The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

From the Ayn Rand Institute:

Gerhard Schroder's suggestion to "take the military option off the table" in dealing with Iran's advancing nuclear program should be dismissed. No amount of "negotiations" and "incentives" will persuade the Iranian mullahs to give up their quest for nuclear weapons.

Iran's claim that their reactors will be used for civilian purposes is absurd. Iran has more oil to generate electricity than it could possibly consume. Moreover, Iran's desire to destroy the United States (the "Great Satan") has been made clear by more than two decades of "Death to America" chanting in state-controlled mosques.

The Iranian mullahs are ideologically committed to spreading Islam throughout the world by force, and they will not abandon their murderous goal for political "concessions" or financial aid. Even the threat of war against Iran is unlikely to stop the mullahs from developing nuclear weapons. Deterrence only works against those who value their own lives. As the hordes of Islamic fanatics who blew themselves up in recent years have amply demonstrated, these people value death, not life. We can't risk our existence on the mullahs being an exception.

Iran is an avowed enemy of the United Sates and a major state sponsor of terrorism. It finances, trains, shelters and equips terrorists from organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Iran is currently waging a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and killing American soldiers by the dozens.

Once Iran gets hold of nuclear weapons, the United States will be an easy target for blackmail and a likely target for mass destruction. We cannot let that happen.

David Holcberg

Ayn Rand Institute

So it's ok for Israel, Pakistan and India to have nukes, but not Iran?

With George Bush squatting next door, I think I'd be looking for some protection too.

The difference, Jim, between Iran and Israel or India is that Iran wants to spread its religion by force--it is funding Islamo-Fascists and so is a threat to the free world, whereas Israel and India are not.  Iran is the major source of our difficulty in Iraq!  I don't have a problem with a democratic republic having atomic weapons; I do have a problem with a totalitarian regime having such weapons.

The evidence shows that an Iraqi agent met with Atta, paying him the final sum of blood money before the 9/11 attacks--therefore, the Iraq war is justified (i.e., those who support terrorism may be retaliated against), although it certainly could be prosecuted better.  I'm delighted that Iraq's dictatorial regime is gone!

Ron, your posts are disturbing for more reasons than I can mention here. Too help unravel this, I have a few questions I hope you'll answer.

What "evidence" of a pay-off are you referring to? (I think Dick Cheney would also appreciate hearing about it too.)

For the sake of argument, tet's assume the Iraqi government was paying for attacks on the US. How many Iraqi men, women and children deserve a death sentence for the crimes of their dictator?

If our country was invaded and blockaded by a foreign power, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American children, what would be the correct response?

What would be the correct response to a foreign power who successfully toppled our democratically elected government, and installed a dictator?

I guess those who want war just refuse to see reality:

 12/13/2003 - The New York Times
Fresh Doubts about Iraq 9/11 Connection - Iraqi Agent Denies He Met 9/11 Hijacker in Prague Before Attacks on the U.S.
By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — A former Iraqi intelligence officer who was said to have met with the suspected leader of the Sept. 11 attacks has told American interrogators the meeting never happened, according to United States officials familiar with classified intelligence reports on the matter.
<snip>
But the C.I.A. and F.B.I. eventually concluded that the meeting probably did not take place, and that there was no hard evidence that Mr. Hussein's government was involved in the Sept. 11 plot.
<snip>
http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID1510.htm

This bunk, just like the bunk about Iraq having WMDs or buying uranium in Africa, was debunked a long time ago. Why someone who considers himself a Lib goes around repeating neo-con lies is beyond me. What's obvious is that the neo-cons & the Bush admin wanted to invade Iraq for a long time. They stooped to new lows lying their way into war. Don't be taken in by their BS.

You guys are just following the Leftist/Communist/Quaker line; look at any "anti-war" demonstration--all the people there are commie-pinkos.  Is that with who you wish to associate?  Both the Ayn Rand Institute and the Reason Foundation support the war against the Islamo-Fascists.  I suggest you listen to talk-show hosts Bob Grant and Michael Savage--every day they provide the documentation you're requesting.  I read the Wall Street Journal; I don't read the New York Times--I consider that paper to be liberal propaganda.

The basic principle is that any free (or even semi-free) country has the right--though not the obligation--to liberate any slave-pen, provided it's in the liberating country's long-term rational and national self-interest.  (We don't liberate countries for their own sake.)  We Americans don't have much of an interest in Africa, so we can be "non-interventionist" there.  The Middle East is different--we must not let the Islamo-Fascists obtain weapons of mass destruction--this would be a direct threat to us.  The only long-term solution is to help them create democratic republics, because such republics do not wage war on each other.

If you cannot distinguish between Islamo-Fascists and fundamentalist Christians, then you should not be involved in politics.

Your problem is with the language itself.  "Islamo-Fascists" is a propaganda term that has no place in intelligent discussions.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jim and Darren.  A non-interventionist foreign policy is the way to go.  And it makes no sense for us to have nukes, then be horrified when others get them.  Gun rights makes just as much sense when applied to countries as people.

I can't distinguish between a violent fundamentalist Muslim and a violent fundamentalist Christian.  And I can't distinguish between a non-violent fundamentalist Muslim and a non-violent fundamentalist Christian either.

If you want to go conquer those religions you disagree with, don't do it under the libertarian banner.  It was embarassing enough to the party when you bashed our 2003 keynote speaker in your "research report" included in the convention program.  Please don't go passing off your bigotry as libertarian dogma again.

However, you definitely should be involved in politics, you just used a whole lot of words to say nothing. I'm still waiting for your definition of Islamo-Fascist.

An Islamo-Fascist is a Muslim who wishes to spread his religion by force (the way Islam has been spread historically).  They will cut your head off if you don't believe in "Allah" and his "prophet."  It's been estimated that 15% of the Muslim community is Islamo-Fascist (i.e., approx. 150 million people); I have no problem with the other 85%.  I actually like an off-shoot of Islam called the B'hai Movement, so I'm certainly not "bigoted."  There are 15 conflicts around the world involving Muslims against their neighbors--including Hindu and Buddhist countries, as well as Christian and Jewish countries.

As for Dean Ahmed, I debated him in the 70's.  He's on the side of Arab dictatorships--I'm not.  My 2003 convention Research Report pointed out numerous other Web sites which refuted the nonsense on Ahmed's Web site.  The only free country in the Middle East is Israel; all the other countries are dictatorships.  I do hope that Iraq becomes a free state, like Israel--if the U.S. were to withdraw now, this would be highly unlikely.

