RoR: Forum

[Mr. Gregory:] "Was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan a good in itself — even at the cost of arming what became the Taliban?"

Good means good, not perfect. Perfection is the unatainable ideal, improvement is the visible thing. Realistic thinking recognizes that. Communism was also evil: actually, the greater evil of that historical moment. Often you need to divide your enemies in order to win. Yes, that's utilitarian, but also moral.

[Mr. Gregory:] "Was fighting the fanatical Iranian regime a good in itself — even at the cost of arming and funding Saddam Hussein?"

See the former answer. America has a limited military might, and then the dictator Hussein was perceived by the American Administration as a useful tool to laminate the power of the mullocratic regime, then perceived as the greater evil. Do you thing that appeasing Khomeini would have made things better?

[Mr. Gregory:] Is any price appropriate for the purpose of destroying a sufficiently evil State?

Easy answer: not any. Proportionality is required. But when the stakes are high, the price you should be willing to pay must be high. But so is the reward: what about preservation of freedom?

What price am I willing to pay to defeat wrongness and evil in the world? I am willing to devote my life on that.

Post 21

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 11:29am

Jose Català writes:

[Mr. Gregory:] "Was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan a good in itself — even at the cost of arming what became the Taliban?"

Good means good, not perfect. Perfection is the unatainable ideal, improvement is the visible thing. Realistic thinking recognizes that. Communism was also evil: actually, the greater evil of that historical moment. Often you need to divide your enemies in order to win. Yes, that's utilitarian, but also moral.

No it's not.

[Mr. Gregory:] "Was fighting the fanatical Iranian regime a good in itself — even at the cost of arming and funding Saddam Hussein?"

See the former answer. America has a limited military might, and then the dictator Hussein was perceived by the American Administration as a useful tool to laminate the power of the mullocratic regime, then perceived as the greater evil. Do you thing that appeasing Khomeini would have made things better?

It would have been better if the U.S. government had not funded, armed and assisted Saddam Hussein during what constituted his worst crimes against humanity that he ever committed.

[Mr. Gregory:] Is any price appropriate for the purpose of destroying a sufficiently evil State?

Easy answer: not any. Proportionality is required. But when the stakes are high, the price you should be willing to pay must be high. But so is the reward: what about preservation of freedom?

What price am I willing to pay to defeat wrongness and evil in the world? I am willing to devote my life on that.

Unless you're willing to die a painful death to remove Saddam from power, you have no legitimate say as to whether others should.

Our government is becoming fascist, make no mistake about it, and it is the attitude of all too many warmongering Americans that is allowing it to happen. The evils you speak of in Communist Russia, totalitarian Islamic regimes and other dictatorships are very real, but America is not immune. As James Madison so trenchantly observed: "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

Post 22

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 12:47pm

Joel,

You wrote:

"The costs are very easy to list. But today that's definitely a defeatist policy. That's propaganda in favor of the throat-slitters.

"To be honest you need to say why those Americans gave their lives.

"They died in defense of America."

That's the rub.

If you're talking about the personal motivations of individual soldiers, you may be right. If you're talking about the policy which they were engaged in implementing, there is simply no way, by any stretch of the imagination, that invading and conquering a country which:

a) had not attacked America[1];

b) had not threatened to attack America;

c) evinced no interest in attacking America; and

d) had no substantial capability to attack America ...

can be characterized as "defending America."

"[Mr. Knapp:] 'Furthermore, I don't regard other people's lives and money as rightfully mine to dispose of in undertaking such projects.'

"Are you saying that you would like to renounce your citizenship?"

I don't recognize any form of "citizenship" as conferring a claim on the work or lives of others. Are you suggesting that American "citizenship" entails such claims or recognition thereof?

Tom Knapp

1. Some investigators, authors and commentators have held this not to be so, and specifically reference the possibility that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, the introduction of West Nile Virus in upstate New York circa 1998, or other events which may have constituted attacks. However, none of those investigators, authors or commentators speak on behalf of the organization which advocated and implemented, the invasion and which is therefore properly the organization which must justify that invasion. That organization, the US government, denies such claims.

