A Voice of Reason Rises Above the Hysteria

[David Floyd]

Berz, that's why I usually direct people to you or Wraith or Rex regarding Libertarianism

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The situation in Afghanistan was far from anarchy. The Taliban were autocrats, not anarchists.

I wasn't refering to the Taliban themselves, Berzerker, but the situation that existed prior to thier rise to power which most certainly was an anarchic situation. That is the reason they were initially welcomed with open arms.

And it was not their autocratic ideology that led to this situation, it was the terrorist attack carried out primarily by Saudis who may or may not have been living in Afghanistan at some point in the past.

It was thier militant ideology that allowed a trans-national terrorist organization to have a base from which to plan attacks on the continental US.

Obviously some members of the Taliban are complicit in what happened since they harbored one of bin Laden's bases of operations, but the extent of that complicity is still unknown to most of us.

IMO, The Taliban organization has also been co-opted by Al Qaeda to such an extent prior to 9-11 that I fail to see any meaningful distinction between the two within Afghanistan. If you wish I can give you the reasons for my opinion.

I know we currently have a volunteer force, but they took an oath to uphold the Constitution and that Constitution says the Congress has the power to declare war, not the President.

I was under the impression that Congress had given the President thier consent to wage this conflict.

And these terrorist attacks did not happen because bin Laden hates "freedom" as has been claimed by Bush et al,

You're arguing against a strawman now. I don't really care why OBL staged the attacks. He staged an attack on US soil and has proven himself to be a continuing and past threat to the US and he and his organization are therefore worthy of elimination.

FYI, After the Soviet Union was thrown out of Afghanistan there was wide spread pro-US sentiment in the country. It was only the US abandoment of the country that caused a reversal of thier feelings. In hindsight, that has proven itself to be a mistake on our part.

[Ramo]

Ramo, I'm a Libertarian, but one who also believes in things such as national sovereignty.

I don't see how giving states rights is consistent with the principle of non-initiation of force.

Additionally, I'm opposed to the part of Libertarianism that advocates totally open borders for anyone.

Why?

It's wrong because you and I don't have the right to force other people to fight wars we might like.

Huh? I'm not forcing anyone to fight in wars. I'm strongly against any draft.

You have the right to not fight my fights.

Again, I don't support a draft.

The fight must precede or coincide with the food deliveries over there, and we wouldn't be having this discussion about starvation if not for the terrorist' attacks and "our" response.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Huh? We've been bombing for less than a month and as we have bombed and the NA has taken ground, fewer Afghans are under the Taliban's rules. Hell, the Taliban is almost destroyed as far as their ability to repress anyone.

Which wasn't the case during the initiation of hostilities!

Yes, they would. They started locking them up before 9-11.

Source? Do you know if the frequencies of locking up aid workers has increased, decreased, or remained the same since 9/11 (barring the period after the aid workers got the hell out)?

Since when? The war was never about feeding the refugees and was always about revenge.

Again, that's my reason for supporting the war, not Shrub's.

Food distribution didn't stop because of Taliban repression, but because the charity organizations were afraid of their convoys getting bombed. Have we forgotten so soon that the US bombed the Red Cross food warehouses in Kabul? The Taleban were stealing food from the warehouses, but not all of it.

I hardly think the probability of being bombed is comparable to the probability of getting being imprisoned.

Actually, the northern alliance is and always has been the government of Afghanistan that was officially recognised by the United Nations. The USA was not making a unilateral decision in supporting them; we were acting in accordance to official UN policy.

If Shrub et al. support the NA simply because the UN recognizes it as the legitimate government, they're even more foolish then I previously thought.

They support the NA because it's a viable ally, not because the UN "officially" recognizes them.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Oil, oil, oil..."

So the fact that Bin Laden is in Afghanistan and the Taliban are giving him cover have nothing to do with it?

Ron Paul is obviously an idiot. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being Bin Laden sympathizers? Is this guy aware that the Islamic Fundamentlaists want to overthrow these regimes?

"But I didn't even know of the plan to hand over Kurdish lands in Iraq to the Turks."

Keep in mind that Mosul is a part of the Turkey proper that they were forces to give up in WWI.

"Among other reasons, our bombs are what have caused the Taliban to repress civil liberties so much these past months, exacerberating the problem by quite a bit."

The Taliban was still abominable before that.