Take a look at today's Wall Street Journal editorial page:  "Back here in America, the war's critics have exploited Ms. Sheehan to assail President Bush for getting us into Iraq, and to proclaim, often with barely concealed glee, that an ignominous U.S. withdrawal and defeat are inevitable.  Amid their search for partisan vindication, it would be nice if these critics acknowledged, just once, that the real enemies in Iraq aren't Dick Cheney or George Bush but the masked terrorists who kill their fellow Iraqis for putting up election posters."

So, to conclude, I argue that the U.S. should stay in Iraq as long as necessary to get the job done--but not a day longer.  We have no interest in setting up an American "empire."  It is to our long-term, rational and national self-interest that the Arab Middle East be liberated.

If we lived in a Libertarian utopia. To do that now would be highly irresponsible and potentially catostrophic. Take the North Korea situation (sorry Ron for taking a tangent in your thread). To not be involved in that could result in economic collapse for region and for the U.S. I will not hijack the thread more than I already have, but I can speak at length about that situation and U.S. involvement is necessary.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul271.html

Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
August 23, 2005

One trillion would be a drop in the bucket if we were not in Korea now.

Short-sighted solutions provide short-sighted results. Just look at Clinton foreign policy for evidence of that philosophy.

Can we agree that Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution should be enforced?

Can we agree that we oppose the initiation of force for political or social gain?

Which part are you saying is not being enforced currently?





Qualify "political or social gain." Does this include protection of American interests abroad in order to prevent national, regional or global instability which could lead to national, regional or global economic collapse?

Are you trying to state that the U.S. should strictly be reactionary?

Please elaborate.

No elaboration on my part is necessary for you to answer 2 simple yes/no questions?

Can we agree that Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution should be enforced?

Can we agree that we oppose the initiation of force for political or social gain?

Ron, what about you?

Jim

Currently, I see no violations of either so I do not understand why this is even an issue.

If you are not willing to have an open discussion about these issues, then you cannot expect open answers.

Let's discuss your answers to my questions.

Well, obviously, all of us oppose the initiation of force, theft, or fraud.  This includes the threat of force, as well.

Non-intervention is proper when a country is non-threatening to us, even if it has a different social system.  Take Sweden, for example (please).  Although it is thorougly socialist, it is not a threat to us in any way, and so non-intervention is the right course of action.  We can trade with Sweden, etc.

However, Iran is a threat to us--it's leaders call us "The Great Satan" and want to defeat us and our social system.  They wish to impose a totalitarian version of Islam on us and the rest of the world.  So, here we may intervene--if it's in our long-term national and rational self-interest.  Of course, war is a last resort, but it is sometimes the answer (as witness World War II).  Negotiations can continue with the Iranians, but the military option should not be taken off the table.  That's the whole point of the ARI piece.

So you do advocate the use of force against civilians, after sufficient name calling from their dictator?

What about my first question about Article 1, Section 8?

Jim

PS: Could the 1953 CIA backed coup that toppled Iran's democratically elected government and the subsequent 25 years of support for their dictator, have anything to do with Iranian's feeling about the US?

I showed the same courtesy to your questions that you showed to mine.

I am not a "square peg in a round hole" type of person. Different problems require different solutions. To try and impose the same philosophy on every issue is ridiculous and highly irresponsible.

Ken, You are a smart guy. I'm trying to find out what we agree on before, I can continue this conversation.

If you don't believe that the constitution should be obeyed or if you advocate the innitiation of force, that will tell me where you are coming from.

Of course civilian casualties should be minimized.  Our beef is with the Iranian government (and their supporters), not with the typical "man in the street."  Modern weapons have pinpoint accuracy and thus can spare the civilian carnage that used to occur.  Compare that policy with the policy of the terrorists, which is:  kill the civilians!

It is irresponsible and unjust to call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  We must finish the job to ensure that a democratic republic in Iraq can succeed.  In this endeavor, Turkey supports us:  please see the Op-Ed page of today's WSJ.

Under my interpretation of both the Oath and the Article 2 Section 8, the U.S. is in compliance. This begs the question of why these questions are even being addressed? You can support going to war (and even pre-emptive strikes) and still be in compliance with both items mentioned.

My problem is that these questions seem like an irrelevant tangent that is taking away from the discussion at hand, which is Iran and to some extent my tangent to North Korea. NK is not as much of a tangent as you might think, since both issues are related (even to the extent that both countries are working together and there are theories that these announcements to the world have been coordinated).

Under my interpretation of both items you mentioned, I agree. I fully expect that these questions are a setup for additional lines of questioning which I feel will be out of bounds. We shall see.

Ken, I'm really starting to wonder why you won't answer 2 yes/no questions. At least Ron sort of answered one.

I thought that "Under my interpretation of both items you mentioned, I agree" answered both of your questions. "Agree" means "yes." I smell a setup, which is why the qualifiers are there.

I'll take that as YES and YES to my questions.



So we agree that Congress alone is authorized to declare war?

What does this have to do with Iran or North Korea (the topic of this thread)? We have not attacked either.

I am guessing that you are trying to make a thinly veiled comparison to Iraq. The President was authorized by Congress to use force in both Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, that is the President’s prerogative. He requests the use of force and it is up to Congress whether or not they grant it. In the case of Gulf War II, it was granted. Even if you do not like the most recent authorization, the President still had authorization under the original authorization in 1991. Iraq repeatedly violated the cease-fire agreement, thereby nullifying the cease-fire agreement, which re-opens the conflict. (See Below)

In the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, Gulf War I and Gulf War II, the President invoked his authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

Now, answer my questions: Do you feel that we should be going after terrorist organizations (using military force)? If not, how do you plan on handling terrorism and preventing further attacks? If you feel that we should use military force against terrorism, who do you "declare war" against, since terrorist organizations are not states, they are non-state actors?


