Anthony Gregory wrote:
AG: Iraqis are not better off. They have not been freed from tyranny.
We libertarians may disagree in many ways with the new Iraqi government, but that doesn't mean that we didn't end tyranny there or institute self-determination. In fact, even Sunni leadership is now calling for participation in the upcoming elections.
AG: There is no real self-governance, and to the extent there is any at all, there is authoritarianism, socialism and despotism, brought along by a majority unaccustomed to libertarian ideas and thirsty for payback against the Sunnis.
Ah, so a majority is by definition not self-determining if they don't implement the LP platform. Got it.
AG: People used to own assault weapons in Iraq, freely. The U.S. occupation changed that, as the new U.S.-allied police forces went door to door rounding up firearms.
OK, this is a parody, right? Who hacked into Anthony's email account...?
AG: They do not have any freedom to look forward to, but more of the same, thanks to the war and occupation,
Only time will tell if the Shiites and Sunnis use their self-determination as well as the Kurds have. Remember the Kurds? Try as I might, I can't get any anti-war Libertarian to discuss what's been happening in Northern Iraq for the last fifteen years. The reason for their reluctance is obvious, especially for someone like you whose primary argument seems to be that the invasion of the rest of Iraq was likely to turn out badly. I never said liberating Iraq provided any guarantees. I only said that it was clearly worth trying.
AG: all from the same empire that sponsored Saddam Hussein in the first place.
False -- and the CleanHandsitarian fallacy again, to boot. I
also notice you did not even attempt to rebut my material on alleged U.S.
sponsorship and encouragement of his war with Iran:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/182
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/189
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/198
AG: Believe it or not, it is not only possible, but typical, for a relatively free country like our own to breed nothing but tyranny and slaughter overseas. The British Empire was the freest society internally [...]
"Believe it or not", I'm quite familiar with the history of the British interventionism and how it compares to America's. The US has forcibly replaced tyranny with liberty or at least self-determination in the Confederate States of America, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Japan, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Kurdistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It's been said that best predictor of a state being democratic is whether it has ever been a British colony. But there's an even more interesting correlation for states that have been attacked and occupied by the U.S. military.
I repeat my earlier request for you to nominate the best piece of anti-war libertarian thinking that you've seen attempt to answer arguments like the ones I've marshalled. Or do you really think that the above believe-it-or-not rhetoric is the best your side has to offer? Because I have to tell you, it's not even close. For example, see the comment section at http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/23/shmibertarianism.