"Incorrect. There is such a thing as national sovereignty. That is, the United States has no business to go into another nation to right the wrongs it decides are being committed."


A group of people do not have the right to do whatever they want because they get guns and call themselves a "government"

"Bush's foreign policy? I wasn't aware that Bush had a foreign policy - other than intimidation."

He got a strong international coalition to oppose Afghanistan, he has a good foreign policy.

"

It's wrong because you and I don't have the right to force other people to fight wars we might like."

We're not doing a draft, and the people who joined the military voluntarily could expect to be sent off like this.

"You may rest assured that we support the NA because it is expedient for us and for no other reason."

So, what's wrong with that? This is war, you do what it takes to win it.

[Ramo]

I wasn't refering to the Taliban themselves, Berzerker, but the situation that existed prior to thier rise to power which most certainly was an anarchic situation. That is the reason they were initially welcomed with open arms.

*Ahem*

Feudalism isn't an example of anarchism.

[Ramo]

The Taliban was still abominable before that.

I didn't say otherwise...

[Wraith]

--"I don't see how giving states rights is consistent with the principle of non-initiation of force."

Because states rights is an issue only in a federal vs state context. It's about what powers the states have vs. what powers the federal government has more than anything. It's about delegation of powers, so there's nothing inherently inconsistent with non-initiation of force.

Wraith
"She walked quickly through the darkness with the frank stride of someone who was at least certain that the forest, on this damp and windy night, contained strange and terrible things and she was it."
-- Wyrd Sisters

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wraith
Because states rights is an issue only in a federal vs state context.

I believe that Ramo was refering to a State not a state.

[Ramo]

Wrong context. I was referring to national sovereignty. But now that you bring it up...

It's about delegation of powers, so there's nothing inherently inconsistent with non-initiation of force.

Delegating powers is inconsistent with non-initiation of force. Removing powers, on the other hand, is consistent.

[Berzerker]

David - Better to direct them to Rex and Wraith (maybe even Scipio) than me, I don't know how much of a libertarian I am even though that ideology is closer to mine than any other from what I can tell. As Uncle Funk would say, I'm an extremist.

DinoDoc -

I wasn't refering to the Taliban themselves, Berzerker, but the situation that existed prior to thier rise to power which most certainly was an anarchic situation. That is the reason they were initially welcomed with open arms.

Okay, but let's not forget they had a war against the Russians followed by a hostile takeover by the Taliban so a period of chaos (I know, you call it anarchy ) is not surprising and bin Laden's gang only became the force it has become under the Taliban's governing. You can blame that on the chaos that led to the Taliban but the Taliban was the result of autocratic neighbors - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - being unhappy with a less than pliable Afghan government(s). If we are to blame the Taliban for bin Laden, then we should be blaming the Pakistanis and Saudis as well. The irony is that the Iranians were backing the NA all along...

It was thier militant ideology that allowed a trans-national terrorist organization to have a base from which to plan attacks on the continental US.

True, but they could have planned this from any country. I don't agree that we have to stabilize Afghanistan, two good things to come out of this tragedy is that the Taliban will be removed from power and the message has been sent - mess with us and pay the price. I doubt we will be seeing any governments come close to sponsoring terrorism against the US, but our policies will ensure future terrorism nonetheless.

IMO, The Taliban organization has also been co-opted by Al Qaeda to such an extent prior to 9-11 that I fail to see any meaningful distinction between the two within Afghanistan. If you wish I can give you the reasons for my opinion.

I understand, but I still don't know the level of complicity of all Taliban members.
I don't even know how the Taliban sets policy, much less if they send out fliers to it's members explaining how bin Laden is about to launch a massive terrorist attack on the USA (if you get my drift). But if you have info, feel free to offer it up if it's not too much of a hassle. I'm a sponge for knowledge

I was under the impression that Congress had given the President thier consent to wage this conflict

They passed a "resolution", resolutions are not in the Constitution. I don't know why the Democrats and Republicans invented this loophole in the Constitution, but the Congress has not actually declared war since WWII thereby making every war since illegal. I happen to think they did this so the President would get most of the blame if a war went badly although I have seen arguments that the reason was to avoid giving the President the powers that come with a formal declaration.

You're arguing against a strawman now.

Not really, you blamed the anarchy in Afghanistan. I point to our policies overseas.

I don't really care why OBL staged the attacks. He staged an attack on US soil and has proven himself to be a continuing and past threat to the US and he and his organization are therefore worthy of elimination.

