tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597399695555911907.post3726773303245838196..comments2023-10-19T08:49:29.919-05:00Comments on The Pink Elephant: A Tale of Two Closets: War and individual rightsPink Elephanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031605616491979253noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597399695555911907.post-85191527724818146162007-07-20T09:11:00.000-05:002007-07-20T09:11:00.000-05:00Andonicus: that is VERY frightening. I'm not sur...Andonicus: that is VERY frightening. I'm not sure it can have the force of restricting speech becasue it makes clear that it refers to acts of violence. The question is does speech that incite violence consititute an act of violence? How close does causation have to be? Nonetheless, it is yet another erosion of due process in the name of security. Even the most hawkish libertarians won't stand for that. What's more frightening is that none of the big news sources (not even that communist rag the NYTimes) saw this to be important enough to warrant a story. Are we so used to trading liberty for secuirty that we don't notice it anymore?<BR/><BR/>Tim: many good points. I suppose part of my error was using the word "government" to refer to international actors that bear little resemblance to a formal state. My point was that it is approprate to deal with threats preemptively, not necessarily that Iraq was an appropriate battleground or even that they were a threat (IRAN! IRAN! IRAN!). I used Iraq merely as a context for my larger question, as I think did Professor Barnett. <BR/><BR/>You pose other great questions, that I will get to later, but I was a bit consumed by andronicus' point. Now I have to get back to work. This is not a dodge! :)Pink Elephanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031605616491979253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597399695555911907.post-85561013560905826782007-07-20T09:07:00.000-05:002007-07-20T09:07:00.000-05:00Pink:Damn blogger keeps cutting off my link !One l...Pink:<BR/><BR/>Damn blogger keeps cutting off my link !<BR/><BR/>One last try, cuz this is important:<BR/><BR/>http://www.whitehouse.gov/<BR/>news/releases/<BR/>2007/07/20070717-3.html<BR/><BR/>I am also going to do my best to convince you to give up the GOP and join the Libertarian (capital L) party. I am a Libertarian, having come to it from the left. I also favor strong defense, but abhor nation building, interference, etc.<BR/><BR/>Today's GOP is morally bankrupt. Where can you find the influence and thinking of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater ? Reagan was good in some ways, but horrible in others. Tear down the wall--great. Iran-Contra--horrible. And don't forget ever that he let his prejudice of gays delay a real federal response to the early days of the Aids crisis for years, causing the death of millions. And yes, public health is a government function.<BR/><BR/>What is it about today's GOP that you find so good ? That there is hope they will throw the fundies under the bus ? Never gonna happen.<BR/>Goldwater warned that the rise of American Fundamentalism would wreck the party, and he was right. Compare the civil and moral rights of Lincoln with today's GOP suppression of black votes. Compare the environmental stewardship of Teddy R. with Dick Cheney's rape the land philosophy. Compare Goldwater's philosophy of smaller federal government with the Bush/GOP record of enormous growth in federal discretionary spending, excluding war and terrorism related expenses. Medicare part D is horrible and will cost trillions. No child left behind will not improve education, federalizes schools and will cost billions. And on and on.<BR/><BR/>And I think a Dem President with a Dem congress would do even worse.<BR/><BR/>I sincerely would like to hear you tell us why you support the GOP ...what is there for you ? What is keeping you from being a proud out of the closet Libertarian ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597399695555911907.post-27201291194266083602007-07-20T07:51:00.000-05:002007-07-20T07:51:00.000-05:00Hey Pink,I need for you to explain to me why some ...Hey Pink,<BR/><BR/>I need for you to explain to me why some of the most fertile minds on the right (of which I include you) cannot grasp the reality of what our military is experiencing in Iraq. Why is there this overpowering need to compare it to some past conventional war experience? You use Germany and Japan as examples yet both are spurious. Both nations had well-equipped conventional armies, both nations undertook pre-emptive strikes against real or perceived enemies and both nations had to be pounded into dust before embracing some notion of democracy or having to be told to embrace it.<BR/><BR/>Our current enemy shares none of these traits. There is nothing conventional about them. They fight for no flag or country; their loyalty is to various mullahs and sects. They follow no conventions or treaties regarding the waging of war. They are brutal, resourceful and heartless. By comparison, the Viet Cong could have been considered a standing conventional force.<BR/><BR/>So why this persistence in facing this redoubtable enemy with a conventional force and questionable tactics? Don’t you see how they’re simply wearing us down? I would think that the field manuals of US army officers fighting the Apache in the Southwest of the 1870’s would serve a more useful purpose than what we’re doing now.<BR/><BR/>As to your Libertarian view of war in general, where does that leave the troops? Certainly they volunteer and agree to take what comes, but doesn’t that just increase our responsibility and commitment not to put them in harm’s way for reasons dubious and ill-informed? (Please note that I purposefully left out the words “arrogant”, “self-seeking” and “personal enriching”.)<BR/><BR/>Finally, I suppose pre-emptive strikes have a place in any government’s considerations, but my concerns are practical, not moral. There’s very little room for morality on the battlefield. Seeking to make war civilized or even agreeable only makes us more likely to wage it. But war is an ugly business and we should strive to make it as brutal, as horrible, as possible so that we will always think twice before sacrificing those who wish to serve. But we were pre-emptive in Iraq and now we face an enemy that has no qualms about waging a total, brutal war. And as you know, one of the first principals of military engagement is that you cannot disengage from an enemy that doesn’t want to disengage.<BR/><BR/>So now what do we do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597399695555911907.post-61922359841714916972007-07-20T04:15:00.000-05:002007-07-20T04:15:00.000-05:00Here is the link: it got cut off earlier:http://w...Here is the link: it got cut off earlier:<BR/><BR/>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases<BR/>/2007/07/20070717-3.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597399695555911907.post-76937645533524982992007-07-20T04:13:00.000-05:002007-07-20T04:13:00.000-05:00In the context of the title of your post, if not s...In the context of the title of your post, if not so much the content, this is scary:<BR/><BR/>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html<BR/><BR/>Bush signed an executive order 3 days ago giving the US government the right to seize the assets of anyone interfering with his Iraq policy. Solely on his say so.....no due process, no protection under the constitution.<BR/><BR/>If the President decides you are threatening the 'peace and stability of the government of Iraq' or you donate money to someone who is threatening the peace and stability of the government of Iraq, the government can seize your assets. This means if Bush decides that Obama's speeches threaten the stability of the government of Iraq, and you are a contributor to Obama, your assets can be seized. Anyone protesting the Iraq war could have their assets seized.<BR/><BR/>This is nothing short of appalling and the beginning of the underpinnings of a totalitarian state. Very similar to some of the executive orders issued by Hitler in the 1930's.<BR/><BR/>All this from the leader of the GOP, which long long ago used to stand for smaller government, individual rights and less government interference. Shameful and disgusting.<BR/><BR/>War and individual rights. What rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com