1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/5757/iraq-through-a-rebels-eyes/

Iraq Through a Rebel’s Eyes

October 16, 2006 by

The US government’s arm is tired, writes Andrew Greene. Even with one hundred and fifty thousand troops, a fortune in fuel and supplies, and the best weapons ever invented, all that power is having a rough ride. Humvees loaded with high-tech regulars are sitting targets for bits of plumbing packed with C-4, left at the side of the road. There are plenty of surprises from the front, but such news would only elicit a sad smile from Jefferson, and the same from his fellow insurgent, Madison. They knew that a well armed citizen militia can never be conquered by regular troops. Nor would they have cheered those who are attempting to conquer. FULL ARTICLE

{ 82 comments }

TGGP October 16, 2006 at 8:25 am

“a well armed citizen militia can never be conquered by regular troops”. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! If you keep on believing strong enough, maybe it will come true!

I didn’t bother reading the rest after that. This site is bad enough when it strays from economics to philosophy. I hope in the future it stays the hell away from military matters, in which it has no competence.

quasibill October 16, 2006 at 8:39 am

“This site is bad enough when it strays from economics to philosophy. I hope in the future it stays the hell away from military matters, in which it has no competence.”

I hear the same comments from left wingers when they read mises articles about welfare issues. In fact, it would be exact, if you replace military with welfare.

I guess the left and the right are more alike than they realize.

Mark Brabson October 16, 2006 at 9:09 am

TGGP:

I suggest you go have a very long talk with Michael Gorbachev, about just what small militias can do to advanced militaries. In fact, something along the line of driving the Russian’s out of Afghanistan with their tail between their legs.

Roger M October 16, 2006 at 9:13 am

Don:”The U.S. should have gone the international civil route and simply asked the rest of the world to help track down these crimnals so they could be brought to justice on our civil terms.”

We did exactly that with Afghanistan. They refused to turn over Al Qaeda. Should we have then just forgotten about the crime?

A recent article in the American Spectator explained why the Kurds in Iraq have suffered virtually none of the terrorism of the rest of the country. The answer is that they have no policy of hands off the mosques. Terrorists use the mosques to recruit, communicate, train and store weapons in the rest of Iraq because the US has a “don’t touch” policy for mosques and imams, thus allowing terrorism to thrive. We also prevent the Shia militias from going after the terrorists.

The insurgency hasn’t defeated the US military; US politicians have, just as they did in Vietnam. As a result, I favor an immediate pull-out of US troops from Iraq. The sooner we’re gone, the sooner the Kurds and Shia will end the insurgency, probably within 60 days.

Reactionary October 16, 2006 at 10:12 am

Roger M,

Not exactly. We asked the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. They said show the proof he was involved in 9/11. We answered with a military invasion.

Re: the Kurds. They don’t have a terrorism problem because they are an ethnically homogenous nation-state. Admittedly, where there is an ethnic mix, you are correct: they act ruthlessly to suppress the minority. But if Americans want to do that sort of thing, then they will have to stop being social democrats and become imperialists. Since the stated goal of current US policy is to spread democracy, this cannot be done without sacrificing the ideological goal of the mission, i.e., the “why we fight.”

I don’t see how you can say the US military has been defeated in Iraq. In fact, it accomplished the overthrow of a competing regime with smashing (literally) success. But once there was no competing state to fight, then there is no real metric for victory for a state military force.

If we were not going to be imperialists, then we should have turned the keys over to Chalabi and strolled back to our bases in Kuwait and Qatar, throwing out handfuls of dollars along the way. Chalabi, of course, would have been hung by his heels from a telephone pole within a month but that would have been his problem.

Roger M October 16, 2006 at 10:30 am

Reactionary:”We asked the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. They said show the proof he was involved in 9/11. We answered with a military invasion.”

It was a lot more complex than that and we gave them several months to decide. We did offer them what proof we had at the time. Besides, it wasn’t the Taliban’s job to determine bin Laden’s innocense or guilt.

“They don’t have a terrorism problem because they are an ethnically homogenous nation-state.”

Actually, they have a lot of Arabs, Shia, Turkmen, Christians living among them. Mosul is about 1/3 Arab Sunni. They suffered many acts of terrorism in the early years of the war from Al Qaeda, Sunni Arabs, and Baathists. They simply shut them down.

Reactionary October 16, 2006 at 10:48 am

“Besides, it wasn’t the Taliban’s job to determine bin Laden’s innocense or guilt.”

Wasn’t it? States often turn down extradition requests because of doubts as to guilt.