I do care, I want to avoid future acts of terrorism, so knowing why this happened will help us avoid future attacks. And I have no problem with eliminating bin Laden and his organization, but I oppose forcing others to pay for my desires much less forcing others to risk their lives achieving that goal. But if we were minding our own business all along, we wouldn't have needed to go to Afghanistan because we wouldn't have been targeted in the first place.

FYI, After the Soviet Union was thrown out of Afghanistan there was wide spread pro-US sentiment in the country. It was only the US abandoment of the country that caused a reversal of thier feelings. In hindsight, that has proven itself to be a mistake on our part.

But it wasn't those with pro-US sentiments who were responsible for the attacks.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Huh? I'm not forcing anyone to fight in wars. I'm strongly against any draft.

Again, that's my reason for supporting the war, not Shrub's

You support the war, the people fighting the war are forced to fight it. Yes, they volunteered, but they volunteered to defend this country in accordance with the Constitution. Congress did not declare war...

Which wasn't the case during the initiation of hostilities!

So? Taliban repression has only decreased, not increased.

I hardly think the probability of being bombed is comparable to the probability of getting being imprisoned.

The Taliban were imprisoning people for bringing food?

Delegating powers is inconsistent with non-initiation of force. Removing powers, on the other hand, is consistent.

Not true, prosecuting murderers is a delegated power, but not one that requires the initiation of force.

Shi Huangdi -

Ron Paul is obviously an idiot. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being Bin Laden sympathizers? Is this guy aware that the Islamic Fundamentlaists want to overthrow these regimes?

Paul didn't say they were sympathetic to bin Laden, he said Pakistan and Saudi Arabia sponsored the creation of the Taliban.

Keep in mind that Mosul is a part of the Turkey proper that they were forces to give up in WWI.

That's the price an imperialistic nation pays when they choose the losing side in a world war.

A group of people do not have the right to do whatever they want because they get guns and call themselves a "government"

So very true!!!

We're not doing a draft, and the people who joined the military voluntarily could expect to be sent off like this.

They took an oath to defend this country in accordance with the Constitution - the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war, it hasn't since WWII.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Hans2

If you cannot openly discuss your political opinions among your friends and family without fear of alienating them perhaps you should re-examine your beliefs.

Said the sheep.

Jon Miller
- Individual

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You can blame that on the chaos that led to the Taliban but the Taliban was the result of autocratic neighbors - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - being unhappy with a less than pliable Afghan government(s).

What did the Saudis have to do with creating the Taliban?

If we are to blame the Taliban for bin Laden,

I don't understand what you mean here.

I don't agree that we have to stabilize Afghanistan,

I think that we will have to stablize it enogh to prevent a repeat of this happening somewhere down the road but I do hope that we don't get bogged down in the country to such an extent that it distracts from our aims elsewhere.

two good things to come out of this tragedy is that the Taliban will be removed from power and the message has been sent - mess with us and pay the price.

I don't think that any such message has been sent and I don't think that it will be until a government that doesn't have as rickety a hold on to power as the Taliban did is either made to stop supporting terror against the US or is overthrown.

I doubt we will be seeing any governments come close to sponsoring terrorism against the US, but our policies will ensure future terrorism nonetheless.

You really shouldn't be too afraid of international terrorism, Berz. The domestic variety is and always has been a bigger threat to US citizens.

But if you have info, feel free to offer it up if it's not too much of a hassle. I'm a sponge for knowledge

I'm happy to oblige :

1) According to intelligence sources, Al-Qaeda operatives are a part of the Taliban's top ministries.

2) According to Russia's Foreign Ministry, OBL is serving as the Taliban's unofficial Defense Minister.

3) The Taliban has recieved aprox. $100 million making it for all intents and purposes a wholly owned subsidiary of Al-Qaeda.

4) Al Qaeda troops apparently fight side by side with Taliban.

5) Al Qaeda apparently was responsible for the murder of United Front leader Massoud.

6) The fact that the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to run their terrorist operations out of Afghanistan unmolested.

They passed a "resolution", resolutions are not in the Constitution. I don't know why the Democrats and Republicans invented this loophole in the Constitution, but the Congress has not actually declared war since WWII thereby making every war since illegal.