NOTE:
Iraq violations of UN Resolutions (courtesy of the Ken Crippen For President website)
·  Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 (Cease Fire Agreement). Deplores Iraq’s statements of threatening “the use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq.”
·  Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, and the agreement Iraq had with the International Atomic Energy Agency (as established by the board of Governors on 18 July 1991).
·  Resolution 778 of 2 October 1992 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 706, and 712. Resolutions 706 and 712 were passed to provide a mechanism for humanitarian relief for Iraqi civilians.
·  Resolution 806 of 5 February 1993 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 689, and 773.
·  Resolution 949 of 15 October 1994 warns Iraq that they must abide by Resolutions 678, 686, 687, 689, and 833.
·  Resolution 1060 of 12 June 1996 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, and 715.
·  Resolution 1115 of 21 June 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
·  Resolution 1134 of 23 October 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060 but did not decide if Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1115.
·  Resolution 1137 of 12 November 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1115, along with violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
·  Resolution 1153 of 20 February 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687 and 1143.
·  Resolution 1154 of 2 March 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687 and all other relevant Resolutions.  
·  Resolution 1175 of 19 June 1998 states that Iraq still has not complied with Resolution 687.
·  Resolution 1194 of 9 September 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115 and 1154.
·  Resolution 1205 of 5 November 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, and all other relevant resolutions including 1154.
·  Resolution 1281 of 12 December 1999 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolution 687.
·  Resolution 1360 of 3 July 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 687.
·  Resolution 1382 of 29 November 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.
·  Resolution 1409 of 14 May 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.
·  Resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 686, 687 (including provisions relating to terrorism), 688, and 1284.
·  Resolution 1443 of 22 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.
·  Resolution 1447 of 4 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.
·  Resolution 1454 of 30 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.

"Thinly veiled" ? I'm trying to as obvious as I can.

Perhaps you didn't hear. Congress was offered a Declaration of War on Iraq, but declined do to cowardice.
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm

How many off those acts or UN resolutions supersede the US Constitution? I don't remember any of those being ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Are you now back-peddling on the enforcement of Article 1, Section 8 in favor of the War Powers Resolution of 1973? (Even that only claims to authorize 60 days of military action without a declaration.)

Jim

So, you are not going to answer my questions?

Discussions are two-way streets. I answered your questions (multiple times, I might add, despite your insistence that I did not). Please give me the same courtesy.

Only in retaliation or in response to a proven imminent threat, and never without congressional authorization.

A better way to defeat terrorism is to stop making terrorists, by financing their enemies like Israel and killing their friends and family.



We have laws against murder, that can usually be enforced without starting a war.

Congress also has the power to issue a Letter of Marque, which probably would have worked better than war in Afghanistan, which failed to capture the primary 9/11 suspect and killed more civilians than the hijackers.

How do you prove an "imminent threat" and still have time to get it through Congress without it becoming a "what the hell happened and why didn't we act sooner?"

BTW, we had Congressional authorization for Afghanistan.

Also, Letters of Marque were outlawed with the Declaration of Paris. We are not signatories of that agreement, but try to get that passed in the international community. Does a Letter of Marque apply to the President? I thought that it only grants Congress the ability to grant this authority to private citizens.

I have some observations on this thread, but first the obligatory answers to Jim's questions:  Yes, Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution should be enforced; so should all the other articles.  No, you cannot initiate force (or threats of force), regardless of the reason.  

Now, to business:

According to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11, "Congress shall have the power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

War was not declared on Iraq, so any US military action against it is unconstitutional.  Further, Congress is not authorized to delegate any of its constitutional authority, so the War Powers Act is unconstitutional on the face of it as well.  It is not a "presidential prerogative".  "Satisfying its provisions" changes nothing.  Wrong is wrong.  I thought we Libs were in favor of the rule of law?

Letters of marque and reprisal go beyond privateering, which is what the unsigned Declaration of Paris would have outlawed.  The Letters also empower the US military to go after persons and things held unjustly in another nation, not just empowering privateers.  Check out "Mark and Reprisal, Letters of" in Black's Law (and save me the trouble of typing out a looong paragraph).  The Letters are what we should have done, and should be doing, with Osama.

"Imminent threat" is a nice rationalization for a sucker punch, but it's not an issue on the table until after you declare war.  I'm not saying you couldn't include it in your declaration of war; it is constitutional.  But you would have to debate in Congress first the reasons for sucker punching.  And I'd argue that sucker punching only assures you're going to be sucker punched yourself, such as what happened to us with 9/11.

Personally, I'm no sucker puncher.  Certainly if someone shoots first, you should shoot back with everything you have.  But if they merely threaten, then all you are justified in doing is threatening in return.  In that way, threats are no different from force; you can't initiate either one, but you sure can return them in spades.  Of course that puts you into the position of backing up your threats once they are called, but that's another discussion.

Getting back on topic, I don't think that picking and choosing which countries you "allow" to have nuclear weapons (or whatever) is a good strategy.  You never know who's going to be controlling them next year.  Look at our former buddies and former villains, such as Iran, France, Spain, France, the USSR, France, and a host of others who've had a massive change of their governmental mind, either in our favor or against.  "Allowing" a sovereign nation to do or not do something has another name: foreign intervention.  I thought we Libs were against foreign intervention?

   So I disagree with KenC on his unconstitutional War Powers, disagree with Dr. Ron on his immoral sucker punching, and agree with Jim on declarations of war, letters of marque and reprisal, ending the unconstitutional war on Iraq (among others), and obeying the oath of office.  Or is my reasoning flawed somewhere?

Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. This satisfies Jim's requirement of Congressional approval. Congress also authorized the use of force in Afghanistan. This, again, fulfills Jim's request for Congressional approval.

Congress authorizes military force and it is up to the President to apply that force. The Legislative branch is not in charge of the military, the Executive branch is in charge of the military. Therefore, all Congress can do is authorize the military to be used. They did that and the President used that authorization to apply military force. I see no breach of the Constitution. Congress did what they are allowed to do (no more) and the President did what he was allowed to do (no more).

What would happen if you used a Letter of Marque on Osama? Who do you send in to get him and what do you think would be the reprisals for doing so? Do you think that the Taliban would allow Americans (or anyone else given the authority under a letter of Marque) to enter their country and go after someone they are protecting? THe Letter would be directed at Osama. What about the rest of the the terrorist organizations around the world? Taking out Osama does not stop the terrorist attacks. It does not slow down the terrorist attacks. Terrorist organizations are designed in such a way to make Letters of Marque useless.

I am sorry, but I cannot support reactionary policies as the only policies. You are saying, "I will wait for American citizens to die before I start to take action to provide Constitutionally mandated national defense."

I agree that a de jure declaration of war would have been the proper course of action.  However, Congress--by its power of appropriation--has declared war on Iraq by de facto means.  Congress could have said "No" to President Bush's request for funds, and didn't.  

But all of this is irrelevant now.  We're there, and justice demands that we complete the mission--establish a friendly, democratic republic in Iraq.  If we leave now, it would be a victory for the terrorists.