Notwithstanding the happy multicultural experiment described by the Trotskyites, Kurdistan is overwhelmingly Kurdish. And again, if we adopt non-democratic methods, then we are going to have to explain to Lance Corporal Hernandez and Sergeant Jenkins that they’re not really “fighting for freedom.”

banker October 16, 2006 at 11:04 am

Iraq is not a military problem. Simply the civilian government is trying to use the military in a role that it’s not meant to perform. The military is used to kill people and destroy things and the US military is the best in the world in that regard. That said, no government agency is capable of “creating prosperity”. The only means a government has to do anything is through the use of force, which directly contradicts the point of the intervention.

George Gaskell October 16, 2006 at 11:37 am

The only means a government has to do anything is through the use of force, which directly contradicts the point of the intervention.

True, although I would add that the use of force contradicts the stated point of the intervention.

The true, unstated purpose is often to increase the aggressor’s degree of control, for which force is quite well-suited.

Leigh Jacobs October 16, 2006 at 11:57 am

“‘a well armed citizen militia can never be conquered by regular troops’. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! If you keep on believing strong enough, maybe it will come true!”

Ever hear of the American Revolution?

Eric October 16, 2006 at 12:38 pm

It never seems to amaze me how some Americans, maybe even most, think that 9/11 was a beginning. An act of pure violence (out of envy) that had no precursor. This is like saying that the Barbarian attack on the empire of Rome had no precursor and was completely unprovoked.

I recently viewed the movie Munich. A story of vengance where each side returns violence with violence. One could say that at least there was an equal measure of violence for violence. And yet 30 some years later, the war continues. Is this the world that Washington and Jefferson wanted for us, or is it the one they advised us to avoid.

Troups in 100′s of countries, propping up tyrants that become the next enemy to defeat. This is more the world of Orwell’s 1984 than the world of freedom that Bush keeps talking about.

In the movie V is for Vengance, we see how a people can give up freedom for security, and get neither. Every day I fear we are getting closer to tyranny. And no mere “scrap of paper” is going to protect us from the enemy of liberty: an out of control government.

sologue October 16, 2006 at 12:43 pm

We can cheer the end of imperialism without cheering the deaths of our own soldiers. As misguided as the mission in Iraq may be, that doesn’t mean we stand up and root for insurgents to kill more of our young men and women.

That’s completely sadistic and twisted.

Bill Dillon October 16, 2006 at 12:49 pm

“Ever hear of the American Revolution?”

Yep. And did you ever hear of the indispensable French intervention in that revolution?

The “Rabble in Arms” could not have done it alone.

steve October 16, 2006 at 1:02 pm

“The insurgency hasn’t defeated the US military; US politicians have, just as they did in Vietnam.”

I love this one. It is a close 2nd to “they just have to take the handcuffs off the military!” It is trotted out for every war the US loses or fails to win. So, I guess you can add Afghanistan and Iraq to the list for this convenient excuse.

Politicians do not fight wars anymore. I wish they would; we would have far fewer. I would love to see Fuhrer Bush actually participate in one of his glorious wars. It would probably look much like George Will throwing a baseball.

Well, Roger M., if the politicans should get all the blame when the US government loses a war, then are you implying that the politicians should get all the credit when the government wins a war?

Eric October 16, 2006 at 1:03 pm

Bill

And the Iraqi rabble have the support of all who wish the American Empire to be contained, just as did the French wish to contain the British Empire. Only in this case, their support appears to come from just about every other country except, ironically, the remains of the British Empire.

Mark Brabson October 16, 2006 at 1:11 pm

We could go into militia versus military all day.

The real point is that aggressive military war is ALWAYS wrong and should NEVER be tolerated by the Libertarian community. We should adopt Washington’s policy of no foreign entanglements. To that end, we should immediately and unconditionally disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan and withdraw our troops, armaments and ships from everywhere in the world. Europe and Japan are prosperous and can defend themselves. North Korea is China’s problem, not ours. Only the people of the mideast can decide whether they will tolerate their rulers or not. If a country will not surrender a criminal, then we will just have to accept it. Great Britain has refused to surrender criminals several times, often on anti-death penalty grounds. Negotiate an extradition treaty if necessary.

I know this will likely fall on deaf ears in the neo-libertarian community, but I will say it anyway.

Brett Celinski October 16, 2006 at 1:19 pm

Bill,

The debate on the Naval battle at Chesapeake may still be out, but on land? Do your remember and even believe in the obvious failure of the mighty British land forces to defeat the Continental Army?

Brett Celinski October 16, 2006 at 1:22 pm

Even more so, the war was of defense. Its a huge leap from this to imperialism, which is anti-American as anything else thats assaulted my country

Roger M October 16, 2006 at 1:43 pm

Steve:”…politicians should get all the credit when the government wins a war?”

