RoR: Forum

Post 0

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 6:14am

Link

Edit

Yes Shane, I get the message from the LewRockwell folks - it's loud and clear.

I used to think that people that support this drivel, and use it to support the ideology of the LewRockwell.coms were practicing moral equivalency, but I was wrong. It appears that their relativism stops on America’s shores.

When it comes to the United States these people become absolutist that can match any fundamentalist evangelical in religious fervor. By thinking that all they are guilty of is moral equivalency, I gave them a benefit of the doubt that they do not deserve. They take the moronic ramblings of some of our useful-idiot politicians and use them to hammer the American conscious.

The reality is that if one were to take their statements to their logical conclusion, one would be forced to admit that our enemies are the ones on the moral high ground; while the United States is but an imperialistic aggressor trying to rule the world.

I also used to think that these people were too focused on the peripheral issues while being blinded or confused to the essential issue that lies at the core. Once again, I was mistaken. The reality is, that the only reason they peripherally attack American policy against dangerous tyrannies and theocracies is because deep down they know that if they were to openly state what is at the heart of there beliefs, to state it essentially; it is pure hatred. But it is not a morally equivalent hatred, it is a hatred that’s sharpest edge and primary target is America.

For our enemies, a deference and patience will be shown that is staggering. But for the United States itself, nothing – not even the slightest and most minor of missteps is forgiven or put into the wider context. The Lew-Rockwell types are lower than most of Americas more infamous traitors of the past.

In the past, a sizable portion of traitors were motivated not so much ideologically, but criminally; they sought financial wealth at the expense of their nation. What I wouldn’t give for a good honest traitor that is selling documents or committing sabotage for personal gain! He at least retains a modicum of my respect. But the Rockwell types, their treason is of the insidious variety. Their sole motivation is hatred, and their mission is one that they are willing to sacrifice for; they would be willing to immolate themselves and the entire nation for the purpose of advancing a doctrine of hatred.

This is the danger posed by the well-meaning useful idiot; he arms the most treasonous elements in our society with the arguments by which to undermine it. The greatest guilt that *should* be heaped upon our nations government - is that it tolerates a treason that is so brazen in approach.

George.

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/08, 9:58am)

Post 1

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 7:39am

Link

Edit

Agreed, and if there is any doubt look at his questions; is Iraq better off? Is the world better off? Are our fallen better off? He completly ignores the whole reason behind the war, to make US better off. No, he doesn't ignore them, he knows the truth but is evading it because it doesn't fit into his grandiose speech. He would rather not ask what those men died for and instead lement on the suffering our our enemies and our useless 'allies'. He speaks of the cost forgetting his forebear's words of how American's will "pay any cost, bear any burden" in order to protest ourselves and more importantly, do what's right. He ignore's what the President has been saying for the past two years about preemptive wars, they are to stop an enemy before they act, not respond to when they do.

Was Saddam an ally of bin Laden? I don't know and frankly I don't care. The enemy of your enemy is sometimes just another enemy. Whats more important is that they both wanted the same thing, the destruction of America. Finally, did Saddam have WMD's? Now I do care about that but not finding them did nothing to change the justification of the war. If he did have them and shipped them off to Syria while we were dickering about, then the good represetative has no case other then his hatred for America. If he didn't then that would have done nothing to stop his ambitions for attacking our country on other fronts, first through Israel and then America. in the end, WMD's or not, it all boiled to a question of when, not if. And what pisses him off is that we struck first.

Post 2

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 9:59am

Link

Edit

Concerning George Cordero's post: what a bunch of delusional and craven psychologizing.

Post 3

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 10:06am

Link

Edit

I disagree with you guys (George and Clarence).

George said:

"The greatest guilt that *should* be heaped upon our nations government - is that it tolerates a treason that is so brazen in approach."

However, I had anticipated this "seed of nationalism" (not patriotism) with the following quote:

"All change in history, all advance, comes from the nonconformists. If there had been no troublemakers, no Dissenters, we should still be living in caves."

Clarence said:

"He completly ignores the whole reason behind the war, to make US better off. No, he doesn't ignore them, he knows the truth but is evading it because it doesn't fit into his grandiose speech."

