On Feb 4, 2011, at 8:06 PM, Lynch Jim wrote: ah, you forgot all about egypt. did you get distracted? afghanistan - a police effort is what was/is needed. bin laden a crimina that planned a criminal act. military for a police action? ludicrous then and now. NO! Bin Laden is NOT a "criminal". His actions are considered "legal" by the laws under which he lives. The actions of those he led were "acts of war" plain and simple. To treat them as 'crimes" is ludicrous. I'm not sure what you mean by "police action" (Korea?) (Vietnam?) (The first Gulf War?) but it is ludicrous to differentiate between those acts of war and others, and it is nonsensical to treat the attacks of 2001 Sep.11 (or the earlier attack, such as 1993 World Trade Center, Lockerbee, etc.) as mere "crimes". Would you treat the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor as something that should be prosecuted by the Attorney general of the territory of Hawaii? Should Hirohito and Tojo have been subpoenaed and brought to trial in Honolulu? Was Hitler's invasion of Poland also a felony? (Not under the prevailing law, it wasn't; does that excuse the perps?) It it ridiculous to argue that the proper response to an act of war is some sort of "criminal" 'prosecution. iraq - your comments indicate a possible RILC (republican in libertarian clothing) status for you and perhaps other libertarians? seems if a republican is involved, there is one response; when a dem, quite another. Nonsense! Your premise is as faulty as your conclusion. Libertarians probably criticize Republicans (who should know better) than they criticized Democrats (who "know not what they do"). At least Republicans claim to have principles that protect individual liberty. Progressives (and Democrats who tend to support them) seem to have no regard whatsoever for individuals -- when their rights stand in the way of the insatiable appetite for power and control (i.e. by the elite, who "know best" what is good for you). bottom line: libertarians 99.993% of time vote republican. Nonsense, again. (In fact, surveys show that libertarians run against and vote against Republican candidates more often than against Dems. But that's neither here nor there.) yes, I know, the lesser of two evils. Says who???? many of us thanks to nader, decided that the holding of nose was not only unseemly, but downright unamerican. so we dont vote democrat! OK. so do tell about egypt; Im curious. j Egypt has been ruled a socialist dictator for 30 years. Before that, there were two other socialist dictators, (Granted, Sadat was the lesser evil when compared to the other two.) Before that, there was a benevolent, despotic King. The principal group instigating the latest protests is the Muslim Brotherhood. Their published credo promotes Jihad as a means of establishing a Caliphate, and subjecting all within to Sharia law -- regardless of the will of the people. That, quite simply, is NOT "democracy". Free elections in September just MIGHT lhave led to a more-democratic regime, with more freedom and individual rights. A "putsch" in the next few months is extremely unlikely to lead to a government "of the people" -- it is far more likely to lead to the installation of a more-tyrannical one-party state, just as similar events led to Mussolini, Ayatolla Khomenei, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, and so many other dictators who rose to power thru revolution rather than via the ballot box. Making things worse is the fact that very few Egyptians have ANY experience whatever with the notion of "democratic" process (i.e. people freely choosing a government, after a period during which opposition parties can campaign freely). Instead, one dictator gets replaced by another, due to a "populist" uprising, and the average citizen has no say and gets shafted by the next tyrant. I don't trust the orchestrated demonstrations (which were obviously timed to coincide with certain events, and were planned long before -- they are b y no means "spontaneous"). I don't know who is behind them, but they know what they are doing, and most of the rock throwers are simply pawns in a power grab. Jim, I don't deny that many Egyptians sincerely desire a more-free society and more-open elections. Nor do I deny that many Egyptians despise Hosni Mubarak, for good reasons. However, most of these people are NOT in the streets, but waiting in fear to see who will next come to power. Beyond all that, the best thing for America to do is to BUTT OUT! Obama has no business taking sides or calling for resignations, etc. It is literally NONE OF OUR BUSINESS and (aside from suggesting calm and peaceful actions) we should stay out of it (other than making clear that the Suez Canal must remain "international" as per treaty agreements, etc.) The best thing Clinton and Obama can do (after mouthing sentiments for calm, peace, etc.) is to just SHUT UP. Any other U.S. action has a potentially huge downside (including "blowback", depending who eventually seizes control), and there is little or no upside to anything else we might do. ---- If what is going on in Egypt were happening here, the demonstrators would be firebombing the Smithsonian and calling for Obama to step down. If such protests succeeded in toppling the regime, should they be the ones to install a new ruler? Howe is that any different? Again, I don't really know who is behind these events, but I don't trust them to supersede the will of the majority! Why are YOU so quick to want to hand them absolute POWER? (Do you know something about them that I don't know????) On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Bruce Alan Martin wrote: Thanks for the reply, Jim. On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Lynch Jim wrote: thanks for sending this bruce I couldnt have written this better myself. I concur. my only question about this is if there is a similar press release from the time of the run-up to invasions of afghanistan and iraq. Let's distinguish between Afghanistan and Iraq, shall we? Also, there is a big difference between "invasion" and continued "occupation" (altho this latter distinction is often blurred in the media!) The invasion of Afghanistan was largely retaliatory. The invasion of Iraq was much less so. Continued occupation is wrong in both cases. AFGHANISTAN After the Congress overwhelmingly voted (under Article I Section 8 powers regarding "war") to authorize the President (yeah, it was Bush-2) to conduct a "War on Terror", he made demands upon the Taliban regime -- which was indisputably harboring those who attacked on September 11th. When they refused, an ultimatum was issued demanding either compliance or "regime change" and an invasion was launched when it was refused. Most libertarians (and most Americans) were happy about that, but it was generally acknowledged that the invasion of Afghanistan was both justified (by the attacks on 2001 September 11th, and earlier terrorism) and necessary (since all other alternatives had been exhausted). While I respect those who still insist we should have "turned the other cheek", I must point out that libertarians are not "pacifists" and that there is a role for retaliatory force -- including pre-emptive force to prevent further attacks, once force has been initiated against us. IRAQ Regarding iraq, the situation is far more complex. After Iraq