This arms deal is aggressive and demeaning; and it in no way protects the interests of the United States. Until our military is completely out of the Arabian Peninsula, we cannot expect to make any peace with foreign nations. FULL ARTICLE by Brian Anderson
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/14662/the-arms-of-king-abdullah/
The Arms of King Abdullah
Previous post: How Many Grad Students Do We Need?
Next post: Finally, Ron can make his Case for Gold
{ 133 comments }
How does one ignore Iran’s support of Hezzbollah(sp) and the rhetoric of wanting to remove Israel off the map? Iran like Venezuala(sp?) has a knack for attempting to hide their own failings by attacking the US and it’s Allies. I think the ‘problem’ is that some in the Muslim world are more than willing to sacrifice themselves or their people for any cause. That’s the scary part. Western civilizations are left wondering whether or not some of the players (Iran for example) would really do it, and unfortunately we have to worry about it because of the regions oil reserves.
So you believe Israel’s security is a vital US interest?
The scary part? Who should be scared, the ones in the middle east that HAVE nukes and can buy as much weaponry as we will give them foreign aid to buy? Or the country that we and the nuclear Israelis keep threatening with destruction.
Which country in the area has never attacked its neighbors? And which do it all the time. The US overthrew Iran in the 50′s. When did Iran ever attack this country. True, some students took over the American embassy when we wouldn’t extradite their hated dictator. And we invaded Afghanistan when they wouldn’t extradite Bin Laden.
Which country has more to fear. If ever Iran needed nukes, it needs them now.
Who have we threatened with destruction? Iran has nothing to fear. Iran has one of the largest oil reserves in the world yet it must import gasoline because it does not have the capacity to refine it. So even though Iran had plenty of $$ to build a nuclear plant they couldn’t address their lack of refining capacity? You have to ask why.
Really Chris? How quickly one forgets that we provided a major source of funding for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war that laster nearly 10 years. Do you realize how many Irnaians died in that war? How many villages and families were killed with mustard gas that we supplied them with? We overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in the 80′s and installed a dictator (the Shah). But, thats just all in the past, right?
Maybe you’ve conveniently forgotten all that, but I’m sure most Irnaians haven’t.
Not a threat? Did you completely miss the entire point of the article, Chris?
Providing funding for a proxy war which occured over 25 yrs ago is not the same as threatening today.
“We overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in the 80′s and installed a dictator (the Shah). But, thats just all in the past, right” – WRONG. Read your history.
The problem with the article is that it’s full of untruths and clearly lacks any understanding of the history within the ME. In fact to do it correctly would easily take a 50 pages or more.
Not in the 80′s, in the 50′s.
Not really (search USS Liberty), but their intelligence appratus is second to none.
Chris,
Pauly likely made a typo, I think he meant installed the Shah in the 50′s. What other history are you talking about?
And maybe 25 years is a long time for you, but not for 30 year old orphans who grew up without parents, because the US Gov helped Iraq to gas them to death.
We’re not talking about Iraq.
“In addition, Israel had some influence on American policy, which it sought to tilt in favor of Iran. Israelis conspired with officials of the National Security Council to bring about the policy of covert American arms sales to Iran for a period in 1985–6, in what came to be known as the Iran- Contra affair. Israel offered to serve as a bridge to bring about better relations between the United States and Iran.”
p. 63, “the transparent cabal” by stephen sniegoski.
“…when Iran overthrew the dictator that the CIA had placed in power.”
Not even close to the truth. Read the modern history of Iran by Amir Taheri. His columns are available at http://www.aawsat.com/english/. Briefly, the Shah merely got rid of a prime minister who had tried to make himself dictator. The role of the CIA was that of Keystone cop according to Taheri.
“The Shah brutalized that country to an extent beyond imagination. It’s no wonder why Iranians just want to be left the hell alone.”
Many Iranians believe that the current government has been much worse in terms of murders and imprisonment. And the per capita gdp is about ¼ what it was under the Shah. See the web site http://www.iranvajahan.net/english/.
“So, in essence, the US government likes the Saudis because they allow us to be in their country, and it doesn’t like the Iranians because they don’t want us to be in their country.”
Actually, our love affair with Saudi Arabia goes back to Nixon who persuaded the Saudis to end the oil embargo. Our problem with Iran is that the state is the largest perpetrator of terrorism in the world today, far greater than Al Qaeda. It controls the Lebanese Hezb Allah (Party of God) and the Palestinian Hamas.
“A big factor in the equation is that Mecca and Medina, the two holiest Islamic cities, are in Saudi Arabia, where our troops were stationed, which is one of the main reasons for the attacks on September 11th.”
The problem isn’t the proximity to Mecca and Medina. The problem is that Muslims think that the Saudi peninsula should be free of all Christians and Jews. Christians in any part of country are jailed if they have a bible in their home or attempt to have any kind of religious service in their homes. Most Christians are workers from the Philippines and the Saudis persecute them horribly. And filthy “Christian” anywhere on the peninsula offends the radical Muslims there.
The real cause of 9/11 was arrogance on the part of Al Qaeda. He played almost no roll in getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The Soviets left Afghanistan only because Gorbachev thought the war was too expensive. But Bin Laden deluded himself into thinking he personally ran the USSR out. Then later when the USSR fell apart he convinced himself that it did so because he had personally forced them to leave Afghanistan. And if he could cause the great USSR to disintegrate, he could do the same with the US. Hence the 9/11 attack.
“Until our military is completely out of the Arabian Peninsula, we cannot expect to make any peace with foreign nations.”
Not only the peninsula, but the entire Middle East, Asia and Europe. What’s wrong with minding our own business? I opposed the first Gulf war because the Arab League could have handled the situation with Kuwait if they wanted to. Egypt has a huge, American financed military that does nothing but abuse civilians. Let Egypt rescue Kuwait if it wants and let the Saudis pay for it.
>>> Many Iranians believe that the current government has been much worse in terms of murders and imprisonment.
Most governments turn out worse than the people think. Look at the US government. At around the time of the Shah’s rise to power with our help (and the Brits who had the bigger oil interests at the time) Americans were thrilled with the US government after WWII (at least until the Korean War). And now look at it.
But even if you’re right and the Iranians now hate their government, that’s their problem. There’s no way that the US can claim they aided the Iranians by installing the Shah. We’re always talking about democracy – but the CIA helped to destroy the democracy that Iran had at the time.
You can’t screw up a country and when they resist your benevolence act like like you knew what would happen and therefore they should have let you do as you please. And like the unseen in economics, you’re ignoring the unseen that which might have flourished had we not busted them up.
Is Iraq really better off today than when Saddam was in power? Who knows what Iraq might have become had we stayed out completely – if we didn’t aid them against Iran nor go after them because of Kuwait and then 9/11. In the least there would be hundreds of thousands of people still alive. Whenever we interfere we are stirring up a nest of snakes. Then we wonder why sometimes we get bit and the nest gets more violent.