However, Ron Paul states:

"But there’s another question that is equally important: 'Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?'”

"The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off."

"The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will – a de facto draft – are not feeling better off."

"The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse."

"The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion ... Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists ... Osama bin Laden benefits ..."

"Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?"

"Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world."

and he sums up with:

"Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world ... "

"Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state."

I found Ron Paul's reasoning to be compelling. George and Clarence did not. Regarding an explanation for these dichotomous evaluations of the same material--I throw my hands up in despair.

Ed

Post 4

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 10:33am

Link

Edit

No, he wasn't answering the question. By "better off" we mean, or at least I mean that were our objectives met? Are the American people safer now then before? All he was talking about was the cost of the war, yes it cost a lot, of course it did. I knew, he knew, and Bush knew what a war could do to a nation. You say 'war' and we both know its costs money, people are going to die, and the economy will suffer. Those are all givens and they are all useless when talking about the morality of war.

I could make all those same arguments against WWII and they'd be equally useless. Using his logic, we should never go to war, hell just let us be conqured and we won't have to lose a single man. Yes we spent a lot of money, for our own defense. Yes our people died, when they went willingly into battle. And yes a lot of countries like us less, but thats on them not us.

Post 5

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 11:09am

Link

Edit

Ed said: However, I had anticipated this "seed of nationalism" (not patriotism) with the following quote: "All change in history, all advance, comes from the nonconformists. If there had been no troublemakers, no Dissenters, we should still be living in caves."

First of all Ed, I am surprised that you would use the term 'nationalism' in reference to me. My criticisms of many United States government policies, parties and polticians is well documented. Your inference was insulting, and beneath you. For an accurate depiction of my idea of love of country, look here - post number 16.

And since you want to sling a quote at me, let me retort with two of my own:

"Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent" - Ayn Rand

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it" - Ayn Rand

It's not that George and Clarence did not find his reasoning "compelling", it's that we found it to skirt the core issue of a life and death battle between civilizations, while focusing on the peripheral and non-essential.

Last but not least, do not pretend that you did not see that this news item was a link from the dickless cowards of LewRockwell.com. Whatever your position about the war, to lend your agreement to anything in connection with that group of anti-American traitors is beneath contempt.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/08, 1:28pm)

Post 6

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 11:41am

Link

Edit

I find it interesting that anyone who claims to uphold individualism would bash Ron Paul and imply he is committing treason. This is the only federal politician in Washington who supports the free market, the Bill of Rights, and individual liberty. He is the only one who comes close to voting up or down based on constitutionality and liberty. Indeed, he is by far one of the most heroic congressmen in the history of this country. Those that would side with a socialist like George W. Bush over a real patriot and individualist like Ron Paul, and then say they support liberty, confuse me greatly.

Post 7

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 11:46am

Link

Edit

Anthony,

Re-read my posts. The justified contempt is aimed at the low-life cowards of LewRockwell, Ron Paul's stance on *this* issue, is dismissed as another case of useful idiocy.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/08, 1:33pm)

Post 8

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 1:39pm

Link

Edit

Anthony,

"Those that would side with a socialist like George W. Bush over a real patriot and individualist like Ron Paul, and then say they support liberty, confuse me greatly."

In a word, Anthony, it's narcissism. People like Cordero got sold the "war on terror" like yokels buying Electric Hair Growing Ointment at a traveling medicine show, and just can't face the fact that they were taken. The position they took _has_ to be right ... because _they_ took it.

Since their narcissism prevents them from abandoning their mistakes, and since their mistakes can't be defended on the basis of fact, reason or logic, their only resort is to smuggle in the Argument from Intimidation -- call the opponent evil and hope nobody notices that he's right.

Tom Knapp

Post 9

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 9:09am

Link

Edit

Check out the voting record of Ron Paul, and compare it to any other representative or senator. He's had the only consistent opposition to tax, spending and other increases in government power, the only consistent support of individual rights. It's too bad if some Objectivists want to regard him an idiot or traitor just for questioning the invasion of Iraq, as he's the only friend of freedom to be found at all in the federal government.