Post 23

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 12:57pm

[Mr Gregory:] "Our government is becoming fascist, make no mistake about it [...]"

I think that you're a bit too paranoid with your own Government. Let me explain:

1.- One of the first things that fascist goverments do is to disarm the civilian population. But the only defenders of strict arm control are some in the Democratic party and possibly the Pacifists. Not President Bush.

2.- In dictatorial regimes, only pro-Gov media is allowed. And the American MSM is definitely not pro-Bush. The same can be said about Hollywood and its more or less buffonesque celebrities.

[Mr Gregory:] "The evils you speak of in Communist Russia, totalitarian Islamic regimes and other dictatorships are very real [...]"

Indeed: real and fascist regimes, today existing and acting against our interests. Are you renouncing self-defense because your presendent is a Freedomist instead of a Libertarian?

[Mr Gregory:] As James Madison so trenchantly observed: "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

Not all foreign policy is a tyranical excuse. I recall my former message linking an article John Quincy Adams on how he undertook the task of combating Muslim terrorism, hijacking, Tyranny and Oppression; in relation to the European apathy about the Oppression of Greeks by the Turks, he said:

"If ever insurrection was holy in the eyes of God, such was that of the Greeks against their Mahometan oppressors. Yet for six long years, they were suffered to be overwhelmed by the whole mass of the Ottoman power; cheered only by the sympathies of all the civilized world, but without a finger raised to sustain or relieve them by the Christian governments of Europe; while the sword of extermination, instinct with the spirit of the Koran, was passing in merciless horror over the classical regions of Greece, the birth-place of philosophy, of poetry, of eloquence, of all the arts that embellish, and all the sciences that dignify the human character. The monarchs of Austria, of France, and England, inflexibly persisted in seeing in the Greeks, only revolted subjects against a lawful sovereign. The ferocious Turk eagerly seized upon this absurd concession, and while sweeping with his besom of destruction over the Grecian provinces, answered every insinuation of interest in behalf of that suffering people, by assertions of the unqualified rights of sovereignty, and by triumphantly retorting upon the legitimates of Europe, the consequences naturally flowing from their own perverted maxims.” [p. 278]"

But I will agree with you the moment that the American Army attacks a democratic state.

Joel Català

Post 24

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 1:59pm

Joel,

You wrote:

"One of the first things that fascist goverments do is to disarm the civilian population. But the only defenders of strict arm control are some in the Democratic party and possibly the Pacifists. Not President Bush."

One might argue, with some backing in evidence, that gun control is ultimately an essential feature of fascism. It is not, however, necessarily an immediate feature of fascism. Mussolini was in power for nine years before attempting to implement gun control -- and his rules were tightened, not loosened, after WWII. Hitler came to power in 1933. The first major extension of the Weimar Republic's gun control policies did not occur until 1938.

Both parties in the US are a mixed bag on gun control. However, Bush is one of the more thorough-goingly anti-gun Republicans, and generally more anti-gun than any but the most anti-gun Democrats. He asked Congress to renew the "assault weapons" ban, and under his direction federal prosecutions of gun dealers for technical omissions in paperwork and such have drastically increased from the Clinton era.

"In dictatorial regimes, only pro-Gov media is allowed. And the American MSM is definitely not pro-Bush."

Fascism has had to evolve with the times. Modern mass media and the Internet have made overt censorship virtually impossible, especially as a transition from a relatively free status. The solution the American police state has come up with is to a) regulate, b) count on the media to be, as it always is, in favor of the status quo, and c) operate to the extent it can that "freedom of speech" actually means "let'em rattle the bars -- they're still in cages, and that's all that matters."

Secondly, the American mainstream media has been exceptionally soft on Bush. There's a bit of anti-Bush posturing, but when it comes to the substantial issues, he gets a free pass every time.

