Looks like Saddam is worried

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not true. My example was poor.

Insert "country" in my example instead of "person", and bingo that's what I believe.

National sovereignty trumps all, at least in terms of interactions between foreign nations.

Well then I chose to seceed from this country and form my own nation where the US rules don't apply.

Bang your dead, nothing anyone can do about it.

[David Floyd]

Well then I chose to seceed from this country and form my own nation where the US rules don't apply.

If you can convince your State to do that, you certainly have that right.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not true. My example was poor.

Insert "country" in my example instead of "person", and bingo that's what I believe.

National sovereignty trumps all, at least in terms of interactions between foreign nations.

So, what if Kuwait asked for assistance to get rid of their invaders; you'd be against that?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Personally, I think Iraq is within its rights as a sovereign nation to refuse weapons inspectors in,

Surely as a libertarian you see the value of following contracts, David. I also fail to see how you fail to see the moarality of defending another person/country against "unprovoked" attack.

[orange]

why should I have to convince a state?

And why doesn't Iraq have to convince the United Nations?

[David Floyd]

Yep.

Not our business, and I view the 46 (or whatever the number) of Americans who died as not worth it, because Iraq never attacked the US.

[David Floyd]

Surely as a libertarian you see the value of following contracts, David. I also fail to see how you fail to see the moarality of defending another person/country against "unprovoked" attack.

Not contracts forced upon one at gunpoint. That is illegitimate.
I already answered the other point.

orange,

why should I have to convince a state?

And why doesn't Iraq have to convince the United Nations?

Well, first off, I guess you don't have to convince your state if your state Constitution allows individuals to secede from the State. But you do otherwise, because other than that the State has the right to secede as a whole from the Union.

And Iraq doesn't have to convince the UN, because the UN has no power over national sovereignty.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yep.

Not our business, and I view the 46 (or whatever the number) of Americans who died as not worth it, because Iraq never attacked the US.

Interesting, so you don't take US strategic goals into account, or do you believe the US should follow an isolationist strategy?

[David Floyd]

The US should follow a totally isolationist strategy, using force only when directly attacked by force. Economic pressure does not count as force.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not contracts forced upon one at gunpoint. That is illegitimate.
I already answered the other point.

Sorry, but we've reached a point in democracy when the world as a whole is deciding whether a nation is wrong in doing something, and if they are, they can and SHOULD be forced into certain arrangements based on their past history. It's the only way to assure peaceful rule with the absence of dictators.

orange,

Well, first off, I guess you don't have to convince your state if your state Constitution allows individuals to secede from the State. But you do otherwise, because other than that the State has the right to secede as a whole from the Union.

I don't see why you want a government to have authority over its own people, but not anyone elses people, when both can just as easily not want said government's interference in whatever matter.

And Iraq doesn't have to convince the UN, because the UN has no power over national sovereignty.

When a group of nations defeats another nation in a war to prevent injustice, the defeated nation should submit to the rules of the victors. You're trying to be moral by allowing the existance of dictators and madmen.

[David Floyd]

Sorry, but we've reached a point in democracy when the world as a whole is deciding whether a nation is wrong in doing something, and if they are, they can and SHOULD be forced into certain arrangements based on their past history. It's the only way to assure peaceful rule with the absence of dictators.

Which is a bad thing, and morally wrong.

I don't see why you want a government to have authority over its own people, but not anyone elses people, when both can just as easily not want said government's interference in whatever matter.

Because, in the US at least, there is a mechanism for getting out of the government if you have enough other people in your state to go along with you.

When a group of nations defeats another nation in a war to prevent injustice, the defeated nation should submit to the rules of the victors. You're trying to be moral by allowing the existance of dictators and madmen.

So you think the Treaty of Versailles was morally right?

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The US should follow a totally isolationist strategy, using force only when directly attacked by force. Economic pressure does not count as force.

And what happens when strategically it is shown that the defeat of our allies will result in the aggressor obtaining the means and achieving the distinct advantage, to the point where any defense would only prolong the invasion and destruction of our country by the aggressor?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not contracts forced upon one at gunpoint. That is illegitimate.

It is well within the laws of war that have been agreed to by all nations. I fail to see how one can argue that surrender agreements, contracts if you wish, are illegitimate.

I already answered the other point.

Not to any meanigful extent. For instance you failed to answer why helping a US ally with access important natural resources is undeserving of protection against naked territtorial agression. What could Sadam have offered us in exchange for seeling out an ally of the US?

Ooooo, this brings up an interesting sidetrack to this discussion. To what extent would national interets guide a libertarian's foreign policy?

[David Floyd]

And what happens when strategically it is shown that the defeat of our allies will result in the aggressor obtaining the means and achieving the distinct advantage, to the point where any defense would only prolong the invasion and destruction of our country by the aggressor?

The phrase "tough ****" springs to mind.

Except in the real world, no nation has anywhere NEAR the means to subdue the whole world, or even a significant part of it - CERTAINLY not when we have thousands of nukes

Let's stay to the real world here

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So you think the Treaty of Versailles was morally right?

Something can be bad foreign policy and be morally right at the same time, David. The two are not mutually exclusive by any means what so ever.