By the way, if you want to see Islamo-Fascists in action, go to www.michaelsavage.com and scroll down to the XXXX videos.  Just as America had to defeat the Nazis and the Communists, we now have to defeat these bastards.

Ken, the constitutionality of any law is rooted entirely in the continuity of its wording.  That's what connects a law to the Constitution.  So if the Congressional authorization of force doesn't say "war", then it's not "war" in the constitutional sense.  "War" is a legal term, like "marriage", "vehicle", and "traitor".  They have specific meanings within the law, and have downstream effects once used.  For example, if you're "married", then you get special tax benefits, inheritance rights, powers of attorney, etc.  That's one of the reasons why gays want to be "married" -- they get all the benefits associated with being "married" in the eyes of the law.  Similarly, once the "war" word is used, a whole bunch of other things kick in, such as the Geneva Convention (which George W. has already said doesn't apply; and he's right -- it's not a "war").  So what Congress did via the War Powers Act was NOT declaring "war"; it was something else.  If it was a constitutional act, then its authority should be rooted somewhere in the constitution -- but where?  Under "posting roads"?  "Coining money"?  No, it's not in there, so it is, by definition, unconstitutional.  As we've already agreed, the Constitution must be enforced.  Maybe I'm wrong, but please tell me: Which part are you enforcing with the War Powers Act?

And before you mention it, the use of the word "war" in the title means nothing.  It's a tenet of law that titles confer no authority.  But we all knew that.



True, but if that authorization is not in the manner outlined in the constitution, it's, well, unconstitutional.  The forms must be obeyed.



Again, under what provision of the Constitution?  As I've already pointed out, it's not A1/S8/C11.

If you think that the words of the Constitution do not apply, if you think that the Congress can abdicate or delegate its authority, if you don't think that http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm is a good example of the constitutional way to declare "war", then we have no basis to continue this discussion any further.  Instead, let's talk about law.  Once we agree on how laws and the Constitution interact, then we can pick up on this thread again.  But apparently we differ on basic definitions.  Or am I wrong?



Who do we send in?  The US military, of course.  (Although I am a big fan of Tobor the Eighth Man.)

Would they "allow" us in?  They have no choice.  (Unless they're bigger or badder than we are, as was already pointed out about the ex-USSR.)

What are the reprisals?  None, if the Taliban stands aside and lets us capture Mr. Bad Man.  Some, if they choose to stand in our way.  But look what George W. did: he just went ahead and conquered the whole damn country -- and without them "allowing Americans to enter".  So W. did just what you say the Taliban would not let him do.  Although taking a Letters approach MAY have ultimately led to the same conquering, the choice would have been up to the Taliban rather than King George W.  Or do you believe that other countries shouldn't have at least some say in determining their own fate?

Are you saying that wanton conquering is better than first attempting a surgical removal?  I'm not sure I understand your point.  But we're off the topic of Iraq anyhow.



I can't recall having asked for any support; I was merely making some observations.  And calling them "reactionary" is an evaluation of a fact, not the fact itself, and conveys no meaning beyond your possible disapproval.  So before I can respond, I need to know what's the fact that leads you to that evaluation?  What makes a constitutional, surgical strike "reactionary"?  Isn't it more fitting to call George W's unconstitutional conquering "reactionary"?  But I digress again, and not that it matters.  Calling anything "reactionary" is only opinion anyway.

As for waiting for American citizens to die, this harkens back to the "non-initiation of force" part of my observations.  It sounds like you're siding with Dr. Ron who argues (paraphrasing) "I feel threatened, therefore I'm going to initiate force against you!"  People feel threatened by a lot of things.  Are you advocating that I can shoot anyone I feel threatened by?  I don't think so.  Here's another example: Statistics show that most "crimes" are committed by black males between 18 and 25.  Shall we lock them all up as a pre-emptive strike?  Of course not.  I'd suggest we stay off that slippery slope and not do ANYTHING until a harm is done.  So my answer is "Yes, I will wait for American citizens to die before I start to take action to provide Constitutionally mandated national defense."  Any actions taken any sooner are immoral, unjustified, and possibly pure paranoia.

And taking out one tin-plated dictator isn't providing any Americans any sort of "national defense", nor is it constitutional.  In fact, it's the opposite on both accounts.  More Southwest Asians hate us now than before this unconstitutional non-war.  

Don't get me wrong.  Personally, I think the world is a better place without Sadman Insane in power.  I also think that people should be more polite.  But in both cases, I have no authority to force either boon to come to pass.  And neither does our government.

I can see we have a loooong conversation ahead of us.  I can also see why Jim keeps asking you for your definitions, because that is apparently where the disagreements lie.  

So let's start there.  Which of my definitions do you disagree with?

De jure says that theft is illegal.  De facto is when I hand my wallet over to the mugger.  Which one should I stand up for?



So I should accept their unconstitutional actions because they lacked the courage, fortitude, and integrity to object?  Or because they broke their oath of office twice, not merely once?  

No, Ron.  Two wrongs never make a right.  Nor does one.  Or three.



Irrelevant?  IRRELEVANT???  They're violating their oath of office!  Almost two thousand Americans have already DIED because of it!  If we stand mute and let them get away with it, it will be a victory for the oathbreakers in Congress!



Admiting to a mistake is never a defeat.  And let's not change the subject here.  We're talking about the sleazy, unconstitutional actions of an oathbreaking Congress.  We can talk about exit strategies once we're agreed that the oathbreaking bastards in Congress are oathbreaking bastards.

Instead, let's talk about the groupspeak you used: "justice demands", "we complete the mission", "if we leave now".

Ron, justice demands only that you follow the law.

Absent a declaration of war, "we" have no mission.  

And if we left now, it would be a victory for justice.



"We" now have to defeat these bastards?  As Tonto reportedly said to the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by attackers, "What do you mean 'we', white man?"  There are laws which prevent you and I from taking direct action against a foreign government.  There are also laws which allow America to take direct action against them.  When you say "we have to defeat them", are you counseling that you and I break the first law ourselves, or that you and I should just let Congress break the second law?  I don't like either option; I want to break NO laws.

Again, personally I agree that the world would be a better place without the Sadman in power.  No XXXX video is needed to convince most people of that.  But you don't just put a cartridge in your carbine and go off a huntin' humans.  There's a legal name for people who do that: Murderers.  And again, don't get me wrong: Every goal you outline here is correct; your ends are just.  But it's your means that are outside the law.  And just because Congress jumped into the lake doesn't mean I'm going to follow them.

