, of course, I understand, but strongly disapprove of the Ron Pauline view of foreign policy. I remember the Nastonia poll.

What I would like from you is a recognition that Georgia is not Chechnya. It is a sovereign state and ally that Russia has been trying to undermine for two decades.

Finally, let us assume that an isolationist foreign policy is a better one. If that is the case, given our close ties to Georgia, and our preludes to her about NATO membership, and her importance to European interests, would it be appropriate to cut and run - right now - in response to Russian aggression? Is it appropriate to tell your friend, as he is being mugged, and you are preparing to run away, that maybe you shouldn't have been walking in a dangerous neighborhood after all?

To recap, Georgia is a friendly nation and a good ally. Georgia is not a basket case or a South Vietnam. Georgia is under attack by Russia for reasons which we must understand, and will have to deal with, like it or not. Finally, discretion is not the better part of valor once your friend is already in the midst of being mugged.

Post 13

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 10:24pm

Steve:

But none of that means that I will give up my right to live my own life and not be treated as a sacrificial animal by those who want to fund either foreign adventures or humanitarian activities out of my pocket. If it isn't self-defense, then they have no right to take my money.

Standing up to Russian aggression is in your self-defense (our economy could not survive without a free Europe) and the government also has no right to take your money to fund criminal trials in American courts, but it does, and I haven't heard you call for the end of all government criminal prosecutions in this country.

So the more you hurl the altruist slander, the less serious I take your comments until you begin to explain why it is 1) Not in your interests that our international trading partners are free from coercion 2) Why you pick and choose which forms of rights protection is evil because of forcible taxation.

If there is a harmony of interests between men, then there exists a harmony of interests between free democratic nations.

Also, the humanitarian aid being sent to Georgia is a guise for sending in the military to stop further Russian aggression (toppling Tbilisi and changing the regime). Yes the call for humanitarian aid is an altruistic message which I loathe, but you are ignoring the context. Every police department chief gives speeches about the self-sacrifice of their police officers, does that mean police officers only do police work out of self-sacrifice? Or is that just paying lip-service to a society that elevates altruism as a moral ideal?

Post 14

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 10:46pm

Ted,

The points I made about being called all those names still stands. John was the only person to come forward in that thread where I was called a troll - others came along and sanctioned calling me a troll - so much for a grasp of reality!

I recognize the moral difference between Georgia and Chechnya, and the point I made is that it is the highest of moral grounds that are being used to justify altruistic causes. "They are so innocent and good, that we have a duty! Their need is a right to some part of your life."

The issue of mugging is an empty argument. It drops the context of jurisdiction. In real life, I have called on LAPD or the LA County Sheriff's office depending upon who held the jurisdiction for a rights violation in a specific geographical area. The jurisdiction of the United States does not extend to a rights violation of Georgian citizens in Georgia.

The NATO argument is a related, but separate issue and as an argument it turns on what is the valid way to defend our country - and in this context does making a commitment to go to war for another nation, who is in no position to offer us the same value, a rational choice?

The arguments that are needed to win on Objectivist terms are that it is in our self-interest as a matter of self-defense (our rights either are being violated or are in eminent danger of being violated) to intervene in some way that requires tax dollars. Otherwise you are arguing for some form of altruistic justification to send others to fight evil here, there, or everywhere in the world with my money. You have made remarks to effect that people are letting mere "costs" be a deciding issue where a peoples lives and freedom are concerned. Well, my money is my life and the taking of it violates my freedom and that an Objectivist is calling it "costs" in that way tells me that the principle of individual rights is already an endangered species in this argument.

Post 15

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 11:02pm

John,

1. Your rhetoric about free Europe being lost is overblown, certainly to the extent of implying that our economy will collapse if Russia invades Georgia.
2. Attempts to project a trend from there to the loss of Germany, France, Spain, etc. is just plain over the top.
3. It isn't altruistic slander if it is true and it is.
4. To say that it is in our interest, doesn't mean it should become government law. It is in our interest to not engage in drug abuse, but the last thing we want to do is have government pass laws telling us what we can't put into our bodies. To say that something is in our interest (on one level), does NOT mean that it is in our interest to violate individual rights to provide it.
5. You say, "Why you pick and choose which forms of rights protection is evil because of forcible taxation." I pick up all individual rights that fall within U.S. Jurisdiction.
6. You say that humanitarian aid is a guise for sending in military aid. Because it is lie on top of taking my money to support extra-jurisdictional activities doesn't make it right.
7. What some police department says about sacrifice isn't pertinent here. See my post to Ted (above) in reference to mugging which is about jurisdiction and the proper justification for any governments actions.