Tom Knapp

Post 25

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 4:39pm

Joel Català writes:

[Mr Gregory:] "Our government is becoming fascist, make no mistake about it [...]"

I think that you're a bit too paranoid with your own Government. Let me explain:

1.- One of the first things that fascist goverments do is to disarm the civilian population. But the only defenders of strict arm control are some in the Democratic party and possibly the Pacifists. Not President Bush.

2.- In dictatorial regimes, only pro-Gov media is allowed. And the American MSM is definitely not pro-Bush. The same can be said about Hollywood and its more or less buffonesque celebrities.

So, as long as there is no total victim disarmament or total censorship, a regime is not fascist? Was Saddam's regime fascist, considering that it allowed assault weapons ownership—something not allowed, incidentally, in Washington, DC? I would say no, too, on other grounds, but I would not claim he was not a dictator.

Are you renouncing self-defense because your presendent is a Freedomist instead of a Libertarian?

"Freedomism" — which, I believe, is a synonym for liberventionism coined by a man who does advocate censorship — has nothing to do with self-defense, nor does Gulf War II by any stretch of a sane person's imagination.

But I will agree with you the moment that the American Army attacks a democratic state.

The Democratic Peace Theory is mostly an excuse for imperialism. Democracy is not freedom. Even though the regimes of Guatamala, Iran and Chile were democratic when the U.S. overthrew them, and even though those U.S. interventions were neither just nor defensive, I would never claim those regimes were free.

But thanks for agreeing that "freedomism" is not libertarianism.

Post 26

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 4:53pm

Tom Knapp writes:

"Both parties in the US are a mixed bag on gun control. However, Bush is one of the more thorough-goingly anti-gun Republicans, and generally more anti-gun than any but the most anti-gun Democrats. He asked Congress to renew the 'assault weapons' ban, and under his direction federal prosecutions of gun dealers for technical omissions in paperwork and such have drastically increased from the Clinton era."

Good points. Although I think most Republicans are far worse on the issue than even many libertarians who know better would admit. But Bush is particularly bad. Don't forget his stonewalling of the efforts to arm airline pilots — one of the very few measures against terrorism proposed by Congress (including the majority of Democrats) that makes any sense whatsoever. And then there's the police-state federal program "Project Safe Neighborhoods," which Ashcroft's Justice Department bragged was responsible for "federal gun crime prosecutions [increasing] by 68 percent over the last three years." The DOJ continued to boast in the press release: "Last year, the Department set a new record of charging 23 percent more individuals for violating federal firearms laws."

Post 27

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 7:55pm

If you truly feel this strongly Mr.C you could always enlist in the US Army or Marine Corps. Assuming you aren't killed, you will then be eligible for citizenship immediately upon discharge. Or physical therapy and rehabilitation services if needed as well. What say you?

Post 28

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 8:00am

[Mr.Knapp:] “Freedomism" — which, I believe, is a synonym for liberventionism coined by [...].”

I will be more precise in order to avoid triggering your imagination again (if I can).

I refer Freedomism as defined by Dr. Rudolf Rummel, who is a Freedomist scholar, and who says:

“Because of my research, the bottom line for me is freedom, the freedom of the individual to live his own life, consistent with a like freedom for others. And I am trying to secure and further it for the United States while fostering it abroad.”

And the bottom line is:

“To foster freedom [everywere] is to foster a solution to war and democide, and to minimize domestic collective violence.”

[Mr. Knapp:] The Democratic Peace Theory is mostly an excuse for imperialism."

The term "Empire", similarly as "rule", is a neutral term. It depends on the Empire you refer.

In example, the Aztec empire was really evil, but the British empire combated slavery very efficiently. I am not saying that the British Empire was close to perfect, what I am saying is that that empire extended the values of freedom and Civilization around the world. In example, Gandhi learned a lot abount freedom in England.

Besides, before critisizing and putting the blame only on America and the West, I would read about the existing alternatives. The West considers slavery as wrong. In example, Islam consider slavery as a legitimate right of Muslims.