Post 10

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 9:25am

Link

Edit

Wow. I can't believe the ignorance that I'm reading here. Let's get some of the facts straight.

First, Ron Paul is the foremost defender of freedom in the entire U.S. Congress. He regularly introduces legislation that would seriously reduce government (including bills to withdraw from the UN and to scrap the IRS code), and he votes against everything that isn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. On a personal level, he's a Christian, not an Objectivist. But he's far better than any other U.S. politician from a pro-liberty standpoint.

Second, with regard to U.S. foreign policy, it's not true that "if one were to take their statements to their logical conclusion, one would be forced to admit that our enemies are the ones on the moral high ground." Stating that the U.S. government's misguided and unprincipled military interventionism is detrimental to the well-being of America is emphatically not a moral sanction of Middle Eastern dictatorships. I would hope that other self-proclaimed Objectivists could grasp the distinction.

And as far as whether the Iraq War in particular has made the United States "better off," the answer is clearly No. How could it have? Saddam Hussein never threatened America and had no capability to harm us, as has been documented over and over again. Further, as a secular dictator concerned only with holding onto power, he had no ties to Al Queda or other Islamic fundamentalist groups. Thus, the Iraq War didn't eliminate a threat to America; rather, it has given terrorists a new recruitment tool.

None of the above, of course, even addresses the fact that more than 1,500 Americans are dead (with many more crippled) and more than $200 billion of taxpayer money has been spent (in a time of onerous deficits, no less).

Ayn Rand opposed every American military intervention in the twentieth century . . . even wars allegedly fought to ward off communism in Asia. There's no doubt in my mind that she would have opposed the Iraq debacle as well.

Post 11

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 12:00pm

Link

Edit

"You say 'war' and we both know its costs money, people are going to die, and the economy will suffer. Those are all givens and they are all useless when talking about the morality of war."

So we should only talk about the morality of an end goal of a given war - and drop all context about the means?

Post 12

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 2:03pm

Link

Edit

“Those that would side with a socialist like George W. Bush over a real patriot and individualist like Ron Paul, and then say they support liberty, confuse me greatly.”

HERE, HERE!! Ron Paul is one of my heroes!

- B.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post 13

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 3:00pm

Link

Edit

Direct quote from the speech by Ron Paul:

Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

That reminds me too much of:

Better red than dead.

Makes me shudder despite the Congressman's record.

I made a semi-humorous comment on another thread about plunder being an integral part of the reason for war. It may not be part of the moral reason, but it sure comes with war - and it comes with ALL wars.

This is a reality (yes, even and especially in this war) and has to be faced and dealt with from a moral/legal stance - that is, discover who the plunderers are, stop them and punish them. The entire USA is not doing this. Some individuals and organizations are.

The plundering of some does not invalidate the reasons behind the big picture, pseudo-libertarian crap notwithstanding.

I, too, am highly disturbed about the increase in gas prices. But let's even go further. How about Afghanistan? Now we have high-grade snortable heroin on the streets of our main cities. You don't even need a needle anymore to get hooked on that crap. I wonder where that is coming from.

But as an alternative to the hatred for the USA (the great Satan) and the highly-active, highly-funded, highly-trained militant guerrilla warfare that some of these Islamic countries have engaged in, even plunder and prime-grade narcotics are preferable.

(Let's not worry about the morality of drug laws here, please. The drug problem exists and is now getting worse - but that is for another discussion.)

When faced with an option between the horrible and the even worse, you choose the horrible. Then you deal with the horrible, which is different problem altogether. This doesn't imply that horrible things are thus granted a moral sanction. This simply means that reality imposed a choice at that particular moment.

In the Iraq case, there is a lot of housecleaning to do. I am particularly disturbed about the Patriot Act establishing legal liberty-eating precedents that will not go away.

But I am very proud we went in there and kicked ass. We took out a major role model - Hussein was a HERO. So many young Islamic men and women looked up to him for moral/practical guidance about how to deal with the USA. These type of people may be misguided, but they are not armchair intellectuals. They strap bombs on themselves and blow up everything around them when they believe they are right.