The US and UK did not install the Shah. Read Taheri’s history of modern Iran. BTW, Taheri is a former newspaper editor whom Khomeini forced to flee. The word Shah is Persian for king. Pahlavi inherited the throne from his father and implemented a parliamentary government. Later, the prime minister began to act like a thug and made himself a dictator. The Shah removed the prime minister in accordance with popular opinion. The CIA and UK spies played almost no role at all and according to Taheri were bumbling idiots. The communists were the only ones who supported the prime minister and they fabricated the myth that the US overthrew a democratically elected government and installed the Shah. The Shah had been on the throne for decades already.
Other than that correction about history, I agree completely.
You cite one man’s writings. All that means is that this has become a debate on who wrote the real history. My rule of thumb is to look at who benefits; i.e. follow the money. Clearly it was the Brits with their BP oil companies that wanted the Iranian oil fields that the Iran government nationalized. The result was a cozy relationship with an Iranian puppet, who ran a soviet style secret police to help him stay in power. Our military complex benefitted in selling the Shah lots of planes, and I recall he also enjoyed lots of toys, like a rather large set of model trains.
Are you (or your source) denying that this story is true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
If so, then it’s merely one historian against many. Obviously, neither of us was there, so how does one resolve this? I say: who benefits?
Thanks for an interesting, non-dhimmi version of the story.
How many people reading this site do you think know what a dhimmi is? Have you read Bat Ye’or?
No, I haven’t read her. Should I? I’m just getting increasingly upset at Islamic immigration in Europe, where I live. Among many disturbing signs, I recall a recent conversation between a Spanish journalist and an Islamic “moderate”. The journalist critizised the stoning of adulterer women, and the Muslim retorted something like “well, we have stoning and you have abortion, and given your low birth rates and your numerous abortions, we will outnumber you pretty soon”. Then you remember the meaning of “democracy”. Multiculturalism failed, assimilation failed and, barring a Christian baby boom, it’s even a bit too late for immigration control. What’s next?
Do you listen to U.S. media? I’m sorry, but the “we’re good and they’re evil” story doesn’t work and never did. Iran is their country, and the Middle East belongs to those who inhabit it. The fact that we meddle intensely in that region is not a proof of our benevolence, but of our intense arrogance and narcissism, to say nothing of hypocrisy. If we truly believe in the right to self-determination, it’s our “duty” to get out of the region and let them decide their own affairs, including what sorts of leaders they’ll allow to be in place. If we don’t, we need to drop our self-righteous rhetoric and accept that we’re just out to exploit the Middle East and its people for our selfish gain.
Regarding your comments about Bin Laden & Afghanistan, I don’t claim to understand a lot about the Soviet military action there, but why does their leaving because it was too expensive necessarily mean that Al Qaida didn’t have a (major) hand in it? That looks like a non sequitur to me. Driving an enemy out by making it too costly for him to stay is no less a victory than driving him out through direct military superiority. Perhaps there’s more to the story, but the USSR leaving over the cost of war does not mean Al Qaida didn’t win that conflict.
JP, are you replying to my post? If so, where did you get the idea that I think the US is always right? I opposed the first Gulf war, which caused the second one. I agree that the US should get out of the region and let the Arabs kill and eat each other if they want.
As for Afghanistan, don’t confuse Al Qaeda with the Afghan Mujaheddin. The Mujaheddin ran the Soviets out by making the war very expensive. Bin Laden and his monkeys trooped around the country spending money and posing with AK-47′s without engaging the enemy. Afghans though bin Laden and his followers were idiots. Bin Laden played no role in ousting the Soviets, but he gives himself credit for it.
Regardless of what Bin Laden really did in Afghanistan, and whether or not he planned 9/11, it cannot be denied that since 2001 the reactions of the US Gov have been exactly what Bin Laden (or whoever the architects of 9/11) has wanted and predicted. We are certainly on the verge of bankruptcy and Bin Laden wrote that he would defeat the US in the same way that the Soviets were defeated.
History is likely to give the “Bin Laden’s” the credit for the US Gov’s demise in the 21st century. If waving ak-47′s is part of that plan, then give credit where credit is due. Starving the enemy is just as good as bombing them, maybe even better if you take fewer hits yourself.
“The real cause of 9/11 was arrogance on the part of Al Qaeda.”
Chalmers Johnson, CIA Consultant in Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
“The CIA supported Osama bin Laden, like so many other extreme fundamentalists in Afghanistan who were fighting Russia, from at least 1984 on. It was only after the Russians had bombed Afghanistan back to the stone age and suffered a Vietnam-like defeat, and the United States had walked away from the death and destruction the CIA had helped cause, that Osama bin Laden turned against his American supporters.
The last straw as far as he was concerned was the way that ‘infidel’ American troops – around 35,000 of them – remained in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War to prop up the Saudis excessively wealthy and fiercely authoritarian regime.
Devoutly Muslim citizens of that kingdom saw the troops’ presence as a humiliation to the country and an insult to their religion. Some Saudis protested and began to launch attacks against Americans and against the Saudi regime itself. In June 1996, terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden bombed the Khobar Towers apartments near Dhahran airport, killing nineteen American airmen and wounding scores more.”
Allow me to shamelessly promote my PowerPoint: http://www.slideshare.net/anarcholibertarian/why-do-they-hate-us
” Our problem with Iran is that the state is the largest perpetrator of terrorism in the world today, far greater than Al Qaeda.”
Actually “our” problem with Iran is really Israel’s problem (maintaining its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East), and Israel’s fifth column in the US.
“The problem is that Muslims think that the Saudi peninsula should be free of all Christians and Jews.”
Why is this a problem exactly? Why do you care how many non-Muslims live in Saudi Arabia?
Exactly, and don’t forget Jews wants to keep Israel a Jewish country, free of Arabs. They will tolerate a few just so long as they don’t become too populous and gain influence – but not because they want them there, but because they wish to look like they do so they can say they are the more enlightened people.
By “our” I meant the US government, not the country’s. And I don’t care whether Christians or Jews live on the peninsula. I was just explaining that the problem that radical Muslims have with us is not proximity to Medina or Mecca, but with us being on the peninsula.
And how many Christians don’t want Muslims living in the U.S.?
the vatican, with good reason, believes that the lot of christians in iraq is now much worse than was the case under saddam hussein’s regime.
“Until our military is completely out of the Arabian Peninsula, we cannot expect to make any peace with foreign nations.”
That is without a doubt one of the dumbest thing I have read in a while. So is Canada going to attack us or vice versa? How about France, Germany, Honduras? I expect better reasoning and writing from this site. Truly embarssing.
Brian,
The statement is rhetorical…not literal.
Not the way it was written. I expect better from a site dedicated to “advancing the scholarship of liberty… .”
Brian,
With all due respect, I think your assessment of this article is emotional and not objective. (But you are not alone…there are many who have commented on this article from the position of emotionalism.)