[Mr.Knapp:] “Democracy is not freedom.”

Yes (and I assumed --wrongly-- that you would not try to dig here.) It requires the Rule of Liberal Law. "Liberal" in the classical sense, of course.

Anyway, (at a government level) it’s really hard to find something similar to freedom without a democratic system.

[Mr.Knapp:] “Even though the regimes of Guatamala [sic], Iran and Chile were democratic when the U.S. overthrew them, and even though those U.S. interventions were neither just nor defensive,“

The Cold War was a global, not very cold, war. And think about the then existing alternatives, please.

[Mr.Knapp:] “I would never claim those regimes were free.”

Agreed.

Best wishes,

Joel Català

Post 29

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 8:24am

“They died in defense of America."

[Mr. Knapp:] ”That's the rub.”

Yep: not everyone dares to fight to the death in defense of the values of freedom.

[Mr. Knapp:] ”[...]. If you're talking about the policy which they were engaged in implementing, there is simply no way, by any stretch of the imagination, that invading and conquering a country which:

a) had not attacked America[1];”

(Now I won’t assume you are implicitly saying that the toppling of the tyrant Hussein was a wrong thing to do.)

The Iraqi dictatorship attacked America by proxy; encouraged, funded, and cheered attacks against Western countries, included the United States of America. WMDs was definitely not the only reason to topple the tyrant. Anyway, the most dangerous Iraqi WMD was the thug Saddam Hussein.

"[Mr. Knapp:] 'Furthermore, I don't regard other people's lives and money as rightfully mine to dispose of in undertaking such projects.'

"Are you saying that you would like to renounce your citizenship?"

[Mr. Knapp:] “Are you suggesting that American "citizenship" entails such claims or recognition thereof?”

I would oath the Pledge of Allegiance, which defends liberty and justice for all American citizens. Now, I think that my question deserves an answer, not a subterfuge: would you like to renounce your citizenship?

Post 30

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 8:41am

"What say you?"

What I say to you?

"Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender,..."

Best wishes,

Joel Català

Post 31

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 8:54am

Joel Català writes:

[Mr.Knapp:] “Freedomism" — which, I believe, is a synonym for liberventionism coined by [...].”

I will be more precise in order to avoid triggering your imagination again (if I can).

You should at least be precise enough, then, to acknowledge that Mr. Knapp didn't say any of this: I did.

I refer Freedomism as defined by Dr. Rudolf Rummel, who is a Freedomist scholar, and who says:

“Because of my research, the bottom line for me is freedom, the freedom of the individual to live his own life, consistent with a like freedom for others. And I am trying to secure and further it for the United States while fostering it abroad.”

Some of the links I included in my post regard Mr. Rummel. He's the warmonger who coined the term "freedomist." He's the man who, as I pointed out, advocates censorship. Anyone who would defend censoring the media's war coverage on the absurd grounds that "we" already censor advertisers, television and political campaigns is not a friend of liberty. Anyone who blames the ill results of the murderous Vietnam war on "draft dodgers" is hardly someone to celebrate in the freedom movement. Anyone who considers Afghanistan to be a democracy and therefore a sign of the "success" of the ridiculous hawkish "democratic peace theory" is more a partisan of perpetual war than of liberty, as far as I'm concerned.

And please, don't put "[sic]"s in quotations of my writing unless you're prepared for me to do the same, such as in:

In example, Gandhi learned a lot abount [sic] freedom in England.

Besides, before critisizing [sic] and putting the blame only on America and the West, I would read about the existing alternatives. The West considers slavery as wrong. In example, Islam consider [sic] slavery as a legitimate right of Muslims.