Things are messy right now. All war breeds bad things. Sometimes there is no other way. But I believe reason will prevail in the end. Anyway, things cannot be worse now than where they were headed under all that militant belligerence.

I can only speculate about that, but I do believe that one can rationally predict that the highly funded Islamic militancy against the USA as it existed before the two invasions would have resulted in more - and more effective - terrorist attacks on Ameircan soil.

Instead of putting so much effort into ignoring this and pointing the finger at America's "lack of morality" in getting into the Iraq invasion, if these pseudo-libertarians really wanted to do any practical good, they would go after the corruption, specifically the ones who are making plunder-type gains, and also help in setting up an achievable viable freedom structure over there.

Michael

Post 14

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 5:06pm

Link

Edit

Libertarianism is the rejection of the initiation of force. This war involved the initiation of force, against innocent Iraqis and innocent Americans.

You can say that you believe war justifies the initiation of force, in certain cirumstances. You can argue that this war was worth it. But don't call those of us who consistently oppose the initiation of force "pseudo-libertarians." Instead, admit that you hold an unlibertarian position on this issue, because you think libertarianism doesn't apply to foreign policy.

R.J. Rummel had the integrity to stop calling himself a libertarian because he realized the label didn't apply to his beliefs. Many conservatives have stopped calling themselves libertarian since 9/11. They are being honest with themselves. If you don't like the foreign-policy implications of rejecting the initiation of force, if you want to advocate non-defensive wars for such purposes as "democratizing" the Middle East, you are holding a non-libertarian position on foreign policy.

People who don't like the libertarian viewpoint on taxes, gun control, healthcare or the war on drugs usually don't call themselves libertarian. They might agree with much of the libertarian philosophy, but think it constrains them too much in what they can and cannot advocate. So they have the good sense to say they're not libertarians, since libertarianism bothers them in some of its applications.

The very least a pro-war liberventionist can do is stop calling libertarians who oppose using the state to initiate force in the context of war "pseudo-libertarians."

And yes, this war is an initiation of force. At the very least, it involves taxation and the bombing of innocent people. The taxation alone makes it unlibertarian. If you don't agree with this, you have no libertarian argument against welfare, which, like warfare, is funded through theft, but, unlike war, distributes the loot out in a much less coercive way.

Post 15

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 6:35pm

Link

Edit

Anthony, my man,

I do not belong to any organized Libertarian organization. But I am pretty sick an tired of a bunch of armchair intellectuals hijacking that term. So I have come up with the phrase "pseudo-libertarian" for those who take a principle like non-initiation of force to the nth degree of blindness and posture themselves as having some kind of moral superiority, when all they are doing in essence is being silly. If this term is causing discomfort, well good. It needs to.

But just to play it your way, you and I have major differences over who started all these hostilities with the Arab world. A culture of people that has harbored and given sanction for years to airplane hijackers and the like, has funded high-tech guerilla training operations, including the infiltration of the American society with spies and whatnot, has once held hostage an entire American embassy for months, has openly proclaimed the overthrow of the "great Satan" (read USA) while silently supporting and funding organizations that engage in acts of terrorism against USA interests, has armed themselves to the teeth and sought nuclear weapons capabilities... shall I go on?

At what point do "libertarains" wish them to "initiate" their force so that we can be morally correct in retaliating? Running airplanes into skyscrapers in our cities? I won't buy it anymore. Sounds real "pseudo" to me.

That is not what George Washington (to me the greatest "libertarian" who ever lived) and company were about. They knew when to use force against tyrants to protect rights - including when to initiate it. That does not make them (a) morally inferior, and (b) unlibertarian.

I defend and support my country's right to look at hostile indications of grave threat and do whatever is necessary to protect Americans before they are killed at home, not after - even to protect your pseudo-libertarian backside.

I have to. I certainly will not be able to expect it for myself and my loved ones from your quarters.

Michael

Post 16

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 7:13pm

Link

Edit

Michael:

"But just to play it your way, you and I have major differences over who started all these hostilities with the Arab world. A culture of people that has harbored and given sanction for years to airplane hijackers and the like, has funded high-tech guerilla training operations, including the infiltration of the American society with spies and whatnot, has once held hostage an entire American embassy for months, has openly proclaimed the overthrow of the 'great Satan' (read USA) while silently supporting and funding organizations that engage in acts of terrorism against USA interests, has armed themselves to the teeth and sought nuclear weapons capabilities... shall I go on?"