Needless to say, I can easily deconstruct this article into a simple idea:
Giving 60 billion dollars of weapons to a Sunni nation separated by a few hundred miles of ocean from a Shiite nation is not going to create stability in this region. (It only supports the fears of the Iranian leadership.)
Here…I’ll make it more simple. Giving weapons to a foreign country (with our tax money) does not advance liberty.
You can take everything I just said… literally;)
I would tweak that statement a little and say that unless we stopped supporting Israel or at least held its ear to the ground before it pulled its next John Waynish swagger, we cannot expect to make peace with any nation on the other side of the pond.
If we settle the US/Palestine issue _today_, the Middle East, including, Al-Qaida, the Taliban and the government of thugs in Iran, wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. It’s our siding with the Jews in the Israel/Palestine issue, which was backed, aided and abetted by the Israel Lobby that sowed the seed of hatred for our country in the eyes of the world.
I noticed the .jpg of Ron Paul’s book.
I don’t know how many of you saw this critique of Paul or the rebuttal.
Islamic terrorism is caused by Islam, not America. Thats what Jefferson was told when he asked an Islamic ruler why he permitted piracy. Koranic holy war against infidels was renewed in the 18th century as the West increased its superiority over Islamic culture, an outrage for Moslems who have been promised cultural superiority by Allah. Islamists reject an infidel’s foreign policy as cause of jihad. Jihad is a revealed duty independent of the material universe.
And since individual rights politics is objectively moral and theocratic attacks on it are objectively immoral, a nuke air blast over Mecca during Ramadam will end the Islamist view that their anti-Western jihad is practical. And since they are consistent, they will reject it as ideal, exactly as did Nazis, Japanese imperialists and Marxists after recognizing the impracticality of their ideal. We banned state Shintoism in post-war Japan. We must ban sharia now. There are no moderate Muslims, only Westerners who value a superficial Islam, exactly as Enlightenment Christians value a watery Christianity. See _Closing of the Muslim Mind_ by Robert Reilly.
“From the shores of Tripoli…”
Stephen,
I certainly thing you’re right to an extent, but I all of this reflects on how difficult it is to draw a line and clearly define who is at fault. The only thing that is clear is that the political situation in the Middle East is the product of dozens, if not hundreds, of years. I would also be as bold to claim that the necessity for terrorism and piracy, or the underlying factor that drives individuals towards these occupations, is economic poverty. In that sense, I think that the West has clearly played a massive role in disallowing sufficient capital accumulation, and disallowing internal regime changes over time which would bring into power a “freer” government.
Does this mean that all fault should be piled onto the shoulder’s of the West? Perhaps, and probably, not. What use is this retrogressive analysis, anyways? A much healthier method of looking at the political situation is realizing what has to be done, or more accurately what should not be done (in the sense of intervention), in order to allow those societies to accumulate and invest capital, thereby raising their standards of living.
as far as economic poverty being the driver for terrorism….maybe for some people but india the 2nd(soon to be 1st) largest country is rife with poverty but you don’t hear much about hindu or simply lower caste terrorist groups. Ireland wasn’t impoverished during the troubles. I think the connection as the underlying factor for creating terrorists is weak.
There are other factors, but the fact is that the higher your standard of living the more you have to lose. There are always exceptions to the rule, as well.
I’m not sure I would like a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy to accumulate capital too fast.
I’m not sure it should be up to you.
I didn’t say it should. Just that a powerful Iran is not something I’m looking forward to. The more powerful Islamic countries are, the more aggressive towards the West. A quick glance at History should make that clear.
“I would also be as bold to claim that the necessity for terrorism and piracy, or the underlying factor that drives individuals towards these occupations, is economic poverty.”
This is the kind of economic determinism that I expect from lefties. Was Osama poor? Were the Arabo-British doctors responsible for the British bombing poor? There are a lot of poor people in South and Central America, and they don’t commit terrorist acts the way Islamists do, either. Hmmm, I wonder if the fact that they are predominantly Catholic has anything to do with that?
I have to agree with Stephen Grossman; Islamic terrorism is caused by Islam. If they were rich, they’d still commit jihad against us. If they eliminated a US presence from the Middle East, they’d still do it. Hell, if they eliminated an Israeli presence from the Middle East, they’d still do it. They do it because they think that Western culture is a virus, a disease that corrupts their children, and because the most straightforward interpretation of their religion tells them to. It really is that simple.
“In that sense, I think that the West has clearly played a massive role in disallowing sufficient capital accumulation…”
Sharia law is opposed to usury, so maybe Islam is to blame for the lack of capital accumulation as well?
“…and disallowing internal regime changes over time which would bring into power a “freer” government.”
You mean like the government of the Ayatollah Khomeini? Yeah, Iran under the Ayatollah was freer for those who wanted to live under a theocracy, but maybe not so much for those who didn’t. And how did the invasion of Iraq, which changed the government from a Baathist regime run by Sunnis, to a more-or less democratic government led by the majority Shi’ites, disallow regime change?
“A much healthier method of looking at the political situation is realizing what has to be done, or more accurately what should not be done (in the sense of intervention), in order to allow those societies to accumulate and invest capital, thereby raising their standards of living.”
Yes, all we have to do is completely ignore reality and cleave blindly to libertarian/isolationist dogma, and all will be well. Ummmm… no. Despite what a lot of people try to teach their kids nowadays, grown-ups know that sometimes violence really does solve things.
These are the kind of questions I would expect from someone who didn’t put much thought into a response. What standards of living Osama enjoyed, I don’t know, but he’s not the one who perpetrates the attacks. It’s those who have little other options in life which are recruited into terrorist bodies (and, this also applies to a large degree to any army around the world; there are exceptions to the rule, but it’s generally the poor who have the least to lose).
By the way, there are is terrorism in South America (Peru and Colombia, for instance) and Central America. There is also a lot of border violence, especially in Central America. Those countries that don’t have recognized terrorist organizations do have extensive and powerful gang and criminal organizations (just about every country on the continent).
The factor of poverty also exists in the United States, where poorer individuals are more likely to accept a life of crime. Just look at the research conducted by economists such as Sowell.
Now, what differentiates this premise from the “leftist” conclusion that should redistribute wealth is that I recognize that the only method by which to sustainably raise standards of living is through capital accumulation.
This conclusion is absurd. There are reasons why Western Muslims are less likely to conduct terrorism (as always, there are exceptions to the rule), and it’s because they have more to lose by doing so (i.e. the opportunity cost is higher). Islam is certainly a factor, but the underlying factor is widespread poverty.
I never said it wasn’t. You seem to assume that I am defending the governments of those nations. I most certainly am not.
The political process to freedom doesn’t occur overnight, and it’s certainly not linear. One only has to look at the political history of Europe. The fact of the matter is that the path towards freedom has to be an internal process. Now, if society is willing to accept liberty (that is, if they have a lesser propensity to surrender freedom in return for hope; a symptom of poorer societies, by the way) then of course any regime change would be welcomed (forced by external powers or not), but the fact is that without that change in society (which is usually brought for by the creation of a substantial middle class; which does occur in these countries) the political change towards freedom will not occur.