To address some of your questions, I think the British Empire was far worse than you seem to believe. As recently as the early 20th century, it mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of indigenous Australians in a racially motivated act of genocide. Churchill advocated gassing the Kurds — the same crime that supposedly made Saddam the Hitler de jour a couple years ago. The British firebombed German civilians as if that's somehow acceptable. It was a brutal empire that raped, murdered and enslaved the world. Yes, it abolished slavery — after it profited off it and spread it all over the globe. Remember, Thomas Jefferson blamed the British Empire for bringing slavery to the American colonies. You think the British Empire was admirable? Tell that to the American Indians, the Chinese, the Indians, the native Australians or the Irish. There's a reason, you know, that the American colonists seceded.

And I think the best "alternative" to the Cold War would have been not to fight it. Of course, I hardly think it would have been an issue if it weren't for World War II, which in turn was a result of Wilson's proto-freedomist war to make the world safe for democracy.

Post 32

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 11:24am

Joel Català writes:

[Mr.Knapp:] “Freedomism" — which, I believe, is a synonym for liberventionism coined by [...].”

I will be more precise in order to avoid triggering your imagination again (if I can).

[Mr. Gregory:] "You should at least be precise enough, then, to acknowledge that Mr. Knapp didn't say any of this: I did."

True. I am sorry. Excuse me.

I refer Freedomism as defined by Dr. Rudolf Rummel, who is a Freedomist scholar, and who says:

“Because of my research, the bottom line for me is freedom, the freedom of the individual to live his own life, consistent with a like freedom for others. And I am trying to secure and further it for the United States while fostering it abroad.”

[Mr. Gregory:] Some of the links I included in my post regard Mr. Rummel. He's the warmonger who coined the term "freedomist."

Well, that's your opinion. If you take a look at his website and his works, perhaps you will give him a best title than "warmonger". Just for starters, the his website includes this quote in the very first page:

"Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely."

No: I don't think this is a warmonger's website.

[Mr. Gregory:] He's the man who, as I pointed out, advocates censorship.

I can't think about a good reason of why you don't citate the original source: Dr. Rummel's writing. Dr. Rummel tries to defend his position with paragraphs like that:

"This is war. If the media has its way and we withdraw immediately from Iraq, or even begin staged withdrawals now with a timetable, the terrorists win. With the support of Syria, this is assured. Then, the resulting democide by the victorious terrorists may well come close to that in South Vietnam after we withdrew. And, so heartened by our lack of will, the terrorists throughout the world could only get more state support, including even possible help on nukes from North Korea or China (somehow, it has been forgotten that China is still ruled by its Communist Party, and our enemy)."

Well, I don't agree with Dr. Rummel in this respect: the application of his idea, if his idea is general censorship, would fundamentally damage the American liberties.

I would exclusively ban and boicott jihadist websites and satellite channels, as Al-Jazeera and Al-Manar, in Hugh Fitzgerald's fashion. Or, if possible, as Mr. Fitzgerald says, to destroy their corresponding satellites.

I say that because you should take into account that jihad is a morally unconstrained war, waged by all means: included propaganda war, of course.

[Mr. Gregory:] Anyone who would defend censoring the media's war coverage on the absurd grounds that "we" already censor advertisers, television and political campaigns is not a friend of liberty.

We agree on that: that is, if it's an indiscriminate censorship.

[Mr. Gregory:] Anyone who considers Afghanistan to be a democracy and therefore a sign of the "success" of the ridiculous hawkish "democratic peace theory" is more a partisan of perpetual war than of liberty, as far as I'm concerned.

I am more concerned with the partisans of unconditional "peace". Remember Neville Chamberlain and his "Peace in our time" pact with Hitler, and the outcome of that. Please never forget that.

[Mr. Gregory:] "And please, don't put "[sic]"s in quotations of my writing"

As you please.

[Mr. Gregory:] "unless you're prepared for me to do the same"

Well, actually I like to be corrected, and feel prepared to improve. English is not my mother language --and typos exist.

[Mr. Gregory:] To address some of your questions, I think the British Empire was far worse than you seem to believe.

It's possible. But I think the alternatives were worse. I recall here my comment on slavery and Islam. I could speak about human sacrifice and cult of death in the Aztec empire, too. Multiculturalism is not a good per se.