Post 16

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 11:14pm

�Empty argument�, Ted. You have your jurisdictions confused.

See, standing up with those who stand up for freedom against tyrants is always altruism. It is never a principled, strategic, long view approach aimed at finally chocking the tyrants of the globe�no, it�s just a neo-con gimmick to nab Steve�s tax dollars.

The true principled approach is to �End our participation in NATO.�

This way, the free countries of the twenty-first century are on their own�and isn�t this as it should be? I�m on my own. You are on your own. We�re Howard frickin� Roarks, right? That�s how it should be. NATO is so second-hand.

Post 17

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 11:34pm

If I want to remove Saddam from power because he has violated his treaty obligations and you want to see the Iraqi soccer team win at the Olympics, your motive for removing him does not invalidate mine.

The fact that people make what are to you altruistic sounding arguments in favor of helping Georgia is as irrelevant to the truth as is the fact that someone else mistakenly called you a troll. (I thought John's defense was sufficient.) Neither your having been called a name by a long-time occasional poster who seemed to have made an honest mistake nor Georgia's having a humanitarian crisis is at issue with serious people here. A "victimless" Russian invasion would be just as bad.

Post 18

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 8:39am

Steve:

1. Your rhetoric about free Europe being lost is overblown, certainly to the extent of implying that our economy will collapse if Russia invades Georgia.

I don't think so. If you look at the current Georgian invasion in a vacuum then I can understand your naive view, but I believe you are smart enough to see the larger context. Russia has already begun to expand its belligerence by threatening Poland with nuclear annihilation, it has conducted cyber attacks against Estonian government computers, it has conducted before this Georgian invasion a rigging of elections and a poisoning of a political candidate in Ukraine, it has used it's fascist power of nationalized oil and gas and conducted economic warfare against the Czech Republic and will most likely do so by threatening Western Europe. Georgia has a major oil pipeline, which would mean Russia would have a complete state controlled monopoly over all oil and natural gas pipeline transportation to Europe, which is a major energy source for the EU's economy, and also Russia has a complete state controlled monopoly over natural gas to Europe. There is no reason to believe a cowardly approach to Russia would incentivize them to stop their quest for Imperial power. The economy between the EU and the US is one of the strongest interdependent economies on the globe. We owe a great deal of our wealth because of that global market.

2. Attempts to project a trend from there to the loss of Germany, France, Spain, etc. is just plain over the top.

I'm beginning to think you just refuse to see the trend and refuse to consider any historical precedence for how Facist Imperialists tend to behave. Not my problem you don't understand the threat of a bully.

3. It isn't altruistic slander if it is true and it is.

It is not altruistic, and it is slander. To which I can just easily reply you are an isolationist, pacifist, appeaser who has an intrincist view of what is legitimate retaliatory force.

4. To say that it is in our interest, doesn't mean it should become government law. It is in our interest to not engage in drug abuse, but the last thing we want to do is have government pass laws telling us what we can't put into our bodies. To say that something is in our interest (on one level), does NOT mean that it is in our interest to violate individual rights to provide it.

Your drug law analogy is false. Drug laws are laws that violate an individual's right to do to their bodies what they wish to do which is not analogous to stopping a Facist Imperialist empire that threatens and intimidates our economic trading partners, which stopping such a threat is upholding our right to peacefully trade with them.

5. You say, "Why you pick and choose which forms of rights protection is evil because of forcible taxation." I pick up all individual rights that fall within U.S. Jurisdiction.

I see. So when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the United States had no jurisdictional authority to declare war on Japan. This argument for jurisdictional authority means if something goes against your self-interests, you shouldn't act because no one gave you a legal authority to do so. To apply that to nation qua nation where no such legal infrastructure exists is just plain stupid.

6. You say that humanitarian aid is a guise for sending in military aid. Because it is lie on top of taking my money to support extra-jurisdictional activities doesn't make it right.

What would you have our leaders do in the context of a society that elevates altruism as a moral ideal? In that reality, if they said "We're sending in the military to prevent Russia from taking Tbilisi and ceasing the pipeline" would mean whatever tenuous support we get from cowardly Europe and our own citizens would be completely gone. You act with what best available options you have, and that I believe was the best available option.

7. What some police department says about sacrifice isn't pertinent here. See my post to Ted (above) in reference to mugging which is about jurisdiction and the proper justification for any governments actions.

Another jurisdictional argument, already addressed above. Our government does not need international legal authority to defend our rights.

Post 19

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 10:59am