No, you just have to use your head, which is one thing you obviously are not good at doing.
>Islam is certainly a factor, but the underlying factor is widespread poverty.
A Marxist Austrian! Your mind has been…liberated.
What does poverty have to do with Marxism? Does poverty not exist?
It must be horrible to be a subjectivist, with no reality to limit one’s thinking.
Stephen Grossman,
I really like the way you praised the “objectively moral” Western ethics in the same sentence in which you advocated for “a nuke air blast over Mecca during Ramadam [sic]“. That’s the high-quality snark I’ve come to expect from commenters here.
Wait, that was snark, right? Right?
Yea, then they try to lecture us on “reality”. Yea, right.
“They”? “Us”? I don’t understand your comment.
Without reality, libertarianism is “true.” Youre intellectually corrupt.
Your whims are impotent.
Yawn. Please, Stephen. Just read Scheuer and save yourself the embarrassment.
http://non-intervention.com/556/the-14th-anniversary-of-a-war-we-refuse-to-understand/
ie, your skull is empty.
Do you consider “a nuke air blast over Mecca during Ramadam” to be an ideal?
The nuke protects the ideal of individual rights. But youre a libertarian and have no ideals, merely this nanosecond’s whim.
It protects the ideal of individual rights from those who violate them. But youre a libertarian nihilist without ideals, merely this moments whim
You propose nuking millions of people who at no point caused any harm to you or to anyone you know, and then you claim that libertarians lack “ideals”?
You arguments are pathetic and disgusting to anyone with even the least understanding of morality. Are you truly basing you beliefs around the idea “I am moral, so that entitles me to kill everyone who disagrees with me”?
I would argue that you posses “objectively” inferior morals, but at least I won’t say that you should be killed (nuked, perhaps, along with the million people living closest to you)… I will merely hope that you recognize your ignorance and discover the libertarian “ideal” of not killing innocent people to make a point.
peikoff channeling the spirit of rand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw
>You propose nuking millions of people who at no point caused any harm to you or to >You >propose nuking millions of people who at no point caused any harm to you or to anyone you know, and then you claim that libertarians lack “ideals”?
Mainstream Muslims are fundamentalists who morally and financially support totalitarian Islamic Jihad even if they personally dont go on terrorists missions. They support the ideals even if they are not as consistent as Jihadists. Without such cultural support, there would be no Jihad just as after WW2, the ideals of Nazism and Japanese militarism vanished. And the same for Marxism after the Soviet Union vanished when its leaders lost their ideals. Especially those who journey to Mecca because of Islamic ideals. Muslims who reject Islam as ideology rarely discover an alternative ideology with its own moral absolutes. They are recognized by other Muslims as compromisers, not as morally courageous. But you are so corrupted by Postmodern nihilism that people who live by ideals has no reality inside your whim-ridden, amoral mind. Mainstream Muslims are serious, moral absolutists who regard compromise with contempt. We must show them that the cost of their ideals is not cultural/military victory but unending destruction on a massive scale. Because of corrupt modernists such as yourself they are realistically confident of global sharia. The West needs a morally and militarily absolute defense.
First of all, you know nothing of me, nor about whether I have been “corrupted by post modern nihilism”. The very fact that I choose to make a moral argument against your pathetic war-mongering precludes nihlism, and the fact that I objected from the principle of non-initiation of force necessitates that I am not without “ideals”. Given that your objection is merely that my ideals are not the same as yours, your ad hominem attacks are truly pathetic.
Second of all, who the hell are you to say what all “mainstream Muslims” think about compromise. I have more that one close friend who is a mainstream Muslim and who does not regard compromise with contempt, nor do they support jihad (either morally or financially). The existence of even a single person like that makes your point moot and your prescribed action repugnant.
You argument is tantamount to saying “in the Jewish scriptures there are accounts of the Jewish people committing genocidal acts, therefore all Jews should be killed… furthermore, the same acts are also depicted positively in the Christian bible, so ditto for Christians.” Most Muslims, like most Christians, do not take every word in every paragraph of their holy books seriously enough to kill themselves, or others over it. Or perhaps you fear addled brain thinks that only white people are capable of picking which parts of a religion to pursue.
Since you argument could just as easily be used by Muslims to justify killing everyone in the West (since people from “the West” have threatened to kill them), you are the one who lacks universally applicable moral principals.
I can’t believe I just wasted so much time arguing with someone who obviously learned his philosophy from a comic book, but I wouldn’t want any visitors to this site to see your mewlings and think that they represent Austrian (or, indeed, rational) thinking on this issue.
Some may think Iran is Israel’s problem and not the US’s, but that is only because you look at the very short run and ignore the unseen. Iran has stated many, many times in many, many ways, as frequently and loudly as it possibly can so that no one can mistake their intentions, that they consider Israel a puppet of the US. That’s not my interpretation of their statements. They have tried to make that as clear as possible but Americans refuse to hear it. So anything Israel does Iran has flatly stated they will consider it a direct act of the US. Doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not. Israel has stated it will not allow Iran to get the bomb and will attack if necessary. Iran has repeatedly, loudly and clearly, with no hedging, announced that any attack from Israel it will consider an attack by the US.
So, now go back to sleep confident that Iran is nothing but Israel’s problem and be totally surprised when Israel hits Iran and Iran starts attacking US targets.
+1. Right now the U.S. “owns” the airspace over much of the ME.
Yeah, right! On second thought, it doesn’t need a lot of “air”space to get its ass kicked on the ground.
What I mean is that Israel could never act w/out us giving the go ahead to fly through airspace we patrol. We would know exactly what’s going on and our silence would equate to giving our blessing.
If we leave the Middle East, there won’t be any targets to attack.
Fundamentalist,
Do you really believe the rhetoric of world leaders should be interpreted as the truth?
Most of what Iranian leaders say is a lie, but why would they repeat this lie so frequently and so loudly? I don’t think they are lying in this case, but it’s hard to tell. Yes, if we leave the Middle East we would be less vulnerable, but Iran has carried out attacks all over the world, not just the Middle East.
>Most of what Iranian leaders say is a lie
its true to their ideals.
You’re actually making a pretty good case here that the US should end its unthinking, one-sided support of Israel. I don’t think that was your intention, however.
It wasn’t my attention, but neither do I think support for Israel is unthinking or one-sided. I think the US has tried as much as Arabs will permit us to be even handed in the debate.
“Iran has stated many, many times in many, many ways, as frequently and loudly as it possibly can so that no one can mistake their intentions, that they consider Israel a puppet of the US. ”
Unless the Iranian leadership is completely clueless, I’m sure they realize the situation is precisely the opposite: Israel (through its very powerful lobby) is less the puppet than the master here.
