Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: War with Iraq  (Read 26242 times)

Wild Pegasus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • there is some shit i will not eat
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2002, 02:40:48 pm »

Quote

This is so far from truth it is not even funny.

We are not talking about Bill Clinton blowing up asprin factories.

We are talking about a mad man and a terriost, who is out to kill
his neighbors as well as Americans.


There is no greater set of terrorists than those who run the United States.  If by "terrorists" one uses the classical definition of "one who uses violence to achieve political ends", then the US is certainly more guilty of it than Saddam Hussein.

As for his being a madman, everything I have read about Hussein indicates not a madman, but an intelligent, shrewd, well-read man with discriminating tastes in food, music, and literature.  His attack on Kuwait, although immoral, was certainly reasonable in the wicked logic of states.  Kuwait was a part of the British protectorate that also accompanied Iraq (hence the "historical" claim), and there was much wealth to be seized from the country.  After gaining tacit approval from his ally the US, he attacked Kuwait. The US turned on him later and deemed him a monster, but it was hardly out of line with normal state behavior and certainly not on the order of wickedness as the US attacking and killing millions of Vietnamese who had done America no harm (or any other of the numerous places where the US has attacked people who have done America no harm).

After 12 years of crippling sanctions which have impoverished what was the most progressive, open, and prosperous Muslim country in the world, after a war which destroyed most of the country's infrastructure and has left hundreds of thousands without clean drinking water and viable nutrition, after being threatened non-stop for 12 years by the world's biggest army no matter what he does, SURE he wants to attack the US.  I don't blame him; I would, too.

The way to end the threat is pretty simple:

1. End the sanctions regime.
2. End the no-fly zones.
2. End all quotas, tariffs, and import controls on products imported from Iraq.

Quote

I guess this is the difference between hawks and sheep


Actually, it's the difference between the rational and the bloodthirsty.

- Josh

"War is the health of the state." - Randolph Bourne
Logged
"In times of peace, the warlike man turns on himself." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Bösel
"Aye, free!  Free as a tethered ass!" - King Gama, W.S. Gilbert's Princess Ida

Sons of Spooner

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2002, 05:05:21 pm »


There is no greater set of terrorists than those who run the United States.  If by "terrorists" one uses the classical definition of "one who uses violence to achieve political ends", then the US is certainly more guilty of it than Saddam Hussein.



yes ... saddam hussein does not gas his own people, he does
not murder people in his cabinet who quesition him, he does not
use the money meant for feeding his people to build new palaces
and put it away for his own confort.

just the kind of place you should live.  if living here is so bad,
(and it has its problems i admit) then why not move to iraq.

no matter how bad america is, i notice that everyone has the
right to voice what they want to voice, complaint about the leaders
that they elect, and almost everyone else in the world wants to come
here to live.  all without fear of being murdered in the night.

is it perfect ... no ... could it be better ... heck yes ...
is it the way it is because to many ppl have their hand out
saying what can you do for me instead of what i can do for
you ... again heck yes ...

but the people in iraq who want to form a free state with out the
help of the world will continue to be murder by saddam.

again just the place to go live ....
:o
Logged

Dave Reese

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm a llama!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #32 on: September 11, 2002, 11:29:29 am »


Quote

This is so far from truth it is not even funny.

We are not talking about Bill Clinton blowing up asprin factories.

We are talking about a mad man and a terriost, who is out to kill
his neighbors as well as Americans.


There is no greater set of terrorists than those who run the United States.  If by "terrorists" one uses the classical definition of "one who uses violence to achieve political ends", then the US is certainly more guilty of it than Saddam Hussein.

As for his being a madman, everything I have read about Hussein indicates not a madman, but an intelligent, shrewd, well-read man with discriminating tastes in food, music, and literature.  His attack on Kuwait, although immoral, was certainly reasonable in the wicked logic of states.  Kuwait was a part of the British protectorate that also accompanied Iraq (hence the "historical" claim), and there was much wealth to be seized from the country.  After gaining tacit approval from his ally the US, he attacked Kuwait. The US turned on him later and deemed him a monster, but it was hardly out of line with normal state behavior and certainly not on the order of wickedness as the US attacking and killing millions of Vietnamese who had done America no harm (or any other of the numerous places where the US has attacked people who have done America no harm).

