From: "Paul" Date: Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:26 am Subject: Re: To Brian Holtz ptireland BH: 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. PI: Wrong. The state's duty to oppose and prevent aggression can, and should end where our borders end. The authority, and responsibility of our government ends at our borders. The freedom of people beyond our own borders is to be won by them. "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams BH: 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. Bush's regime has ignored the UN, murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of innocent people, violated the U.S. Constitution, and endangered the world. PI: All of which is entirely and completely irrelevant and absolutely no justification to use the U.S. Military. It wouldn't matter if Saddam was taking over the entire middle-east, developing nuclear weapons, building and using WMD's against his own people, raping women, murdering their husbands, and boiling their children alive in oil. None of that is justification to use the U.S. Military. In fact NOTHING short of a direct attack on U.S. soil or ships justifies involving the U.S. Military. Unless you can prove Iraq dropped a bomb on Detroit or blew up the USS Nimitz, you have absolutely nothing to justify an American invasion of Iraq in 1991, in 2005, or at any point between. Also, only a GlobalGovernmentitarian would claim ignoring something the UN ordered them to do was a violation worth invasion. Bush's unprovoked war is what is endangering the world. Saddam never endangered the world; just his neighbors or his countrymen which is none of our business. BH: See also the list of offenses in the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR: ), approved 360-38 by the House and unanimously by the Senate. PI: Also completely irrelevant. Unless you can prove that Iraq actually dropped a bomb here in America, or intentionally blew up an American ship, you have nothing. The U.S. Military has one and only one purpose...to defend AMERICAN soil and ships from direct attack and to do NOTHING ELSE. It's not here to "liberate" foreign people, not here to overthrow dictatorships. It's not here to be the "muscle" to enforce UN sanctions. It's not here for "humanitarian aid" missions. It's not here to train the military of other nations. It's not here to stabilize war torn regions. It's not here for nation building. It's not here to secure oil sources. It's not here to root out terrorists around the world. It's not here to settle disputes among other nations or to perform "peace keeping" missions. It's not here for anything other than respond to direct attacks, and imminent danger. Iraq never posed a danger. BH: 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 http://www.husseinandterror.com/ http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp PI: America harbored and trained all of the 9/11 terrorists in exactly the same way Saddam did. Also, you ignore the fact that Iraq was attacked by America without justification or cause in 1991. It stands to reason he'd be anti-American. He never helped anyone who attacked America, never paid them, and never "harbored" them in anyway America didn't do the same for the 9/11 terrorists (none of which were from Iraq) BH: Defending liberty does not always increase security. The tension between liberty and security is the essence of the Nolan Chart. PI: The Nolan chart does not determine who is or is not a libertarian. The Non-Aggression Principle does. The Nolan chart merely shows who has libertarian leanings. And as far as "defending liberty" goes, America's role in defending liberty ends where America's borders end. As much as you wish for a world without borders, the fact remains that we have them and our government has no legitimate authority to use the U.S. military other than in the DEFENSE of American ships and soil from direct attack; not "perceived threats", or "possible dangers". BH: 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. "Kurds Enjoy Haven of Peace, Prosperity" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7230132/ In an April 2004 CNN/Gallup nationwide poll of Iraqis, 42% "said Iraq was better off because of the war", and 61% "said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships." http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/ In a nationwide poll of Iraqis completed in Mar 2004 for BBC by Oxford Research International, "56% said that things were better now than they were before the war". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm PI: This is all pure opinion and also irrelevant. Ask the Shiites and Kurds in Iraq whose family has been murdered by the American military while defending their homeland from a hostile invasion force from a rogue nation (The USA) if they feel better off. Ask those who have lost their bread winners if they feel better off. But even if they were better off, is this justification for misusing the U.S. military to invade a nation that never posed a credible threat to the U.S.? But don't take my word for it, take the word of the 9/11 commission which stated clearly that Iraq NEVER POSED A CREDIBLE THREAT TO AMERICA. Bush planned on invading Iraq before he was even selected by the Supreme Court as president. BH: Your charges of mass torture by America are absurd. Fatalities caused by all sides in the entire conflict since the 2003 invasion are perhaps 50,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_in_the_conflict_in_Iraq. PI: I don't recognize anything at wikipedia as a valid reference source. Also your claims that America did not torture people are absolutely laughable. Apparantly you haven't been near a television, news stand, or the internet in the last 4 years. Also, if you're going to count casualties caused by America, you'll have to include the 200,000 who were starved to death and kept from medicine, those who were bombed to death for 12 years, those who were murdered by America in the first unprovoked attack in 1991, those murdered between 2003 and the present, those bombed in Spanish and English subways, those beheaded, etc. The war was avoidable, unnecessary, and illegal. Each and every death on both sides of the dispute rest squarely on George W. Bush and the United States. BH: A fine position for an AmericaFirstItarian, but not for a libertarian. PI: No, it's a fine position for a Libertarian. Libertarians have ALWAYS been about military non-interventionism, neutrality in all disputes, and above all, adherence to the N.A.P. BH: 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. PI: What? You mean after America launched an unprovoked, unwarranted, unconstitutional, and unreasonable attack against Iraq in 1991, subsequently forced them into an unreasonable treaty, murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, told them they couldn't fly over their own country, dropped bombs on them daily, and kept them from life saving medicines and food, Saddam had the gall to try to assassinate the man who murdered his people? What nerve! I can't believe he'd want to use DEFENSIVE force against those who practiced OFFENSIVE force against him. Oh wait, this is the default libertarian position. BH: "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. "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: Irrelevant