“Iran has repeatedly, loudly and clearly, with no hedging, announced that any attack from Israel it will consider an attack by the US.”
Again, because an Israeli attack IS effectively a US attack. But as a practical matter, do you really think Israel would launch any kind of attack without US materiel support? Airstrikes against suspected nuclear facilities would likely have little long-term effect at this stage, a much larger-scale endeavor (including ground troops) would be necessary. There is no way Israel would undertake such an operation alone, it would have to be a joint attack with US forces.
Yes I think Israel will attack without US support. President Obama has already accepted a nuclear Iran. Israel knows that and knows it still must attack at some point. It’s just a question of when.
“President Obama has already accepted a nuclear Iran.”
What is your basis for this claim?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sigurd-neubauer
Brian Anderson needs to get his facts straight.
“The Shah brutalized that country to an extent beyond imagination. It’s no wonder why Iranians just want to be left the hell alone”. The Shah was the best thing that happened to Iran. He dragged the country kicking and screaming into the 20th century, pulled them off their camels and put them into cars.
“…when Iran overthrew the dictator that the CIA had placed in power.” Iran dod not overthrow the Shah, the United States of America did. Let me take this opportunity to straighten the misconception of the “Islamic Revolution” in Iran. Iran was already Islamic under the Shah. So it was not and couldn’t have been a religious uprising of the faithful. What really happened is as follows. And I was there.
Jimmy and Roslyn Carter visited Iran around December 1978. We were watching his televised address to Iranians during the dinner given in their honor by the Shah. He stood up and said “I asked Roslyn where she wanted to spend the holidays and she said “Why, with the Shah and Shahbanoo of course!”. He then said “I would like to congratulate the Shah on the progress made by Iran and we hope to see it continue in the years to come”.
They say the camera never lies. We were seeing Jimmy Taggart, a congenital liar and for some reason most of us had a sense of foreboding. Two months later the Shah was ousted.
The core frontline players in this deceit were Jimmy Carter, the State Department, France, Russia and the damn British. The stage for the demise of Soviet Russia had already been set and the Shah was no longer needed to keep an eye on the Soviets. So much so, as part of the preparation of handing over the keys of the Iranian “kingdom” to absolute thugs and murderous cut-throats, US expatriates on the Soviet/Iran border were asked to dump all technical manuals into boxes, keep the ICBM silos open and just leave the area within 24 hours. The State Department had made a pact with the Soviets — Afghanistan in exchange for Iran. As you know, the Soviets attacked that country after Khomeini took power in Iran.
Students at the University of Tehran were brainwashed by the British with socialist literature that made them rise up in the name of Democracy, otherwise known as Mob Rule. Their heady visions extended to not having to work for a living when the wealth from the sale of oil could, should and would be divided equally amongst all Iranians.
But, the clergy had other ideas. They were going to leverage an Ayatollah who had been exiled by the Shah and who was given sanctuary in Paris at the Shah’s behest. They planned to bring him in and thereby create a crushing, suffocating, theocracy. The State Department *apparently* fell in with their plans to have Khomeini replace the Shah. General Heuser was seen to freely come an go into Tehran without the Shah being aware. He was busy convincing the Iranian Armed Forces and especially the Shah’s personal bodyguard to lay down their arms. So other than the countless young “visionaries” from Tehran University serving as cannon fodder, it was practically a bloodless revolution.
Jimmy had other plans though. Khomeini was unawarethat he was seen as a temporary US plant. It was all about the oil. The Shah had been a leading proponent of OPEC and his goal was to stop selling the black stuff to the US and the British at very subsidized rates. And the other reason of course for ousting the Shah was that his role as a deterrent to communism would become redundant once the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
When Khomeini got wind of Jimmy’s plans he took hostages and called America the Great Satan, because Satan always lies.
Now let’s fast forward by 30 years. We recently saw the makings of another “Revolution”. The same students who were in their 20′s in ’79 were now in their 50′s, protesting against an oppressive regime that they had helped to establish 30 years ago. Well, what goes around…….comes around. And that adage also ironically applies to the United States, because their chickens are also coming home to roost! I bet the Shah’s having the last laugh.
I had a very good customer (Iranian) who was working at the US Embassy at the time. The stories were simply amazing.
This article is insulting to the readers of the Mises Institutes Regular Contributors.
If all Economic Discussions were handled as Sophmorically as this “Foreign Affairs ” commentary the readership of your Publications would shrink to the size of our Grad Student’s I.Q.
How exactly does this article qualify for posting by the Mises Institute? My cat writes more cogently.
I agree with jowhim. This kid isn’t even interested enough in history and politics to actually major in either subject. Tell me he’s an ex-diplomat who has decided to study genetics in his second life.
This article is insulting to the readers of the Mises Institutes Regular Contributors.
If all Economic Discussions were handled as Sophmorically as this “Foreign Affairs ” commentary the readership of your Publications would shrink to the size of our Grad Student’s I.Q.
May I suggest that someone at Misses oversee the articles for publication to avoid readers
feeling embarrassed at the ignorant and naive content.
“Iran has already experienced what it’s like to deal with a puppet. The Shah brutalized that country to an extent beyond imagination. It’s no wonder why Iranians just want to be left the hell alone.”
Oh dear. Has Mises been invaded too?
The Shah wasn’t too bad. I have met quite a lot of exiled Persians who have very fond memories.
He modernised Iran.
According to his own book, My Story, he was toppled by the CIA because he was playing footsie with Italian oil interests. Trying to get a better price for his people.
The way he was toppled, and the way he died, have the hallmarks of the Brave New World Order.
And now. Why does the US not support the Green Revolution?
The Shah wasn’t too bad? Your friends must not have been the Shah’s political opponents, who he suppressed and tortured and jailed with the help of Iran’s security and intelligence secret police, SAVAK (which was created by the CIA).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE
Totally baseless. SAVAK was created to deter communism and communists. Read my post above and let me reiterate………The Shah was the Best thing that ever happened to Iran. The images that were publicized by the government that was “elected” after the Shah left Iran were those of soldiers injured during the Iran/Iraq war. Those images were touted as those of torture victims. The only “political opponent” that the Shah had was Mossadegh, a Socialist who turned traitor and made a grab for power. The Shah dealt with that threat, just as you would if some stranger came along and tried to usurp your land and property.
Amir Taheri’s book is “The Persian Night: Iran under the Khomeinist Revolution.” If I remember correctly, the prime minister that the Shah kicked out had disbanded parliament and was dictating laws to Iran from his apartment, trying to turn Iran into a Soviet puppet. So the Shah arrested him and re-established the parliament. Taheri’s book is an excellent read, but not a little frightening.
Without western support Israel would cease being any kind of viable military power in the middle east. We had no problem giving Israel all South Africas nukes a few years ago. Chosing between Iran Israel and Iraq is like chosing between Mao, Stalin and Hitler.