After 12 years of crippling sanctions which have impoverished what was the most progressive, open, and prosperous Muslim country in the world, after a war which destroyed most of the country's infrastructure and has left hundreds of thousands without clean drinking water and viable nutrition, after being threatened non-stop for 12 years by the world's biggest army no matter what he does, SURE he wants to attack the US.  I don't blame him; I would, too.

The way to end the threat is pretty simple:

1. End the sanctions regime.
2. End the no-fly zones.
2. End all quotas, tariffs, and import controls on products imported from Iraq.

Quote

I guess this is the difference between hawks and sheep


Actually, it's the difference between the rational and the bloodthirsty.

- Josh

"War is the health of the state." - Randolph Bourne


I hope these opinions are not representative of the majority of FSP members. I doubt it, but nonetheless . . .
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #33 on: September 11, 2002, 12:03:09 pm »

WildPegasus is an anarchist, and the FSP is minarchist.  In general (but not always) his posts do not reflect the goals or positions of the FSP.

Now, that doesn't really answer your question, but I'll offer this guess...

While I am sympathetic to anarchist views, and am personally anti-war, I believe that many of those vocal in the anti-war movement find the dismissal of their views so frustrating that they become even more provocative in order to gain attention.  This is an example of that.

But regardless, don't worry about it, because the Free State will not have anything to do with foreign policy, being only a state.

And finally, don't feed the trolls.
Logged

Wild Pegasus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • there is some shit i will not eat
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #34 on: September 11, 2002, 12:44:52 pm »

Quote

yes ... saddam hussein does not gas his own people,


Actually, he doesn't.  When he was an ally of the US during the Iran-Iraq War, he used poison gas several times against Iranian troops.  But he has never gassed his own people.  Jude Wanniski has covered this rather extensively at supplysideinvestor.com.

Of course, if using weapons of mass destruction makes a country evil for all times, one should point out that the first country to obtain and the only country in history to use nuclear weapons is the United States.  130,000 people were killed in two short days after Japan was already destroyed, could no longer pose a threat to the US, and was ready to surrender conditionally (the condition that they keep the Emperor).

Quote

he does not murder people in his cabinet who quesition him,


Sure, but a lot of countries do this.  Are you going to bomb and kill thousands of innocent civilians in every country which has an oppressive government?

Quote

he does not
use the money meant for feeding his people to build new palaces
and put it away for his own confort.


Welcome to statecraft.  Every state is a gang of thieves raping the productive in order to line their own pockets.  Or do you still think Afghanistan was a war to end terrorism and not a war to attempt to secure Central Asian pipelines for Bush Jr. and the gang of cronies connected to his disgusting family?

Quote

no matter how bad america is, i notice that everyone has the
right to voice what they want to voice, complaint about the leaders
that they elect, and almost everyone else in the world wants to come
here to live.  all without fear of being murdered in the night.


Fortunately, the gang in power are seeing to those rights pretty soon.  Ashcroft is talking detention camps, the right of habeus corpus is gone, the restriction on posse comitatus is following along nicely, and the administration is looking to ensconce the Stasi and the Reichssicherheitshauptamt.  Hey, I thought the US beat communism and fascism.

- Josh

FWIW, Elizabeth, I do write in a charged and passionate manner, but I am most definitely not a troll.  I write for a distinct purpose - to argue my point - and to that end I will use many rhetorical tools at my disposal.  I believe what I write.
Logged
"In times of peace, the warlike man turns on himself." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Bösel
"Aye, free!  Free as a tethered ass!" - King Gama, W.S. Gilbert's Princess Ida

Sons of Spooner

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2002, 01:51:03 pm »

Regardless, Josh, being an intentional provocateur qualifies as trolling even if you happen to believe your troll.
Logged

Dave Reese

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm a llama!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2002, 02:13:10 pm »

Elizabeth,

Thanks much for the clarification.  :)

Dave
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2002, 02:35:13 pm »


There is no greater set of terrorists than those who run the United States.  If by "terrorists" one uses the classical definition of "one who uses violence to achieve political ends", then the US is certainly more guilty of it than Saddam Hussein.


