From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Tuesday,
September 27, 2005 11:02 PM
To:
'LPCalPeace@yahoogroups.com'
Cc:
'marketliberal@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: Re: To Brian Holtz
Paul Ireland writes to me on
LPCalPeace:
PI> There is NOT a single
rational, reasonable, or libertarian case to be made for the war, PERIOD. <PI
The state's duty to oppose and
prevent aggression shouldn't end abruptly at its borders, and tyranny
is too vile and dangerous to only oppose with virgin white-gloved hands.
Saddam's regime killed over a million people, invaded one neighbor, annexed
another, fired ballistic missiles at two more, and defied UN disarmament
mandates after building a track record of 1) harboring terrorists, 2) using
chemical WMDs, and 3) pursuing nuclear WMDs. In Kurdistan and Afghanistan
we had existence proofs that the U.S. military could depose tyranny in the
Islamic world and replace it with reasonably stable
self-determination.
PI> Iraq NEVER posed a
danger to AMERICA.
<PI
Saddam's support for anti-American
terrorists is indisputable. Saddam harbored Achille Lauro terrorist Abu
Abbas, WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal (whose
attacks killed at least ten Americans). For a list of Americans killed by
Saddam-supported terrorists, and the connections between Saddam and
anti-American terrorism, see
PI> America, and the rest of the
world are in MORE danger, not less because of the Iraq war. <PI
Defending liberty does not always increase
security. The tension between liberty and security is the essence of the Nolan
Chart.
PI> The people of Iraq are no better off now
than they were with Saddam in
power.<PI
The Shiites and Kurds are indisputably
better off. The Sunni Arabs, 20% of the population, have lost their privileged
status over the rest, so their complaints of being worse off are not to be taken
completely at face value.
PI> Hundreds of thousands were
murdered, and tortured by America,
just as they were under Saddam.
<PI
PI> America isn't here to
"liberate" anyone but those inside of America.
<PI
A fine position for an AmericaFirstItarian,
but not for a libertarian.
PI> Iraq never attacked America,
never helped anyone else attack America, never planned any attacks
against America, <PI
See the above record of Saddam's support for
anti-American terrorists. Note also that in April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to
assassinate former President George Bush.
"And if we really want to judge President
Bush's stewardship of policy, then we had better pay attention to
that
detailed record, which provides a deeply disturbing look at a
blatant disregard for brutal terrorism, a dangerous blindness to
the murderous ambitions of a despot [...]" Al Gore on Saddam
Hussein, Sep 29 1992.
"Saddam Hussein has demonstrated repeatedly
that he will resort to terrorism or aggression if left unchecked." Bill
Clinton, June 26 1993.
PI> and never posed a credible threat to America in the
history of the world. So please explain how attacking this nation is in
the DEFENSE of America? <PI
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Al Gore, Sep 23
2002
"This
regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and
against Iraq's people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in
the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has
aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons,
obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated
ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our
country, or any other." G. W. Bush, Mar 17, 2003.
PI> Iraq is a sovereign
nation <PI
This is the core of
a compelling argument to a SovereignTarian, but not to a
libertarian.
PI> The first attack against
Iraq was unwarranted, unconstitutional, and unreasonable. <PI
If as a SovereignTarian you say
the rights and mutual obligations of states trump the human rights of
individuals, then America's reversal of Iraq's annexation of Kuwait was
completely justified under the terms of the voluntary membership of all three
states in the United Nations.
PI> Any agreements they signed
were under duress and therefore
illegal. <PI
If as a SovereignTarian you believe
that the signatures of kings and tyrants take precedence over individual human
liberty in future generations, then you should note that King Faisal II's regime voluntarily committed Iraq
to the United Nations Charter in December 1945.
PI> Neither America, nor
the UN has any authority over sovereign nations.
<PI
Thus your commitment to
SovereignTarianism trumps not only individual liberty, but also the notion of
contractual claims of sovereign states on each other.
PI> perform embargos, stop food,
and life saving medicine shipments
resulting in the deaths of more than 200,000 people.
<PI
The sanctions were authorized by the
U.N. Security Council, and the deaths in question were Saddam's fault for his
six-year refusal of the U.N.'s oil-for-food humanitarian offers. See http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml
PI> No WMD's were ever
found. <PI
(Thus Saddam could have saved his
regime and the lives lost due to the invasion simply by agreeing to the U.N.
Security Council inspection resolutions that were binding on him under the UN
Charter.)
Nuclear WMDs are much more dangerous
than all known chemical/biological WMDs. Without Saddam's documented ambitions
and efforts for nuclear weaponry, even a confirmed stockpile of biological WMDs
or chemical WMDs (which he had already used repeatedly) would not alone
have justified the invasion.
"We
know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country." Al Gore, Sep 23 2002.
PI> Any torture, murder, rapes, etc. within
their own country is no business of
America's <PI
Ah, the AmericaFirstItarian
argument. It's bizarre for a lover of individual liberty to say that our moral
calculus changes completely at lines drawn on maps by the collectives known as
states. I've never been to Maine or Iraq, and I don't know anybody in either
place. How do the values of individual human liberty dictate that I should join
with others to defend the liberty of Mainers under all circumstances, but never
of Iraqis under any circumstances?
Mark Stroberg wrote:
MS> As far as removing Brian
Holtz from this list, I do not believe he has warranted that. I have trouble
understanding why he would even want to be on it, but he does, and he has
played by the rules. <MS
Mark, I want to personally thank you
for your tolerance of me fully answering all the comments that have been
directed my way so far on LPCalPeace. While not fully shared by a tiny
minority of the group's members, your tolerance is a great example of how
libertarians value fair competition in the marketplace of ideas. For the
time being I'm happy to continue exercising your
indulgence. However, while some of us in
the group may have acquired more appreciation of the principles underlying the
opposing position, I doubt anybody is going to switch positions as a result of
this discussion, and so at some point it has diminishing returns. You've long
since seen the best arguments I have to offer, as well as how I systematically
answer what I assume approximate the best arguments your side can
make. Unless some in the group think that they're going to somehow come up with
an argument to which I can't offer my usual quality of reply -- whatever quality
you might think that is :-) -- then you might want to worry whether the
continuing comments to me are undermining the group's focus. Otherwise: game on,
and may the best memes win. :-)