With KenC, the argument appeared to be about definitions.  But with you, it seems to be about what times we can ignore the law.  The only safe answer to that is "Never!", for when you violate the rights of one, you violate the rights of all.  To quote the first George W.'s Farewell Address, "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

It's not some foreign dictator who's the threat that must be defeated.  It's our own government we need to defeat, before their usurpations destroy us.

KenK:

You originally supported the war and didn't have any Constitutional qualms about it.  Now you don't; that's a flip-flop.

There are many other rational justifications for the war I can give.  For instance, according to Czek intelligence, it was an Iraqi agent that funnelled the final sum of money to Atta to launch the 9/11 attack.  That makes Iraq our enemy, by definition.  Any country that supports terrorism against us is ipso facto an adversary and has thereby initiated agression against us.  We therefore have the right to defend ourselves and thus to defeat these bastards.

The fact that Congress has authorized funds for the war makes it legal.  (If there has been any court challenges, they've been defeated.)  We are helping the Iraqis set up a democratic republic.  I call upon all the destructive Syrians, Jordanians, Iranians, and Saudis to leave Iraq and go home to their own hell-holes.  "The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants each generation." (T. J.)

KenK,

If a Letter of Marque, issued for OBL, is your way of dealing with terrorism and global conflicts then you are correct when you say that we have nothing further to discuss. As someone who studies strategic intelligence, counterterrorism, WMD, counterproliferation, threat analysis and has intently studied the North Korean situation for years, I am absolutely frightened at this concept. Reading it sent shivers down my spine.

I will not continue this discussion, in order to keep things civilized.

I beg your pardon???  I have NEVER supported this Iraqi war.  As I already mentioned, while I personally think that the world is better off without Sadman Insane in power, I have consistently denounced how George W. has prosecuted this war.  

But don't take my word for it.  Exactly ten days after George W. illegally invaded Iraq, I was a guest on Harry Browne's radio show, and these same questions came up.  That interview is still out on the web.  Listen to my answers then, and compare them against my answers today, and you'll find zero difference.  The show is at http://www.harrybrowne.org/Obsolete/Archives2003.htm, listed on the website as "March 29, 2003, Guest: Ken Krawchuk, candidate for the Libertarian presidential nomination".  Although most of the interview is about my bid for the LP presidential nomination in 2004, a goodly portion of it is about the war, most of it convering the very same ground we've covered in this thread, plus other war-related -- uh, DEFENSE-related, I should say -- issues.

In any case, I would greatly appreciate it if, in the future, you would amend your statements, sir.  It seems that there are some folks out there who keep confusing my strong pro-military stand with a pro-war stand, and comments such as yours only feed that misconception.



These are all valid causus belli and the decision to declare war against the perpetrators should be debated in Congress when they decide to declare war, as per the Constitution.  



I've never argued anything to the contrary.  What I've argued is that the Constitution must be obeyed.  Period.  No cheating, no squirming, no grey areas, no "well, that's what they MEANT to say!", no nonsense, no making up the law to fit your facts, no twisting of history, no appeals to the heart, no avoiding answers, no redefining the plain meaning of words, no dodging legal responsibility, no ignoring this piece of the Constituion in favor of that piece, no bull.  My only concern is: What does the LAW say!



Garbage.  How does one illegal act justify another?

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln called up 75,000 militia without authorization.  When Congress reconvened, their first act should have been to begin impeachment proceedings against the clearly-illegal actions of a renegade president.  But they didn't.  The ultimate result was that the American Republic perished from the earth to be replaced with a federal democracy.  One hundred and fifty years later, people continue to die from that failure of Congress to act, such as the sick in those states which have passed referrendums allowing for the use of medical marijuana.  States rights died that day in 1861.  But I guess that's legally OK by you, following your logic, since Congress failed to impeach an oathbreaking tyrant.



Very eloquent.  Also very off point.  Let them water their own damn tree with their own children's blood.  But if you want to help water it, feel free.  Send your own kids and grandkids, not mine and not those of any other American who'd rather be left alone to live their own life their own way rather than chasing after your illegal crusade, wasting our hard-stolen tax dollars and inflaming the foreign hordes against the Great Satan.  

<deep breath>

Let me summarize: If there be cause for war, let Congress declare it, and the president lead it, as the Constitution demands.  Anything else places our nation precariously on the slippery slope to tyrrany, which is where we currently -- and unfortunately -- find ourselves.  And that slope is steepening every day we let Congress and the president continue to ignore their sworn duty.

Huh?  I never said that I'd use Letters to deal with terrorism and global conflicts.  I said I would have used them to go after Osama.  Let's stay on topic; and once we're done with Osama, we can discuss other aspects of terrorism and global conflicts.

I note that you did not say how you would deal with Osama, or what was wrong with my approach.  What are the facts here?



I disagree.  If you re-read what I wrote, I said:



So there is much to discuss, starting with your answers to my basic questions about the relationship between law and the Constitution.  Unless, of course, you're not interested in continuing the discussion you began.  I can accept that.



Ken, I would suggest you also study logic.  It appears to me that you're deliberately avoiding answering my questions, answering instead with innuendo, unexplained emotion, and vague appeals to authority.  It doesn't help change my opinion or even explain your own when you merely say you are scared of a solution.  Again, what are the facts?



I'm sorry to hear that you cannot carry on a conversation about current events without getting uncivilized.  I was looking forward to your input, which is why I joined your conversation.

If you'd like to continue this, I await your answers to the questions I raised in my last post to you, most importantly, which of my definitions do you disagree with, and why.  Again, what are the facts?

And if you don't want to continue, I'll be forced to assume that my definitions are correct.  ;-)

Well, we have a volunteer armed force, so no one is forcing you or anyone else to go to Iraq.  As for my own service, I did my (voluntary) military time with Central Intelligence and had a top secret military clearance.  I worked on the spy satellite program during the Cold War.  I take a very dim view of any totalitarian regime, as does KenC, and so I'm delighted that Saddam is gone from power.  May liberty spread throughout the Middle East!

Prior to your radio interview, you asked me for material supporting the war, and I sent you one or more essays by Andrew Sullivan.  Look, I agree that it would have been more proper to officially declare war--my point is that Congress has done it by de facto means.

The question is, What is the course of action now to increase liberty?  Obviously, pulling out would result in chaos and would snatch defeat from the potential jaws of victory.  We should stay in Iraq to ensure that a friendly, democratic republic exists--this would be an increase of overall liberty.  If you want to retroactively declare war on Iraq, I would support that.  Oh, and for a couple of other reasons:  Iraq was implicated in the original '93 bombing of the Trade Towers, and there is evidence (not conclusive) that they were involved in the Mura Building bombing.  Further and most importantly, there was an al Queda training base in northern Iraq (and don't tell me that Saddam didn't know about it).