The more you study it the more obvious it becomes that meddling in the middle east is a losers game.
Among the things to tell conservatives about defense policy:
One small correction, the US presence in Saudi was not the reason for the 9-11 attackes, Z-Big Brezinski’s grand chessboard was. 9-11 was an inside job. Freefall accelaration of wtc 1 and wtc7 show that no energy was used removing the structure below. The only was this is possible is if there was no structure below – it had been removed by explosives inside the buildings. Explosive residues are confirmed in the dust generated from the collapse. WTC7 nist report is a shameful cover-up
Funny coincidence. Just reading Ron Paul’s book A Foreign Policy of Freedom.
. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. “I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital,” Nayirah said. “While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.”83
Three months passed between Nayirah’s testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over …………….
http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html
was the above an inside job too??? how many inside jobs in the form of lies does the govt still continue to do??? i remember bush (president nad former head of the cia) on tv on several occasions repeating how the aggression (babies pulled from incubators??) couldnt stand.
does congress use its structures for deliberate lies to be broadcast to millions???
so the reason for buildings falling in new york was a lie/inside job as was bbies torn from incubators lies???
golly
Lacking a realistic causality, conspiracy seems a good way to go.
Whoa! It seems as if you’ve started some of our well meaning friends in the conservative movement to thinking. That is a good thing. Thinking is not a passive exercise…it requires effort…it is work. That is why so few engage in it. It is time our conservative friends begin to get acquainted with this effort. Good article!
The great demise of the Mises institute:
1) Allowing anarchists to preach under the name of Mises (just create a Rothbard Institute already!)
2) Taking the same “anti-war” premises the far-left, communisis, and socialists do.
3) Allowing a “student at Arizona State University” to preach under the name of Mises (I already have the Huffington Post to give me childish analysis)
As to the point in question, anyone that says things like “Until our military is completely out of the Arabian Peninsula, we cannot expect to make any peace with foreign nations”, or “Iranians just want to be left the hell alone”, or “and the only reason Iran would ever attack us is if we were to intervene even further in its affairs” only shows its abhorrent and complete ignorance of the Jihadi ideology. Mises Institute: at least put an article of Robert Spencer to counter this kid.
youtube.com/watch?v=UMtqCapeVRA
I sense a hot button.
It is truly amazing to me, a site that attracts mostly intelligent people, in which the vast majority uphold the libertarian tradition of property rights…so many find this article so unappealing.
The theme of this article is in the tradition of respecting property rights and sovereignty.
Those of you who see this article as unbecoming to mises.org… show me where Mises states war is good for the economy? Where does Mises say that war is good for anything?
What most of you suffer from is…Islamic phobia.
Islamic phobia:
Fear of Islam due to books/articles/videos from intellectually corrupted authors who wish to profit by peddling racism, bigotry, ethnocentrism, and fascism to those who are too ignorant and fearful to think for themselves.
David,
You and Al-Qaeda have more in common than you think…you both fail to grasp praxeology and are willing to kill innocent people over ideology.
Ok, so your argument is that people that aren’t naive about the Muslim threat are “islamophobics”, and the people that are speaking out about this are actually fascists, racists, and bigots.
Honestly, I think you are the one that have commonalities with Al-Qaeda, I really cant tell your speech from theirs.
And no, Mises doesn’t state that war is good for the economy, it obviously isn’t, but that isn’t the point. The point is that this renowned “university student” is completely ignoring the role that religion and ideology plays in the situation. Only with a simplistic approach can he state that “the only reason Iran would ever attack us is if we were to intervene even further in its affairs”
To know the enemy’s true motivations you have to understand THEIR ideology and beliefs, the most amateurish thing you can do is to simply assume they are people with the same rational principles you and I have. People that would only show such hatred towards the West in response to an equal and proportional offense. The reality is that they are not like us, the Muslim world is devout to the preachings of Muhammad , and have been waging Jihad against non-believers since the days of the warrior-prophet, we didn’t had “American imperialism” back then.
So drop the wishful thinking and stop reflecting your peaceful and rational nature on fanatics. Getting out of the middle east wouldn’t stop the resolve of the jihadists one bit, it would only hasten the demise of the “great satan”.
youtube.com/watch?v=UMtqCapeVRA
Islam is repellant, for sure. But where do you stand on Zionism?
Israel is a Western nation. Zionism is not a basic value there any more. But you hate Zionism because its a value. You have no values.
By the way, Zionism is a socialist movement.
“Israel is a Western nation. Zionism is not a basic value there any more.”
Well, certainly for Israel to qualify as Western (in the [classical] liberal) sense, it would have to reject particularist political ideologies that favor Jews over non-Jews (ie, Zionism). I’m a little skeptical (to put it mildly) that Zionism no longer holds sway over Israeli thought/opinion (although the Israeli left is certainly more reasonable than various de facto Likudnik movements in the US). At any rate, do you deny that Zionism is a “basic value” for influential movements in America, such as neoconservatism?
“You have no values.”
Not true; I value GWAR, Austrian economics, and Chimay.
i don’t think so.
http://bit.ly/9mvt9O
hey you, the guy behind the mask,
what do you think of gorgie orwells 1984?
thoughtcrime does indeed exist in plenty of jurisdictions, first-world included.
David,
The point you and others miss-you are equating a group of people as fanatics because of their religion.
To know the enemy’s true motivations you have to understand THEIR ideology and beliefs…
Your first mistake is the word “enemy”…who’s the enemy David? Every Muslim man, women, and child in the Middle East ? They are first and foremost human beings.
…the most amateurish thing you can do is to simply assume they are people with the same rational principles you and I have…
David, they are people… with the same rational principles I have. Human action demands it. They are human beings with the same desires you and others have for peace, security, and hope for the future-for themselves and their children. These concepts are universal. They have been with mankind since his inception some ten thousand years ago.
The reality is that they are not like us, the Muslim world is devout to the preaching’s of Muhammad…
Islam is not monolithic any more than Christianity. The variety of thought and religious perception is just as varied in the Middle East as it is in the U.S. Remember, we’re talking about human beings not robots. You either refuse to see it or you have very little experience with people and people of other cultures.
Elevating these “fanatics” to a monolithic level is like believing that a Christian cult in Utah or a street gang in L.A. is going to bring down western civilization. We don’t believe all Christians in Utah are cultists and we don’t believe that every young man who wears his pants around his butt and wears a baseball cap is a L.A. gang member. So why do we believe every Muslim is a jihadist???
David- I hope on this Thanksgiving that you will see things… not through fear… but through reason, humanity, and ethics.
Good luck or as some of my students say… “Inshallah”- God willing.
good luck with the randians.
“who’s the enemy David? Every Muslim man, women, and child in the Middle East?” – No, is every muslim man, women, and child that believes in violence and oppression against non-believers and restriction of human liberties in the name of Sharia. Unfortunately for us there are no sects or school of muslim jurisprudence that completely rejects those things.