[Mr. Gregory:] And I think the best "alternative" to the Cold War would have been not to fight it.

We will never know, but I don't think that appeasing who was openly warring for your demise would have been a good thing at all.

[Mr. Gregory:] World War II, which in turn was a result of Wilson's proto-freedomist war to make the world safe for democracy.

No: World War II was a product of Nazi fascism and the people who appeased Hitler. Never forget: war was necessary to stop Nazism.

Please: peace is not unconditional.

Best wishes,

Joel Català

Post 33

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 12:06pm

I link to my commentary of Rummel's views on censorship, which links to this statement of his:

"One has to be pretty far on the left not to see the media as biased against freeing Iraqi from tyranny. The bad news is generally highlighted, and the good news ignored; U.S. killed is the headline of the day, while the hundreds of terrorist eliminated for once and for all seems to never happen. Obviously, this is an attempt to repeat the glory days of the Vietnam War when the media turned military victory into defeat, and was the Democrat’s backbone in forcing a cowardly withdrawal, leaving millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians to their own Holocaust.

"But, what to do? When Americans are being shot at and killed in the line of duty; when they knowingly put themselves at risk to free a people from tyranny; when the country is at war; and when in the long run ALL Americans are at risk from biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons terrorists and their state supporters might use against us; we cannot afford to have the media freely providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The stakes are too high....

"In both World Wars I and II, the media reports on the war were strictly controlled. They must be again. Just in lives alone that might be saved thereby, it is necessary. How far should this go? I would use the censorship of World War II as criteria. This would mean, for example, that news reports of secret commando operations in Iran, or the employment of a secret weapon, or . . . well, you get the idea."

See, he is advocating World War II-style censorship. No friend of liberty would do that.

This is, of course, putting aside the fact that his historical views on U.S. intervention ignore all the evils and maintain a rosy and naive optimism on their potential and, at times counterfactual, goods. The U.S. murdered hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodians, creating the perfect conditions for Pol Pot to come to power. And then, after Pol Pot proved himself to be quite possibly the worst human being ever to slither on the face of this earth, at least in terms of per capita murder rates, Reagan and Thatcher assisted him and the Khmer Rouge against the considerably less murderous Vietnamese Communists, helped them find refuge in Thailand, and funded them and gave them training assistance. The idea that if the U.S. had only been more active in Cambodia, the Cambodians would have been better off, is just absurd on its face. The U.S. directly slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them in Nixon's illegal bombing campaign, and then became friends with Pol Pot!!

Regarding World War II, the Nazi regime was a product and a result of war. Beating up the bad guys in World War I and finding the Germans collectively guilty for the war, as if all 20 million dead were killed by their hands, in the form of the Versailles Treaty and the murderous starvation blockade right after the war, were direct causes of Hitler's rise to power. And in that supposedly Good War, the U.S. sided with Stalin—one of the other worst excuses for a human being in world history—and actively helped him expand his empire of oppression, often in ways that even the most bloodthirsty realist with the least bit of intellectual honesty would admit were unnecessary to defeat Hitler, but only for the benefit of getting on Stalin's good side so as to make him help FDR and Truman create the United Nations—an organization which was from the beginning, and still is, no more than a method for certain Western Powers, most particularly the U.S. government, to maintain hegemony over the world under a fig leaf of multilateral diplomacy.

So when I think of Reagan, Truman and FDR chumming up with the likes of Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and Joe Stalin, I tend not to think of our past presidents and their foreign interventions as all too heroic. I am not a violent person, but if I were sitting in the same room as Stalin it would be hard for me to keep myself from lunging at him in an attempt to kill him. He was the face of evil, and FDR just toasted him with vodka and champaigne at Yalta, splitting up Europe and Asia among the new two empires that would rule the world and wage a Cold War against each other using proxies througout the globe as if they were pieces on a chessboard. Millions of chesspieces with minds and bodies were killed, totally unnecessarily, by the U.S. government in the 20th century. Millions. U.S. foreign policy is not simply far from perfect. It is concentrated evil.
(Edited by Anthony Gregory
on 6/03, 12:11pm)

Post 34

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 1:11pm

I am more concerned with the partisans of unconditional "peace". Remember Neville Chamberlain and his "Peace in our time" pact with Hitler, and the outcome of that. Please never forget that.