Let's all try to stay friendly while we're discussing these issues.

This should make things easier.  Right, hawks?

http://libertyforsale.com/2005/09/15/adding-nuclear-teeth-to-failed-us-foreign-policy/

Chuck:

I don't know any Libertarian who is advocating the use of strategic atomic weapons against terrorists; the most I've heard is the use of small, targeted tactical atomic weapons against the deep cave tunnels in Afghanistan.  Unlike the terrorists, all of us want to avoid civilian casualties.  This is precisely why the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists--they do not respect the rules of war agreed to by most nations.

   Let's not bargain over inches (or megatons) of evil.  A nuke is a nuke is a nuke, not only according to the laws of physics, but also in the public perception.

   But I understand you: what you are saying is that there are Libertarians who support the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons.  Terrible as that may seem, I think the nuclear part is incidental to our discussion.  Again, the key point is that you're saying there are Libertarians who support the initiation of force.  Isn't that a contradiction?  Or did you mean the non-pre-emptive use of nukes?



   And America does???

   Can you say Guantanamo?  Sure you can.

   And you missed a part of your sentence: "This is precisely why <fillin the blank says that> the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists".  Who says that, Ron?  Is it you?

   Hey, Chuck: I'd opine that introducing the term "hawk" doesn't add anything to what we've already discussed; I'm not sure how relevant it is to the thread.  Personally I'm a hawk (and not because I'm a St. Joe's grad!), but only a hawk against those who have initiated the use of force or fraud.  I'd think that a dove would be against retaliation at all, something which probably does not describe anyone participating in this thread.  So I assume that your article was directed at all of us?

   Hawks aside, I think the key issue mentioned in your quoted article is about the efficacy of  pre-emptive strikes.  And that brings us back to the issue at hand, which is still mired in the definitional stages.  I'd like to get that part moving again.

   Toward that goal, here's a summary of who's on what side of which fences, as they've mentioned in this thread (in alphabetical order).  Of course if I'm wrong on any of these categorizations, please let me know.


1.  Obey all of the Constitution:
  - EVC Darren
  - Jim
  - KenK

2.  Ignore parts of the Constitution:
  - KenC
  - RonS

3.  Haven't said:
  - Chuck


   We can also break things down using The Pledge:

1.  People who promote the initiation of force:
  - KenC
  - RonS

2.  People who oppose the initiation of force:
  - Chuck
  - EVC Darren
  - Jim
  - KenK


   And extensions to The Pledge:

1.  People who promote the initiation of force in response to threats:
  - Jim
  - KenC
  - RonS

2.  People who oppose the initiation of force in response to threats:
  - KenK

3.  Haven't said:
  - Chuck
  - EVC Darren


   So there's a summary of who's where.  I'm ready to pick this thread back up again, starting with the issue of definitions as outlined above.

No Libertarian is advocating the "initiation of force."  What I and others are saying is that we may strike any al Queda base--because they have declared war on us!  They hate the West and want to impose a totalitarian version of Islam on us.  There are--right now--secret al Queda cells in the U.S. just waiting for the word from OBL to attack us again.  Naturally we should do everything we can (short of causing civilian deaths) to rid the world of these destructive morons.  They are the main threat to our lives, our liberty, and our property.

As for Guantanomo, the terrorists do not respect the rules of war, so therefore we are not bound to do so either with regard to them.  Tough, but that's how it is.  The Left is wrong about the war, just as they are wrong about just about everything else.  I'm proud to be on the side of America and American values!

Ron,

I can't believe that someone who calls himself a libertarian can be so confused. This stuff about big bad Al Qaeda  (AQ)is nothing but bunk. To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does AQ have? Answer ZERO! They're nothing more than a nuisance, & only that because the US gov gives them reason to be angry. If the US gov would leave them alone they'd leave us alone.This isn't, BTW, condoning what they do just explaining it:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/11/Osama_text.html

On another point you erroneously make, the greatest threat to liberty around here is the US gov. They terrorize all of us everyday. (Ask Art or Larken about this.) I don't see AQ taking money out of each & every paycheck I bring home. I don't see AQ confiscating people's guns. I also don't see AQ kidnapping & locking up drug users. Etc, etc, etc.

Moving right along, the left, the left, the left. It's only the left, in your world, that opposes the war. Get it through your head it's not only the left that opposes the war. (Never mind that they also oppose the war on drugs & corporate welfare, no to you they're just wrong about everything.)

Also, don't be so proud, your support for what it takes to fight a war on terror (whatever that means) is a betrayal of everything the founders stood for.

I'll say good bye with a question, if AQ has secret cells in the US how do you know about them?

Before you put me in group one, I'd have to know what type of threat you are referring to. If someone points a gun at my family and declares the intention to shoot, yes I would try to get the first shot off if I could.

Clearly, that is completely different from slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians in a far away land because somebody there has "WMD related program activities".

Jim

What? The US is harboring terrorists? I guess to you this is justification to "shock-and-awe" the US.

   Sounds like you belong in group one.

   Personally, I believe the "proper" way (whatever that means) to respond to a threat is with another threat.  That's in keeping with the "non-initiation of threats" principle.  Of course if the offender does not remove their threat, then I believe you're justified in backing up your own threat and resorting to force to remove that threat.  

   I hear that the NYC police have a similar policy: "Stop or I'll <BLAM!> shoot!"



   Amen.  The latter involves the initiation of lies to achieve social or political goals, while the former involves the right to personal defense.

   Then I'm confused.  Earlier in this thread, you said:



   You also said:



   If someone calls you a rude name, is it initiation of force if you shoot them for saying it?  I would argue vehemently that it is.  

   And if I follow you correctly, you're saying that it isn't.  If that's the case, I better be careful about calling you names!  You might shoot me!!!  

   Reminds me of a Moxy Fruvous song, tellingly titled "Gulf War Song":  

"If I said you were crazy, would you have to fight me?
Fighters for liberty, fighters for power
Fighters for longer turns in the shower
Don't tell me I can't fight, 'cause I'll punch out your lights
And history seems to agree that I would fight you for me"



   No it isn't.  I took a look at the Conventions (http://www.genevaconventions.org/) and found nothing to support your point.  In fact, it goes the other way.  Protocol IV, Article 2 says "[T]he present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."  