I find that "classical" definition to be far too expansive to be a useful definition.  You are expanding the definition to attempt to create moral equivalence between terrorists and the US government.  There is no moral equivalence.  Both are immoral in different ways and to different degrees, and attempting to hide this does no justice to anyone.

It is obvious that declared wars between nations are not terrorism.  It is less obvious but still seems true that a announced and implemented "police action" is not terrorism.  Even less obvious, but in my opinion still true, is that any violence used to achieve political ends when used by _any_ recognized government is by definition not terrorism, but rather an act of war.

What Iraq, the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia are sometimes accused of is _supporting_ terrorism.  According to Bush's first statements after 9/11, _that_ should be considered justification for declaring war as well, but the administration has wavered on that point.

I do not approve of every military action that the US has undertaken, and I approve even less of the common mis-use of war for personal political gain, but I contend that war is not inherently immoral, just as violence is not inherently immoral.  It can be morally used in self-defense, or to defend others, even if that self-defense is extrapolated, and not clear-and-present.

And none of this even begins to address the differences between terrorism committed against states and their representatives vs terrorism committed against individual and presumably innocent civilians.  That's another topic entirely.
Logged

percy, aka tntsmum

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
  • SEE YOU IN THE FREE STATE!!!!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #38 on: September 12, 2002, 05:40:04 am »

I hope these opinions are not representative of the majority of FSP members. I doubt it, but nonetheless . . .
They're certainly not MY viewpoints....
Mouseborg and I have been round and round on this (and I have to say he has been awefully gracious about our differing viewpoints)... I believe the information does NOT support the assumption that the U.S. is some maniacal war-mongering beast. While we've made some mistakes (as ALL nations have) we are the most giving nation on earth. We give millions if not billions to any nation where we feel there is a need. As for a previous comment re: Israel - yes we give them money just as we give money to other nations.... What people always fail to mention is that we also keep giving millions to the 'Palestinian Authority', yet rather than improve the lives of their people they intentionally keep them living in squalor so as to breed yet more anger and resentment. I could go further but that is off topic. No the U.S. is not the Great Satan of the world. Is the government an out of control leviathon, heck yes. Is it repairable?,.... we shall see.... we are hoping that is the case in at least one state.
As for a previous question from I believe it was Mega Joule - would the principles that cause me to say we should get Saddam out of power apply to us in the Free State? Heck yes if the same conditions were in play.
If we were in the free state and had established ourselves as a nation; some tyrannical despot had come into power; he was routinely assasinating any who opposed him (often as a spectator sport in front of those he thought might entertain notions of opposition in the future); if he gassed a bunch of us who were trying to find independence from him; if he twice invaded neighboring countries using our children as fodder; if he has launched missiles at four of our neighboring countries; if when a country pushed him back after an invasion attempt he broke every agreement for the cease fire; if he was taking monies from trade that were specifically earmarked for OUR welfare (remember we are NOT living in a free society and because of a number of related conditions are largely reliant on these monies) took them and spent them on yet more large palaces, women, expensive cars and yet more weapons with attack yet more nations; if we lived in constant fear of our lives if we dare to try to rid ourselves of him; if numbers of us did form a resistance, yet it was not enough, but were begging the U.S. to please help us get this guy out of power;....
yup, I would be for America trying to get this guy out of power and freeing us of him.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2002, 08:44:34 am by percy, aka tntsmum »
Logged

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #39 on: September 12, 2002, 05:58:31 am »

be carefully percy,

your blood lust is showing.

and remember that most of what you hear from the news and governement
are all lies and your are being fooled by what they say ...

remember if you are willing and able to defend yourself, your family and your
country, then you are full of blood lust.

however, it sure seems strange that the doves/sheep love the freedoms that
the hawks/bloodlust die for.

I have not noticed the move to add iraq as one of the choses to move
to as the free state.  But I am sure it will happen before we get to the
5K mark.

;)
Logged

Dave Reese

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm a llama!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2002, 09:16:51 am »

state-controlled media . . . hmmm . . . . who, then, can you trust for reliable news?

curious.

thanks,

Dave
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #41 on: September 12, 2002, 12:12:26 pm »

I find it ridiculous to categorically reject the media sources simply due to their size.  In fact, due to their size, they _don't_ have anything to fear from government censorship.  They have to consider the cost to their credibility if they make overly antagonizing statements, but don't you believe they wouldn't do it if they thought they had enough to persuade the population.  