Some historians think that Chamberlain saved Britain by stalling for time so Britain could build up its defenses, and that if he had confronted Hitler aggressively too early it would have been death for many more Britons.

Of course, the heroic Churchill did jump into the war just in time to save Poland from the totalitarian occupiers. And we all know how free the Polish were as soon as the war ended, protected by the governance of good ol' Unlce Joe.

Post 35

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 4:35pm

Quoth Joel Català:

"Now I won’t assume you are implicitly saying that the toppling of the tyrant Hussein was a wrong thing to do."

No, I won't say it implicitly, I'll say it explicitly:

- It was wrong to topple the tyrant Saddam Hussein in order to replace him with the tyrant Jay Garner, then the tyrant Paul Bremer, then the tyrant (and former Saddam protege) Iyad Allawi, and then whatever tyrant the new Islamist Iranian proxy government ends up putting in charge.

- It was wrong to topple the tyrant Saddam Hussein on the basis of false, intentionally manufactured claims pertaining to the notion that his regime represented a threat to the United States.

- It was wrong to topple the tyrant Saddam Hussein at the expense of (last I noticed) 1,667 American lives, and (so far) about half a trillion dollars in stolen loot.

- It was wrong to topple the tyrant Saddam Hussein at the expense of the legitimate functions of government. Troops which are engaged in building a foreign empire for a corporatist clique don't have the means or the time to do their real job -- the job they are sworn to do -- which is defending the United States, and in fact their empire-building decreases rather than increases the security of the United States.

If you want to finance your war voluntarily, tell the truth to the troops whom you expect to fight it instead of swearing them to an oath and then forcing them to break it, do so in a manner which does not create the actual danger you lied about to justify it in the first place, and not replace the tyrant with a series of subsequent tyrants, I'm all for it. Hell, I'll enlist.

"I would oath the Pledge of Allegiance, which defends liberty and justice for all American citizens. Now, I think that my question deserves an answer, not a subterfuge: would you like to renounce your citizenship?"

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a citizenship oath. It was a jingle written by a socialist flag salesman in the late 19th century, and I wholly and completely repudiate it on various grounds. It is an un-American piece of trash in nearly every respect.

Asking me if I'd like to "renounce my citizenship" is like asking me if I'd like to repeal the law of gravity. Nobody ever asked me if I wanted to be a citizen, and I know of no Constitutional provision by which any such decision, once made, could be revoked.

To the extent that I consider myself an American -- which is wholly -- no, I don't have any wish to renounce that. However, being an American has precisely nothing to do with any loyalty or obedience to the cabal of connivers in Washington, DC.

Tom Knapp

Post 36

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 4:36pm

Quoth Anthony Gregory:

"You should at least be precise enough, then, to acknowledge that Mr. Knapp didn't say any of this: I did."

I wish I had. Does that count?

Tom Knapp

Post 37

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 7:16pm

Quoth Tom Knapp: "It was wrong to topple the tyrant Saddam..."

Why was it wrong?

You seem to think if you spout arbitrary assertions everybody else has to treat them like facts.

Post 38

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 7:58pm

Quoth Tom Knapp: "It was wrong to topple the tyrant Saddam..."

Why was it wrong?

You seem to think if you spout arbitrary assertions everybody else has to treat them like facts.

In a rational world, the burden would be on the advocates of spending hundreds of billions of expropriated dollars bombing the hell out of a country, killing thousands of its people, destroying its infrastructure, militarily occupying it, and establishing a theocracy—all with the ultimate result of making everyone involved except a small power elite worse off—to explain why all this destruction and violence that they advocate is not wrong.

Alas, we do not live in a rational world.

Post 39

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 10:41pm