“They are human beings with the same desires you and others have for peace” – Again, you are putting wishful thinking in front of reality. These concepts are not universal, not for a pious muslim at least. The preachings of Muhammad openly calls for violence against non-believers and the oppressive rule of sharia.
“Islam is not monolithic any more than Christianity” – In the sense that the violent passages of the Qur’an aren’t fully denounced by any muslim school they are quite monolithical yes. But I’m sure they have plenty of diversity on the other parts.
“So why do we believe every Muslim is a jihadist?” – I don’t, but every pious muslim IS against the basic freedoms you and I hold as sacred, simply because there is a consistent case for this in the Qur’an. Even the so called “moderate” muslims like Iman Rauf (911 mosque) openly wants sharia in the US and the restrictions of liberties it requires, he even refuses to condemn Hamas. And even the liberal media will tell you that it doesn’t get more “moderate” than the wonderful Rauf.
You know things would be a lot simpler for both of us if you just watched the link I posted ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtqCapeVRA ) where Robert Spencer explains most of these misconceptions.
What you write about Islam is largely sensible, but then you write:
“he [Iman Rauf] even refuses to condemn Hamas. ”
and we now see what the REAL issue is to you. What a tool.
David,
It’s interesting to note that so many are willing to judge a people based on a book written around 610 AD. That so many interpret religion from a literal sense and not from a psychological sense, I find distressing.
Most people who practice religion do so in varying degrees and few desire to be scholars. Most embrace religion as a way to transverse the difficulties of life. Religion gives them strength when times are bad and allows for reflection and thanks when times are good. Religion also gives perspective and meaning to death.
It is a psychological role that religion plays for the vast majority of people.
The other mistake people make on this issue: They don’t know any Muslims.
My first encounter with a Muslim was when I was in high school. I worked a warehouse job and we had a truck route together. Over many breakfasts, he explained polygamy and how it worked. We talked religion and the common heritage that Islam and Christianity have. I was only 17 at the time.
In college, I took classes on the Middle East. At the time, there was never any discussion on terrorism or global terrorism. But I do remember, according to the text I was reading, that Mohammad was not anti-Christian or anti-Jew but anti-pagan. (Remember Islam shares the same common heritage as Christianity and Judaism.)
During 9/11, I drove a Muslim classmate to and from school. I feared (he wore traditional clothing) some might try to harm him on his walk to school…since he was missing a leg, what chance would he have to defend himself. What did we talk about? The same things most men talk about-life, business, women etc.
I teach and a few my students are Muslim. These students are very respectful. They bring me gifts and food in thanks for my effort. They come to me for counseling and over the years have shared their stories of struggle, fear and even death of loved ones in attempting to come to this country.
Some of my male (Afghan) Muslim students disappear for months at a time… going to U.S. military bases, helping American soldiers understand the customs and culture they will encounter in Afghanistan.
No amount of corrupt intellectualism, ethnocentric interpretation of the Koran, or some sociopathic-religious-cult leader like Osama Bin Laden or anybody else is going to convince me that the Muslims I have known in my life are going to kill me. (I believe this to be true of 99% of the Muslim population.) In fact, those I have known would protect me.
David, I know you are an intelligent person and are seeking truth. I only hope that I may have contributed to it in a positive way. Again, good luck on your journey:)
Well thank you, same to you.
I just hope you realize that pointing to one particular muslim you know (in America of all places) isn’t really an argument for the overall situation of the muslim world, especially in the Middle East. I wish the majority of muslims could interpret their holy book from a “spiritual” sense rather than literal, rejecting its call to violence against the non-believers, but I don’t see it now, not with the crushing rule of sharia law undisputed in the region .
By the way in the debate I posted Peter Kreeft makes the exact same argument you did, claiming that he knew some muslim students that condemned violence. I hope you can take the time to watch it full someday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtqCapeVRA
>You and Al-Qaeda have more in common than you think…you both fail to grasp praxeology and are willing to kill innocent people over ideology.
Then since you recognize that the ideological opponents of individual rights want to kill, your opposition to defending the ideology of individual rights shows your nihilist depravity.
Stephen,
It’s not about ideology from my libertarian perspective …it’s about property rights. Launching a couple missiles into a village seems to be a violation of that. Don’t you think?
There is nothing nihilist or depraved about property rights. There is everything nihilist and depraved in blowing up a village full of people.
The Saudis get he F-15, a 1980s era fighter and the Israelis get the F-35, the most advanced fifth-generation fighter in the world – of course they didn’t complain about the deal. The F-35 is a first-strike weapon – not a defensive weapon. The US is not interested in peace for the Middle East but control of oil as assuring Israeli domination of its neighbors.
The real question is what would world oil prices be like if we did not have a presence in the ME? Our presense in the ME has an affect on everyone elses acces to oil. It’s a world commodity sold on the world market. If we weren’t there it would be China. Nobody outside the ME wants to go through another oil embargo.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but I can understand one of the reasons behind it.
You are missing the point again with “The real question is what would world oil prices be like if we did not have a presence in the ME?”.
OPEC will/does decide on the price of oil. And it bases the price on supply and demand, the root of free market economics. The United States of America will have to get in line with all the others to get its oil. A military presence mandatory to acquire oil is ludicrous.
The US needs civilian nuke power. Why would a businessman invest in a politically unstable region?
Whats wrong w.th e1980s carter was prez. the f15 is a respectable fighter, for its time.
the us was not interested in peace in june 1944 either. But you have no,ideals to defend,.
Who gets the “Firefox” George? j/k!
How about a Mises-Lite.org for the Novice Free-Mkt. adventurer, and for the more advanced Anarcho-Capitalist, Hardcore-Mises.org!
Israel gets Firefox and Saudi Arabia gets Internet Explorer?
For those who are criticizing Mises.org for being against war, perhaps you can explain how a government that is not capable of making effective decisions for its subjects in economic matters is miraculously capable of making good decisions when it comes to killing and war…
its inconsistent ,pragmatic.
see Atlas shrugged for details
Sorry, but that is not a very good answer…
What is inconsistent? Who is pragmatic? What does Atlas Shrugged have to do with it?
Do you really think that anyone is going to look through 1200 dense pages to find whatever obscure theme you are referring to?
And the von Mises Institute considers this relevant to its mission because …
… because using involuntary taxation to fund the (inevitable) murder of innocent people in order to achieve the objectives of the elite is EVIL.