Hmmm ... you should probably get some facts straight first.

The people who "once held hostage an entire American embassy for months" were not Arabs. They were Iranians (Persians). They were affiliated with a group called Mujahadeen El Khalq, a group which the US now supports versus the Iranian government.

Shall I go on?

Tom Knapp
(Edited by Thomas L. Knapp
on 4/08, 7:14pm)

Post 17

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 7:20pm

Link

Edit

“But just to play it your way, you and I have major differences over who started all these hostilities with the Arab world. A culture of people that has harbored and given sanction for years to airplane hijackers and the like, has funded high-tech guerilla training operations, including the infiltration of the American society with spies and whatnot, has once held hostage an entire American embassy for months, has openly proclaimed the overthrow of the "great Satan" (read USA) while silently supporting and funding organizations that engage in acts of terrorism against USA interests, has armed themselves to the teeth and sought nuclear weapons capabilities... shall I go on?”

No, if I may suggest, don’t go on. Your argument is missing one key point: MOTIVE. Don’t you ever ask yourself why: 1) these hostilities started; 2) they have funded high-tech guerilla training operations; 3) they spy on us; 4) held us hostage; yada yada yada?? Since you are of the mindset to “defend and support [your] country's right to look at hostile indications of grave threat,” do you think that others are morally correct in having a similar mindset? When a bully picks a fight and then beats you up, what do you do?

And, oh, BTW, lest you forget who initially funded all of the training of Osama bin Laden, you might want to do some research on that, as… er… AMERIKA did.

Before any of you fly-off to profess that I support these killers, I don’t. I don’t agree with Yaron Brooke’s logic that it’s OK to kill civilians because they sanction it by not preventing it. For, if you agree with that then, to be consistent, it must work both ways. That logic directly supports that ObL was morally correct for 9/11. Are you really going to support that logic? I think I remember reading somewhere that contradictions don’t exist, and that if you think one exists, check your premises – one of them is wrong. Sound familiar?

Be clear about one thing, and one thing only: the bully on the block is OUR government… and WE are sanctioning/harboring them by not removing them. And, THAT is what “George Washington (to me the greatest "libertarian" who ever lived)” fought for.

“[Y]ou and I have major differences over who started all these hostilities with the Arab world.”

In case you haven’t heard by now, WE started it. Avoid that reality at your peril.

- B.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post 18

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 7:35pm

Link

Edit

Thomas,

I was not clear due to personal history. A habit I picked up in Brazil. I was using the term "Arab" in the Islamic culture sense - not the Saudi Arabian sense.

I have the right to do it too. My ex father-in-law is a Beduin and my ex mother-in-law Lebanese. My children thus have "Arabian" blood in them. Also, a wonderful man who taught me most of what I know in motion pictures - and paid me to learn it on the job - is a Palestinian.

In Brazil we call all of them "Turks" anyway. They like that name and use it themselves.

But please, do go on. I would be most interested in knowing why all the guerilla warfare over the years has constituted no threat.

Michael

Post 19

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 7:44pm

Link

Edit

"That reminds me too much of:

Better red than dead.

Makes me shudder despite the Congressman's record."

I agree Ron Paul's words that living under SH was better than being dead are disturbing to hear. They are certainly less inspiring to me than "Give me liberty or give me death."

Thinking honestly about my own life, however, I realize we all make "horrible [vs] even worse" decisions as to what we'd really risk to defend our liberties. I live with having over 40% of my income stolen and all the various regulations and restrictions of this government - not because its encroachments are morally justified, but because truly taking Patrick Henry's words to heart would mean near-certain death. I don't know if you are stateside now or how Brazil measures up, but regardless I assume that you have to face the same decision, to reserve yourself to some level of oppression rather than valiant resistance and death. People living under Saddam obviously had much grimmer circumstances to factor in. In the end they too, though, had to make the decision whether to endure a large degree of oppression, or fight it and almost certainly die.