   That also contradicts something I said earlier in this thread, which I humbly retract.  I said that since the Iraqi war wasn't "war" the conventions did not apply.  I was wrong; George W is in violation.  No surprise.

.


It's deja vu all over again.  

I was looking up some Toastmasters stuff when I stumbled onto the following piece I posted on the old LPP-run LEEbernet.  Here it is, six years later, and the same arguments are still going on and on.



... and another...


   I'm tellin' ya!  Them Libertarians!  Ya see what I'm sayin'?  Nuttin' changes!

   Seriously: Meet force with force and threats with threats (then always back them up).

:twisted: Give Iranians 3 days to leave the country. Those who do can return to reclaim their country, those who don't leave need nuked. This way they get to recieve their nuke weapons they want so bad, & get peace at the same time. They can visit with Alah.

The more you post the ignorant you get. This is a libertarian board, not a neo-con one.

I posted an article tangentally relevant to this thread:
http://lppa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=759#759

Without a strong military presence, the USA would be taken over piece by piece and we wouldn't be able to carry on these parlour room discussions that we love soooooooo much.

Yes, by the millions they'd swim over with boxcutters & wipe us out.  

Here are some ideas about how to defend the US while maitaining our liberties:

The Bill of Rights: Antipathy to Militarism
by Jacob G. Hornberger, Posted December 3, 2004
<snip>
...the military bedrock of a free society lay not in an enormous standing army but rather in the concept of the citizen-soldier — the person in ordinary life in civil society who is well-armed and well-trained in the use of weapons and who is always ready in times of deepest peril to come to the aid of his country — but only to defend against invasion and not to go overseas to wage wars of aggression or wars of “liberation.” As John Quincy Adams put it in his July 4, 1821, address to Congress, America “does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”
<snip>
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp

This may be off topic but this is where the URL that Dave Jahn cited in his recent email where he admonished unnamed board members for being too critical of others lead me.

Unfortunately I deleted his email, but it went something like this:

===

LPPa Members, You are being too critical of others who are working hard to make the  party run, etc.  Don't belitttle others.  The posts here show that we are going too far beyond civility and so on.... this must stop.

===

Fair enough, but I was responding to the 3 or 4 comments above mine here. My comment is a short one as follow:

Without a strong military presence, the USA would be taken over piece by piece and we wouldn't be able to carry on these parlour room discussions that we love soooooooo much.

Above my previous post, all I saw were a few comments by Jim Babb, Ron Satz and Chuck Moulton.  Because I entered this thread via the URL provided by the Chair, I didn't notice that there were four other pages of comments.  I was unaware of these and was not responding to them. I was unaware of them.  

In fact, I went to the PHP bb today to test the theory that the URL provided by Dave Jahn for some computerized reason, took me to the incorrect site on the PHP bb.  I was going to locate my previous post, check the URL, email it to myself then click on it etc and see whether it took me to this page or not.  

Since I was unaware of pages 1-3 of this topic and since I had not and still have not read them, and since I entered this page via the URL provided to me by the Chair, I was commenting only upon the few posts above mine on the page.  

Those posts seemed to center around the EV Chair's resolution and the Research Committee's counter resolution on the war.  Since  those few posts didn't appear to be radical or discourteous in any way, I made my short, rather pedestrian comment cited above.

My comments on the Board List were entirely related to those few posts. I had no idea that this topic had been posted to about fifty times.  When you enter this page through the home page of the PHP bb, you see that there have been dozens of posts that have been read about 360 times. You also see that this debate has taken up four pages and counting.

So if my comments seemed too cavalier, they were based on only  a couple of posts that you can easily look at by going to the top of this page. I was unaware of pages 1-3.

also the posts that were before my first one are now different?  I don't understand why. I didn't hit any buttons changing the order they are displayed, but I my previous post is now on page five, not page four.

After viewing a couple of them, maybe Dave has a point.  But a quirk in the PHP bb made it impossible for me to see that because I entered from a URL, not from the home page.

Darren, they won't come across the border with box cutters. they will take us down piece by piece,,,, demographic by demographic;..... court decision by court decision..... newscast by newscast.

Xenophobia.  Isn't that what "demographic by demographic" really is about?

Anyway, it would seem to me that US gov inspired turmoil overseas leads to more people coming to the US not less.

As to the rest it sounds more like you're describing the US gov, they're the #1 threat to liberty around here.

No it isn't.

When they came for the Chiristians, I said nothing because I'm not a Christian.  When they came for the Conservatives, I said nothing because I'm not a Conservative.  Now they are coming for the Libertarians and there is no one left to stand up for me.

That's what I mean by demographic by demographic.

Maybe for the sake of clarity, we should call Islamo-Fascists by the
name Islamo-Statists? Especially when dealing with a Libertarian audience.

Maybe the Nazis were the National Statist Party and the USSR was the Union of Soviet Statist Republics? by the same token, IslamoFascism could be called IslamoStatism with no explanation necessary.

Also, Mona Charen has a book on the shelves at Borders called "Useful Idiots' which is a good read.  Additionally Antonio Gramasky wrote a book on Communist propaganda that is obviously still being followed today.

I urge you to go to Border's and skim through these two books.

Right On, Tim.

Just this past week, the mad Mullahs of Iran have openly declared their goal of destroying Israel, our one true friend and ally in the Middle East.  We and the entire Free World should shun Iran and refuse to deal with them in any international organization until and unless the Mullahs are replaced by responsible, civilized, democratically-elected leaders.

Again from the Ayn Rand Institute:

Death to "Diplomacy" with Iran
Thursday, October 27, 2005
By: Elan Journo

European "diplomacy" with Iran--now supported by Washington--is self-destructive.

The president of Iran--a country believed to be building nuclear weapons--recently demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map." But European diplomats, who are courting Iran in an attempt to halt its suspected nuclear weapons program, said that such belligerence won't derail their overtures.

The diplomatic effort led by Britain, France and Germany is touted as a reasonable way to settle the dispute over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program without any losers. By enticing Iran to the negotiating table, we are told, the West can avoid a military confrontation, while Iran gains "economic incentives" that can help build its economy. But this deal--backed also by the Bush Administration--can only strengthen Iran and turn it into a greater menace.

The European deal--which is said to include the sale of civilian aircraft and membership for Iran in the World Trade Organization--rests on the notion that no one would put abstract goals or principles ahead of gaining a steady flow of economic loot. And so, if only we could negotiate a deal that gives Iran a sufficiently juicy carrot, it would forgo its ambitions.