quotes. These people were not Libertarians, and they supported the wholesale murder of the Iraqi people. They continued the Bush family policies. BH: This is the core of a compelling argument to a SovereignTarian, but not to a libertarian. PI: No, this is one of the compelling and factual arguments of a Libertarian. Perhaps that is why it sounds foreign to you. If you expect others not to use force against you, you must not use force against them, even if you don't like what they're doing. You have only as much sovereignty as you give. Libertarians support individual, state, and national sovereignty. BH: 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. I already corrected you on the alleged unconstitutionality of all U.S. interventions at http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/Paul_Ireland/2005-02-14.htm. PI: As a HugeGovernmentitarian, it must get confusing that we have so many different names for countries, and so many maps with lines on them. You have never "corrected" me on any subject. In fact I can't think of a single time you've been correct about anything. I have PROVEN that the role and scope of the US Military is solely for the DEFENSE of American ships and soil and for nothing else. Any case law you bring up to the contrary is irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution is the HIGHEST law of the land, and it defines the role of the military. If you want to discuss case law, you can look up Marbury vs. Madison where the first Supreme Court said that any and all laws, court cases, acts of congress, etc., which contradict the U.S. Constitution are AUTOMATICALLY null and void without the need for judicial review. Congress is given limited war making powers to be used in the DEFENSE of American soil or ships. They may not use this power except in such defense. Only congress has war making powers and may not grant such powers to the President. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional in its face and falls under the null and void category described by Marbury vs. Madison. The war making powers of Congress can only be exercised by declaring war. Congress is given no authority to "approve the use of the military" other than through a formal declaration of war. So the war was illegal because it was not in the defense of America, because it was started by the President, and because there was no Constitutionally mandated formal declaration of war. It's blatantly illegal. BH: 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: As a Libertarian I believe that the rights of individuals should be protected. I believe that you, as an individual, should be free to defend those who attack you. You should be able to give your money, weapons, and even yourself in such defense. But libertarians also believe that your perceived needs don't entitle you to steal from others. The U.S. military has only one valid role….to defend U.S. ships and soil from direct attack and to do NOTHING else. If you want to use MY DEFENSIVE military to make an unprovoked invasion of a nation that poses no threat to America, you are stealing from me and misusing MY military. Nothing could be less libertarian. BH: Thus your commitment to SovereignTarianism trumps not only individual liberty, but also the notion of contractual claims of sovereign states on each other. PI: As an actual Libertarian who recognizes the sovereignty of other nations and expects others to recognize ours, I do recognize contracts. No contract can give away sovereignty. The U.N. has no authority over any nation on earth. It is merely a venue to improve diplomatic relations. Neither America, nor Iraq answers to the UN. If the U.N. suddenly told America to get rid of our WMD's, and said they'd send inspectors from Iraq, China, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. to go into every American home, into the white house at 3am without warning, into American military bases, etc. to disarm us, what would you say? Do you think America should comply with such a demand from the UN? If not, why not? I seem to remember not discussing things with you because you refused to answer questions directly. Until you answer whether or not America should comply with a UN directive to disarm, this will be our last communication and you will have proven the lack of courage for your convictions and your dishonesty. BH: 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: As a NewWorldOrdertarian, you must have a hard time grasping the libertarian stance that the UN has no authority over any nation on earth and that includes the "security council" portion of the UN. Libertarians don't support using force to starve people to death or to practice unprovoked violence. BH: (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.) PI: Iraq was under no obligation to disarm, to allow inspections, or to follow the edicts of the U.S. or the UN. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't answer to any other nation or group of nations; nor does anyone else. Saying, "If they just cooperated, they wouldn't have gotten hurt" could be used as a defense for rapists in your warped world. BH: 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. PI: Wow, as a UnitedNationsItarian who supports a global government, you don't seem to have a grasp on the fact that Libertarians support the right of anyone to own any weapon they choose. Merely having weapons does not make someone a risk. Merely being able to attack America doesn't make someone a danger to America. America's military interventionism in the first place is what put Saddam in power and gave him chemical weapons. No amount of weapons would be a libertarian justification for invasion. Using your logic, I could punch someone in the face when I see a bulge in thier pocket because it MIGHT be a weapon, and they MIGHT use it against me. Then if they hit me back, I could claim they tried to use aggression against me. BH: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sep 23 2002. PI: More irrelevant quotes which have since been proven entirely false. I could care less what Al Gore, George Bush, Bill Clinton, or anyone else said about the danger posed by Iraq. The 9/11 commission which saw all of the evidence already proved that Iraq posed NO CREDIBLE THREAT to America. BH: 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? PI: What color is the sky in your imaginary world? Here on earth it's blue. On earth we have borders, and Libertarians respect those borders. What if I say the property lines around your house are just "imaginary" lines and I have decided I want to throw a party there? What if I say your ownership of your television is just an "imaginary" concept, and that you aren't respecting my individual liberty to watch it? If you want to discuss "bizarre" support for someone who claims to love individual liberty, let's discuss your support of a one-world-government that controls everything. Every single part of your argument is untenable and is an insult to those who are actually libertarians. The FACT remains that there is absolutely no valid libertarian justification for the invasion of Iraq. Those who claim such are fools, liars, or both. They are trying to violate Libertarian Principles and to twist the truth, and play word games in an effort to rationalize their extremely non-libertarian and warped world view.