| | If a dirty bombs hits America, I can hardly see how it could be blamed on the antiwar Americans. You got your war. You've gotten your war for the last sixty years.
It's almost like the way the 1929 stock market crash was blamed on free enterprise -- even though the libertarians of the time had been arguing shortly before that the Federal Reserve and other government intervention would increase the probability of such a disaster. For years, antiwar libertarians have warned that U.S. interventionism would foster anti-American terrorism. It happened. For the last three years, we have been warning that the war on terror will only make another attack more likely. And if it happens? You're going to blame us? This is just ridiculous. It is a pinnacle of insanity to say that opponents of the war in Iraq are responsible for attacks by Muslim terrorists. You get your war, and when it fails to achieve its goals, you blame those who were telling you it would fail all along? It's just like the way leftists defend interventions in the economy; no matter what their outcomes they blame any failures on the opponents of the intervention and they take credit for any perceived successes, even in the face of evidence that there were other costs they're ignoring.
But from the pro-war point of view, it seems like anything is an excuse for war. If we're not attacked, it must be because we're at war. If we are attacked, the answer must be we need more war. Think about that logic for a moment. If a socialist made similar points about economic intervention -- that during prosperity, we need more government regulation, and if a crash hits, we need more government regulation -- you'd probably realize the fallacy and the illogic. That so many pro-war libertarians can't seem to apply their libertarian opposition to central planning to war makes me think that many of you simply don't understand the economic, public-choice, and ethical reasons that socialism fails and markets work. Instead, it seems you base your support for or against a war on some sort of doctrine that's ever difficult to determine or define, largely originating with Ayn Rand and yet ignoring many of the important points she herself made about the history of U.S. foreign policy.
Perhaps some of you will always support war, any war, as long as it's conducted by the U.S. government. However, no one here answered me as to whether or not the Kosovo war received their support, why or why not, and whether, assuming the answer is no, this makes you "anti-American" or "pro-Milosevic." I would guess that for many of you the answers to those questions would be all too revealing. You're welcome to try to prove me wrong, but you should try to do so with reason, rather than childish insults.
|
|