But to believe that Iran really hungers for nuclear energy (as it claims) is sheer fantasy. Possessing abundant oil and gas reserves, Iran is the second-largest oil producer in OPEC. To believe that it values prosperity at all is equally fantastic; Iran is a theocracy that systematically violates its citizens' right to political and economic liberty.

What Iran desires is a nuclear weapon--the better to threaten and annihilate the impious in the West and in Iran's neighborhood. Iran declares its anti-Western ambitions stridently. At an official parade in 2004, Iran flaunted a missile draped with a banner declaring that: "We will crush America under our feet." (Its leaders, moreover, have for years repeated the demand that "Israel must be wiped off the map.")

A committed enemy of the West, Iran is the ideological wellspring of Islamic terrorism, and the "world's most active sponsor of terrorism" (according to the U.S. government). A totalitarian regime that viciously punishes "un-Islamic" behavior among its own citizens, Iran actively exports its contempt for freedom and human life throughout the infidel world. For years it has been fomenting and underwriting savage attacks on Western and American interests, using such proxies as Hezbollah. Like several of the 9/11 hijackers before them, many senior Al Qaida leaders, fugitives of the Afghanistan war, have found refuge in Iran. And lately Iran has funneled millions of dollars, arms and ammunition to insurgents in Iraq.

It's absurd to think that by offering Iran rewards to halt its aggression, we will deflect it from its goal.

The only consequence of engaging such a vociferously hostile regime in negotiations is the whitewashing of its crimes and the granting of undeserved legitimacy. The attempt to conciliate Iran with "incentives" further inflames the boldness of Iran's mullahs. What it teaches them is that the West lacks the intellectual self-confidence to name its enemies and deal with them accordingly. It vindicates the mullahs' view that their religious worldview can bring a scientific, technologically advanced West to its knees.

Far from converting Iran into a non-threat, the "incentives" would sustain its economy, prop up its dictatorial government and perpetuate its terrorist war against the West. Whether Iran accepts the European deal or merely prolongs "negotiations" indefinitely, so long as the "diplomatic" approach continues Iran gains time enough to engage in covert nuclear-weapons research. Iran's flouting of a previous agreement to stop enriching uranium (which prompted the current talks) and its documented attempts to acquire nuclear-bomb technology erase any doubts about how it will behave under any future deal.

This approach of diplomacy-with-anyone-at-any-cost necessarily results in nourishing one's enemy and sharpening its fangs. That is what happened under a 1994 deal with communist North Korea. In return for boatloads of aid and oil from the United States, Japan and other nations, North Korea promised not to develop nuclear weapons. Despite U.N. inspections, North Korea flouted the agreement repeatedly. When caught cheating, it promised anew to end its nuclear program in return for more "incentives." In February 2005 North Korea declared (plausibly) that it had succeeded in building nuclear weapons.

Another, older attempt to buy peace by giving "incentives" to an enemy was a cataclysmic failure. In 1938 the Europeans pretended that Hitler's intentions were not really hostile, and insisted that "peace in our time" could be attained by allowing him to walk into Czechoslovakia. Instead, he was emboldened to launch World War II.

Ignoring the lessons of history, the Europeans are advocating a deal with Iran that likewise purchases the reckless pretence of peace today, at the cost of unleashing catastrophic dangers tomorrow.

To protect American (and European) lives, we must learn the life-or-death importance of passing objective moral judgment. We must recognize the character of Iran and act accordingly. By any rational standard, Iran should be condemned and its nuclear ambition thwarted, now. The brazenly amoral European gambit can only aid its quest--and necessitate a future confrontation with a bolder, stronger Iran.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

This Op-Ed was published in the Chicago Sun-Times (October 30, 2005).

The anti-war resolution that was introduced at the same meeting as Ron S. pro-war one was from Jim Babb, not me.

I just registered for these forums, but I thought I would take a poke at this thread, in spite of it's age...

I'm registered Libertarian, but I do have mixed feelings about some Libertarian ideas, including some of the more "hard-core" non-interventionist ideas.

Iran should not be permitted to continue its nuclear endeavors for the following reasons:

1)  Proliferation - more countries getting nukes - is bad no matter WHAT country it is.  The ones that currently have them have so far demonstrated that they aren't crazy enough to use them.  We can all be thankful for that (for now!).  Adding more countries with the potential of destroying their enemies in one strike is just bad for everyone.

2)  Iran has openly stated its policy that certain other nations don't deserve to exist.  Sure India and Pakistan don't get along.  But as far as I know, they don't have an openly stated policy that they want to destroy one another.  Not so with Iran.  Since they openly declare their desire to commit mass murder, they should not be allowed the tools to accomplish it.

So the question becomes -- how does someone stop them?  And who should that someone be?

The US has the best military assets to do the job of surgically destroying their weapons sites.  BUT there is another nation that has the ability, AND a much stronger motive to do it.

ISRAEL

Even if the US does nothing to stop Iran, I have no doubt that Israel will take action if/when it can be confirmed that Iran is close to getting nukes.  They are target #1.  And they, unlike many of us in America, have the balls to do it.

I have mixed feelings about this, but it always comes back to the fact that it was our intervention in the affairs of these countries that has produced this problem in the first place. What do we do about it? At this point, I don't think that there is any good answer, but I am far more inclined to let Iran get the bomb rather than go to war over it. Just because Iran gets the bomb doesn't mean they'll keep the bomb or use it. Economic pressure can and will be brought to bear on them if they acquire nuclear weapons and that can be a pretty powerful tool to use to pursuade them to knock it off.

What to do with Iran? Leave them alone (militarily). If we try to police every country that we think is bad for us, then we're simply asking for them to nuke us. Our forces are already strained in Iraq, so invading Iran would lead to a catastrophic failure.

Iran should be squashed.  444 days!!  Never Forget!!

I have to agree that Iran is indeed a threat to world peace.  Their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA and their repeated and public threats to Israel and open use of terrorism as a means to obtain their objectives (i.e. Hezbollah) makes them extremely dangerous to the world.  They have repeatedly abused their own citizens as well as those around the Middle East, illustrated this by censoring their own citizens, executing gays, stoning women, etc.  Some may argue a cultural difference, but again, we have to look at the overall context.  If, say, Canada had openly threated to "wipe" a nation "off the map", making an obvious reference to their nuclear program, we'd be right to be very worried.  Additionally, the development of special centrifuges to more quickly enrich uranium that is weapons grade is reason to worry.