And then you lump Fox into the mix, when it is quite obvious that Fox takes a distinctly different approach to the news than CBS and NBC.

You oversimplify your position to the detriment of your credibility.  Media is not state-controlled, and the influence of state is not even overpowering.  The media is free and any collusion going on is not a matter of policy, as is obvious given the enormously common situations where the media _does_ disagree with the administration, or congress, or whoever happens to hold power.

Of course you must be willing to challenge your news sources and you cannot take everything at face value, but the big 5 are not significantly more unreliable than any other news source.
Logged

Patriot69

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • I'm supposed to be witty here, right?
    • Eternal Vigilance
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #42 on: September 12, 2002, 12:47:04 pm »

While it is understandable to trust "sources" we have relied upon for years or even decades, we cannot allow oursleves to become complacent regarding where we get our information from. If we allow our information sources to give us erroneous information, then what are the odds of us supporting a just cause?
Remember the Reichstag fire? Hitler used it to great success to promote his cause. Why is it unfathomable that Bush is using similar tactics? Again, as with the OKC bombing, we had nary a clue beforehand, yet, almost instantly, we had the villains in custody. Hmm, seems as if we either don't like pre-emptive strikes, or the govt. is lying. There's always a first time, right?
There comes a time when it is not only just, but necessary to remind our "leaders" just WHO holds the power. As a Libertarian, I wouldn't go so far as to fire the first shot, but sometimes the sound of a round being chambered is all that's required to get your point across.
I don't want to pick on those of you who concur with the "official" story, but as I recall, the purpose of govt. was to provide for the common DEFENSE. Shortly after the attacks, we were told that Afghanistan was our source of woes, now since we effectively OWN Afghanistan (oil and gas), Iraq (oil) is now the source of all human misery. As a rational, thinking human being, don't you find this rather coincidental as well as possibly outside the area of DEFENSE? Someone posted the rationale of individuals doing pre-emptive strikes against their neighbors. What makes this so different? I'll tell you, none of us have ever met Hussein, so killing him and murdering his countrymen is nothing more than nightly news statisics for most of us.
Next time you see Iraq in the news, don't think in dreogatory  terms, look at Mr. Hussein and his countrymen as human beings with families and opinions of their own.
Perhaps a pre-emptive strike really is murderous after all



Logged
"The future doesn't belong to the faint-hearted.  It belongs to the brave." -- Ronald Reagan

Stumpy

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 996
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #43 on: September 12, 2002, 12:56:07 pm »

Our media, for the most part, present the news factually.
The presentation is, however, skewed to a leftist/statist point of view.
Examples
1)   A man goes berserk with a gun at a Virginia school. The media jump at the prospect of filming gruesome gun violence with its inevitable calls for more gun control. But there was a problem. An armed citizen stopped the wacko. So, rather than reporting on the positive contribution made by a gun in the hand of a private citizen, the media didn’t report this fact as vigorously.
2)   At the same time that Matthew Shepherd was murdered, a couple of homosexual men took a boy, tortured and raped him till he died. Because the Shepherd incident might foster sentiment for hate crimes legislation, it was maximized. The other occurrence was barely reported.

The government does not directly control the media. The media is controlled by leftist/statist.

Fox, is the exception.
Logged
Libertarianitis - A disease where one is incapable of doing anything other than debate. The sufferer is rendered totally incapable of being constructive and constantly marginalizes him or herself by displays of extreme negativity, bitterness and intransigence.

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #44 on: September 12, 2002, 01:08:20 pm »

Well stated Stumpy,  you made a couple of very valid statement.

We must pay attention to what is said between the lines as well as what
the lines themself state.

That is a way to stay informed.  If all government is lairs and all news sources are
lairs it make it difficult to stay informed.  I can not go to every spot on earth to see
what is true.  I do listen to ham radio and know that some of the facts stated there
are totally different then facts here.  But a large part of that is your outlook.

Like the Pro bin Laden rally in London.  Does that mean England is against us.

I dont think so.

There may be some ppl there against us, just like some ppl here are against us.

But we have to stand up for ourselves and those that we love.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up