I recognize there may be people who have a greater or lesser endurance for suppression of liberty than I do. Perhaps some would risk all their freedom and lives just to avoid the taxes and restrictions of a relatively less-oppressive state like US, NZ, or Switzerland; more power to them - I am not that brave. Many endured a crushing police state of Stalinist USSR without resisting; I would have decided differently in that situation, but respect that it was their decision to make. I don't think it means there's some irrational subjectivist difference in people either; I expect young single people to be more willing to risk their lives for more freedom than someone with a family to care for, and probably many other reasonable factors figure in someone's personal equation.

Whatever level of risk one chooses to take to ensure their freedom, it is an individual choice to make. No one has a right to kill me in the process of liberating me from the US govt to form an Objectivist minarchy, because I didn't make the choice to take that risk myself. Likewise, I cannot see how I could have any right to make such a life or death decision for someone else.

"This is a reality (yes, even and especially in this war) and has to be faced and dealt with from a moral/legal stance - that is, discover who the plunderers are, stop them and punish them. The entire USA is not doing this. Some individuals and organizations are."

There undoubtedly are third parties profiting off ill-gotten gains in the Iraq war. However, my first thought of 'plunder' concerning the war is almost certainly the most significant, and easy to pinpoint. At >$200,000,000,000 US for the war, the federal government is plundering on average >$1000 from every working man and woman in the country. Unfortunately it's not realistic to think the politicians will be punished, but stopping any further plunder is certainly a proper goal.

"When faced with an option between the horrible and the even worse, you choose the horrible. Then you deal with the horrible, which is different problem altogether. This doesn't imply that horrible things are thus granted a moral sanction. This simply means that reality imposed a choice at that particular moment."

I'm not sure if you're describing the type of individual decisions I was thinking of such as a personal 'degree of freedom vs. risk of death' - or something broader and much more utilitarian.

"I am particularly disturbed about the Patriot Act establishing legal liberty-eating precedents that will not go away."

Agreed, though I actually find it less frightening than disregard for habeas corpus.

"But I am very proud we went in there and kicked ass. We took out a major role model - Hussein was a HERO."

I too am glad Saddam lost power, though not of how it was achieved or that, for all the people dead, he's still alive. Ends vs means.

"I can only speculate about that, but I do believe that one can rationally predict that the highly funded Islamic militancy against the USA as it existed before the two invasions would have resulted in more - and more effective - terrorist attacks on Ameircan soil."

That's a wide-open 'what-if?' Had the US remained with bases in the middle east and maintaining a crippling embargo on Iraq, but without invading anywhere, I see how the terrorism situation could have been even worse. However, I also expect without the US military sitting there as a focal point that terrorism would be less than either of the above - since the highly funded Islamic dictatorships could return to fighting each each other (ala Iraq/Iran) or fighting Israel. As 'what-ifs' go, I've also wondered how things would have gone if US had stayed out of Iraq War '91, and instead Osama's proposal to Saudi Arabia that his mujahadin fight against Saddam could have played out.

"Instead of putting so much effort into ignoring this and pointing the finger at America's "lack of morality" in getting into the Iraq invasion, if these pseudo-libertarians really wanted to do any practical good, they would go after the corruption, specifically the ones who are making plunder-type gains, and also help in setting up an achievable viable freedom structure over there."

I think recognizing the moral issues concerning use of force is always incredibly important. As far as practical good, I pessimistically admit that morality of starting the war to begin with is pointless in one sense - ie. since no one would ever realistically be held accountable for crimes (against Americans or Iraqis) done by US in pursuit of the war. However, libertarians (I'd say the term applies to him without qualification even though his party is Republican) like Ron Paul are fighting to stop the ongoing plunder of Americans, by trying to at least get the US out of Iraq now that Saddam has been removed from power.

I suspect we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on a lot about the Iraq war, especially if this ends up being Objectivism vs. utilitarianism. I am very glad though to meet a SOLOist on the pro-Iraq-war side who hasn't wielded 'traitor' or 'Saddamite', and who instead prefers to discuss ideas.