attacked Kuwait, there was no question that Kuwait had every right to defend itself and to retaliate. This includes the right to request assistance from others, to fight the bully on the victim's behalf. It is arguable whether or not the U.S. and other countries should have simply stood by and ignored or denied the request, or whether or not it was in our national interest, but that's another matter. In short, U.S. involvement in the first Gulf war was far more defensible (ethically) than, say, the bombing of Belgrade (on behalf of Albanians in Kosovo) or other various and sundry U.S. foreign adventures. Like it or not, the first Gulf War ended with a peace agreement, under which Iraq was bound by various conditions. Fast forward to 2002 or so. Iraq violated several of those conditions, and essentially that war was resumed. It's a messy situation, but the Iraq thing was not a new war, at all -- even tho some of it was lumped under powers granted by Congress as part of the "War on Terror". Anyhow, an ultimatum was issued for "regime change" (i.e. departure of Saddam and his two sons), and eventually the regime was forcibly changed: "Mission Accomplished". OCCUPATION Regardless of what preceded it, there was no justification -- in either case -- for continued "occupation" nor for the meddling and "nation building" that has been going on for nearly a decade! We probably agree completely on that. SOLUTIONS Hmmmmmm. I'm not sure there are any good solutions. Just lots of bad ones. And maybe a few mediocre ones. I might favor some restrictions on the new regimes, and perhaps even some U.S. presence, to assure that no new attacks would be prepared, using those countries as a sanctuary. You might disagree on that, and I'm not entirely comfortable with it either. Complicating things is the self-declared, independent nation of "North Waziristan", which is protected and harbored by Pakistan which disavows any ability to govern the sanctuary areas, but still pretends that it is part of Pakistan and that there is some sort of "border". Oh well, let's leave all that for another discussion!) My own preference (expressed even back then) was that the eighteen provinces of Iraq (a phony, so-called "nation" whose boundaries were drawn in London in 1922!) should each become a sovereign state, within a loose confederation (similar to Swiss cantons), with the central government controlling little more than external security (defense of borders) and the equitable distribution of revenues from natural resources such as oil. while I sure there are such documents, your fringe group and mine are largly ignored by the MSM and thus we are led to the red/blue simplicity, painting with too broad a brush. my angst tuesday was ONLY focused on your surety and tone twice (that I heard) during your program that dismissed what was going on as having nothing to do with democracy. what evidence did you present (I only heard snipets of your show) that mass protest against authoritarian regime is NOT democracy in action. the last time you said it you went into a history lesson, but I didnt get to hear you connect the dots to your convictions about the people in the streets that day? after all these years, we both understand where the other is coming from and have formed opinions on "the definitions" of "libertarian" or "leftist" - Im sure we are both right and wrong about each. Im sure you would agree that during bush, you and I agreed more on things; during obama, much less. dont know if that has much to do with definitions but of fact that both of us are extremists in some ways. I bristle at being called liberal or democrat; you at being labeled rightwinger or perhaps even conservative (have never asked you that). easy to paint with too broad a brush now that our overlap is so wide. just makes no sense to me your embracing of tea party citizens at beck's D.C. gathering yet dismissing the cairo demo like that. again, I am firmly in agreement with the anti-empire tone of this press release. it is usa foreign policy blowback that caused 9-11 and countless atrocities worldwide. thanks again jim On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Bruce Alan Martin wrote: Jim- You seem to have some confusion about the definition of "libertarian" so I thought this forwarded Press Release might help. bam Begin forwarded message: From: Libertarian Party
Date: February 4, 2011 12:22:50 PM EST To: email@example.com Subject: America should stop interfering in Egypt View this message at LP.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 4, 2011 Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive Director E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 202-333-0008 ext. 222 America should stop interfering in Egypt WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement today: "Media reports tell us that the Obama administration is heavily involved in the current crisis in Egypt. It shouldn't be. "Personally, my sympathies are with the Egyptian protesters. Our very own Declaration of Independence said that government exists to secure people's rights, and 'whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.' "However, it would be wrong for me to force all Americans to adopt my point of view and support my choice in this crisis. But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing, by interfering in the crisis and inevitably taking sides. "The instances of U.S. foreign meddling over the last hundred years are too numerous to list here. But in almost every case, U.S. intervention has made American taxpayers poorer, and it has usually served to entrench corrupt authoritarian rulers. In the worst cases, like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, military intervention has caused the deaths of many Americans and far more foreigners. "This includes all types of intervention: military intervention, foreign aid, and 'behind-the-scenes' intervention using diplomacy and espionage. "Libertarians call for the U.S. government to stop interfering in the Egyptian crisis, and to end foreign aid to all nations, including Egypt. "American interventionism also gives foreign governments an excuse to copy us. Instead of respecting their neighbors' sovereignty and independence, foreign governments often interfere with each other, and they often use examples of American intervention as a justification. "Unfortunately, powerful politicians in Washington can't seem to resist the temptation to meddle in foreign countries' affairs. This tendency is made worse by self-serving bureaucracies like the CIA, which rely on foreign meddling to keep their workers employed. "Our government should leave other nations alone. The future of Egypt is for the Egyptian people to decide, not Washington politicians." The Libertarian Party platform plank on international affairs states: "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups." For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222. The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website. ### P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership. GET INVOLVED: Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee 2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200, Washington D.C. 20037 Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. You are currently subscribed as "email@example.com". Click here to unsubscribe.