Allow me to quote Lefty in this instance:

A war powers delclaration is just that, an act of congress stating that hostilities exist and that WAR POWERS (under the constitution) now exist. There is no prescribed form or style for a declaration of war in the constituion, it is what the congress says it is. - Lefty Scaevola

I do care, I want to avoid future acts of terrorism, so knowing why this happened will help us avoid future attacks.

Every murderer has a motive, Berz. Anyway, his reasons are irrelevent (He began planning for this attack in the midst of a peace intiative between the Isrealis and PA 2 years ago.) and are already being addressed in one form or another.

Personally, I'd like to see us increase domestic oil production, seek alternate foreign sources, and increase alternative energy sources. I'm tired of being dragged into ME conflicts.

But it wasn't those with pro-US sentiments who were responsible for the attacks.

I didn't say they they were. It was a useless factoid. Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

This took me along time to write so I hope it is worth the read.

[n.c.]

how would you have reacted had Paul started talking about domestic drilling for oil, nuclear power, and every other bugaboo on the left's environmental agenda?

With the execption of ANWAR that would have been a minor improvement. I still would have remarked on conservation.

You have taken the position that others should be forced to pay for, fight, and possibly die to stop potential starvation.

Where? Not in the context of the Afganistan discussion.

he is claiming that he lacks the authority to force his fellow Americans to sacrifice their time/lives to stop starvation in Afghanistan.

Had he used those words I would have had a very different reaction. While I may not agree with that statement in every context, it is entirely reasonable.

-"with the following insult"
Yeah boy it was a harsh one.

-"a blanket condemnation of all libertarians"
Given your extreme sensitivity to my comments (not shared by others here) I'm not surprised you took it that way.

-"You accused people of being inhuman"
That's funny!

for not supporting your desire to force others to pay for and fight (and die) in your war to get rid of the Taliban

Again, I'd like to know where I said any such thing.

-"Then why didn't you say so"
I didn't realize it was necessary.

-"So I am to remain silent and not make corrections"
No, just back up your characterizations of what I've said. I'm not holding my breath.

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
So the fact that Bin Laden is in Afghanistan...

I'm normally pretty lenient, but I'm afraid I'll have to insist on proof of this assertion? "Uncle Sam tells me so" will not be considered adequate proof, since the US government appears to have a 'conflict of interest' in this matter.

...and the Taliban are giving him cover have nothing to do with it?

Civilized nations do not eliminate sovereign governments in order to apprehend individuals. Uncle Sam is betwixt a rock and a hard place. If we're at war, then we cannot be targeting specific individuals. If we're not at war, then we cannot be targeting sovereign governments.

What's it to be, Uncle?

Remember that the Taliban regime has been on the US suspected terrorist state list for some time. The governments on this list are essentially living on borrowed time, and they all know it.

Ron Paul is obviously an idiot. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being Bin Laden sympathizers? Is this guy aware that the Islamic Fundamentlaists want to overthrow these regimes?

So the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi is unconvincing to you?

"But I didn't even know of the plan to hand over Kurdish lands in Iraq to the Turks."
Keep in mind that Mosul is a part of the Turkey proper that they were forces to give up in WWI.

And the entire North American continent was occupied before the Europeans came along. Shall we give that back? Maybe we should conduct a massive investigation into the history of all peoples and lands throughout history and offer every group that has ever been displaced their very own 'West Bank Accord'?

"Incorrect. There is such a thing as national sovereignty. That is, the United States has no business to go into another nation to right the wrongs it decides are being committed."
A group of people do not have the right to do whatever they want because they get guns and call themselves a "government"

If they got the guns and you don't, how you plannin' to stop 'em?

The very reason, BTW, that the framers of the US Constitution tucked in a little clause the specifically says that the citizens would keep their weapons. Specifically to overthrow the US government if it became too oppresive in its own right.

"Bush's foreign policy? I wasn't aware that Bush had a foreign policy - other than intimidation."
He got a strong international coalition to oppose Afghanistan, he has a good foreign policy.

There is no strong International coalition. Britain is the only hunting partner that brought any guns. Looks like the Bush clan has just about used up all the favors the UK ever owed the US. Saudi Arabia refuses to provide any assistance in shutting down Al-Queida's fininacing, and you can be certain SA is the single biggest source of manpower and funds. Many nations have stated that they will not support continued US adventurism in Iraq or other non-specific terrorist supporting nations.

We're we gonna go?

- Scipio