Read the motto…
Becasuse the Conservative’s last hope for something legitimate in the U.S. govt. rides on the military, and correcting the ills of the world. I don’t have the over-whelming convincing facts to 100% exonerate or accuse the Middle East or this article’s author, but when you start spending in the trillions on Endless Wars, that seem to always get politicized, and off-track according to some, not too mention the loss of lives, I believe this venue has every right to speak on it. This site as far as I can see, hasn’t been hiding it’s Anarcho-Capitalists tendencies. Not like it’s a big secret. Some of the Neo-Cons, have that Mises was ok, because he mentioned (apparently, don’t ask me fo the exact quote) a nation’s right to defend itself, legitimized what the Western govt.’s do around the world today, aka Neo-Mercatillism. Pretty complicated stuff, and I would agree, it would take much more than a article like this, to get down to the core of the issue at hand. I also believe, that An-Caps, distrust of Govt. sponsored War from a blanket statement, doesn’t satiate many people’s belief that their country can’t be right, or moral in it’s involvement in the conflict.Besides has anyone looked into the correlation between mindless/possessed Nationalism among the Common Man, and Jihad, not so much cultural, but who has done the most damage to the cause of Individual Liberty?
When I first started readiing this article I became angry with the author for misrepresenting history and practically blaming 9/11 on US policy rather than on Islamic extremism. Then when I got to the end about the author being a college student studyig “genetics and entrepreneurship (what kind of bubble gum major is that?),” I became angry at the Mises Institute for not only emailing me such BS but posting something from such a flagrantly unqualified source.
Before anyone even thinks to blame ourselves for 9/11 and Islamic terrorism, I ask you to first do this…study the reasons for the invasion and subjugation of Christian Spain by the Moors…study why the Ottomans incessantly attacked its Christian neighbors for hundreds of years…and speak to an Indian (from India) knowledgable about history regarding the reasons Muslims invaded their country with the concommitant rape and pillage that always went along with Muslim conquest. I’ll tell you right off the top…none of these non-Muslims ever came within 1000 miles of Mecca and Medina.
So before bombarding us with imbecilic patter about how we are responsible for Muslim terrorism…which I would aver is the Muslim method of effecting conquest when they are technologically hopelessly outmatched…maybe spend a modicum more time learning history and a tad less time uttering nonsense.
http://www.slideshare.net/anarcholibertarian/why-do-they-hate-us
Islam’s record of violence, aggression, and horror is well-documented. It doesn’t follow, however, that 9-11, the Iraq War, and various other events were due to Islam. You should try to understand how US policy is at play here before getting your panties all bunched up. Yes, this article is rather silly at times (I think all sides here could broadly agree that the overall situation would be better if the Shah were still in power) but it’s fundamentally correct on the role of US interventionism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQkgb86xytI
Ben,
Other cultures during those periods of history were equally as violent, including Christian Europe. The real question is: why did Western Europe socially progress and why didn’t the Middle East follow? It is a question of productivity and economic well-being.
Two points:
1. I stress the importance of finding causality. Broad, sweeping claims are useless in a debate that ultimately falls on political intricacies.
2. If you disliked the article, don’t blame the Mises Institute. The Institute publishes three articles per day. You are bound to disagree with one some time or another; just think of the other two articles that you may have enjoyed.
Guys, you all have available the same information/knowledge to you as I do. THERE ARE NO ACCIDENTS. I’d say in 2003 it was well known to anyone who bothered to add 2 and 2 that no airplane went down in Pennsylvania, that a commercial flight did not hit the pentagon – small hole, big plane, no debris. That the two planes that did hit the Towers were radio controlled from Bldg. 7 that also did a free-fall of 8 seconds about 5:00 that same day. The U.S.isn’t a landmass, its a corporation. The World Management Team must laugh their asses off at all of the entertainment we give them while we blah blah back and forth as if there is you and me and us and them and terrorists and borders. Get over it – we’re all ONE.
The funny thing is how conservatives distrust most other govt. operations, but somehow mindlessly adhere to a notion that the U.S. Military is immune from the politicizing/inefficiencies of government. Regardless of a threat out….THERE>…..wherever that may be, or how accurate it is…you are still putting payed bureaucrats in the position of protecting you. Be consistent….The military, like all other government instituions is just as guilty and fallible of its intended actions, and it in itself is a Welfare State, nothing more, with many good promises, that have been elevated because of one’s service to his country…look at the V.A. for an example, another bloated bureacracy. I believe they finally found an enemy, that they can demonize indefinitely, or at least until we go broke. Or until their is proof of a shape-shifting alien race, hell-bent on mankind’s destruction.
I believe the notion also among conservatives, is that they ignore about 100 or more years of things that were done by our elite to help cause problems around the world, and get us where we are today. Many IMHO, subconsciously believe America was great because what it did militarily to ensure peace and trade. We know reading material on this site, that was far from the truth, and its universally true of any nation. And from what evidence that has come out most Modern Wars, didn’t benefit a nations inhabitants, just the well-connected, or Central Bankers. Sound Economics is Universal and thats what this site is here to profess, but it has many different tales to tell, because the arm of government is in almost everything, and that is what above all distorts and manipulates, beyond any small dispute among men. It’s lumps all of that thin-veneer tensions into a mighty collective and thats where it hits the fan, espeically in National Wars. Very Collective in its origins.
Somehow the conservatives never reply to comments asking them why they trust the government to fight wars but not to deliver the mail… they are funny that way.
I know that conservatives “still” refuse to embrace Rothbard’s Anarchism, and that must be seen as an inconsistency to some of you. The simple fact is that we don’t believe in these pseudo-libertarian views of government, we simply believe in our Founding Fathers. “That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men”, this is the only legitimate role for the government. The original idea was really nothing more than the armed forces and local polices to defend us from our “foreign and domestic” enemies in matters that required the use of force, and the legal superstructure that this requires. That progressives and socialists subverted this original intent, giving government the unimaginable scope and power it has today shouldn’t turn anyone away from the founding principles.
When I see articles like this two things trouble me:
1) These generic objections to the only role that is legitimate of government – engaging in matters that requires the use of force.
2) The complete ignorance over the nature of the Jihadi threat, and the complete irrelevancy the author gives to it (an article about peace in the Middle East that doesn’t mention Jihad ONCE)
I can perfectly understand and debate with number one, but number two is simply inexcusable. Its incredibly childish to analyze that region and not dive deep on the role that religion and ideology plays in the situation.
youtube.com/watch?v=UMtqCapeVRA
I figure it’s from the Us vs. Them “Cold War” prop, for the later half of the last century. I’m not defending the Soviet system by any means, but many couldn’t see their acceptance of growth of govt. would lead us down the road where we are today, almost becoming that monster even surpassing it in many respects (just waiting on the gulags, now). Not too mention the ignorance of economic thinking…i.e. Collectivists American Interest and many more fallacies that Austrian Economics has brought us….
>Jonathan M. F. Catalán November 19, 2010 at 10:43 pm
>By the way, Zionism is a socialist movement.
a religious, national socialist movement , like Japanese Bushido
A heated discussion, it was. Yet it helped sort out a lot of things, just the attitudes of the LvMI readers, and the tendencies of the publishers, i.e., to cover a wide scope of issues and authors. I appreciate it. The discussion helps clarify what is important today and where the authors should look to pick up future topics… And never mind the young age of the Author! He kept the thread of his thought OK. Thank you!
Comments on this entry are closed.