The situation with war is similar to economics in that economies flourish when the government gets out of the way. Should we give politicians credit when they get out of the way? Should we blame them when they intrude upon, and ruin the economy?

Until the Korean war, politicians let the military fight wars with the understanding that absolute victory was the goal. Beginning with Truman in Korea, politicians began to micromanage wars and have multiple goals other than victory. That’s why we have had nothing but failure since WWII.

It’s not even clear that we had a victory in Iraq. It has been reported that Saddam Hussein ordered many of his troops not to fight the US because he expected the UN to rein in the US and leave him in power. He wanted an army left to use against him own people who opposed him.

The war in Iraq was going well until the first battle of Fallujah. Then our politicians caved into the Sunni politicians (who supported and led the insurgency) and backed off. Then, instead of fighting the insurgency, we decided to entice them into the political process while they murdered Shia with impunity hoping to ignite a civil war.

If we get out quickly, the Kurds and Shia still have time to rescure their country by killing the insurgents.

Reactionary October 16, 2006 at 2:10 pm

Roger M,

Iraq is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East. The Kurds are fighting for Kurdistan and the Shi’ites are fighting for an alliance with Iran. But you are correct in that once we are gone, the Sunnis, who allowed Jewish and Christian worship and Western indulgences such as classical music and alcohol, will be slaughtered in their beds.

The US won the war when it deposed Saddam’s government. But wars in the post-WWII era are now fought exclusively overseas and for policy reasons that have nothing to do with national defense. So it’s no wonder that politicians manage them. If you want “good” wars with decisive victories, then you need to pick your fights more carefully.

But I’m puzzled as to what actions you believe the military could be taking that “politicians” have specifically prevented them from doing. The US military operates with a free hand in Iraq. The problem is, as banker pointed out, for the military to do what militaries must do to crush a popular insurgency would contradict the very goal of the intervention.

Roger M October 16, 2006 at 2:40 pm

Reactionary:”But I’m puzzled as to what actions you believe the military could be taking that “politicians” have specifically prevented them from doing.”

I don’t think there is anything they could do at this time but get out. We had a window of opportunity before the insurgency gained much strength, but I believe it’s too late for us to do anything.

“The US military operates with a free hand in Iraq.”

Not even close. A friend has a son in the Army at a base north of Baghdad. They take mortar and rifle fire daily but are not allowed to respond to the attacks. Instead, the military built concrete barriers for soldiers to hide behind if the want to go outside and smoke. I’ve read similar accounts at other bases. Mosques have always been off limits and still are, but that’s where the insurgency is headquartered. There are many other restrictions on what the military can do.

Iraq reminds me of Vietnam when Pres Johnson would personally plan bombing raids on North Vietnam. Crews died by the hundreds until the pilots went on strike and refused to fly until they were given control over their routes.

Otto Kerner October 16, 2006 at 3:04 pm

Mark Brabson: Can I get a “amen”!

Som October 16, 2006 at 3:39 pm

I heard a quote that could suit this article

“War today does not start with guns firing back at one another, it starts with people firing their guns at people with no guns”

This article has it right on point. We have a Star Wars situation in Iraq. I doubt Han Solo would wear headbands like that though…

Reactionary October 16, 2006 at 3:45 pm

Roger M,

That tells me either the military doesn’t know who to hit or the attacks are so diffuse they’d have to level the whole town. Which, as noted, sort of guts that whole spreading democracy thing. Hopefully when Bush’s successor withdraws to Kuwait and Qatar we’ll think twice before we start nation-building again.

Sione Vatu October 16, 2006 at 3:48 pm

Qutoing: “The insurgency hasn’t defeated the US military; US politicians have, just as they did in Vietnam.”

This is another one of those silly national myths. In essence it’s the old German military “stab in the back” story resurrected and given an American identity.

The stab-in-the-back myth was employed by the German military brass to explain away their loss of WW1. The gist of their excuse was that the military didn’t lose the war, they were let down on the “home front” by the civilian population and politicians. It was a convenient lie allowing the military high command dodge responsibility for the consequences of its own disasterous decisions. Subsequently it was of great assistance during the remilitarisation of Germany in preparation for their next war. They did just as well in that one as the first big one.

And so it goes on. The US military will do just as well in Iraq as it did in Vietnam. The myth will get dusted off, rehashed and told again. If only…. We wouldn’t have lost if only…

Here’s the present choice: admit defeat and get out of Iraq or admit defeat and kill them all.

Sione

Pavel Rott October 16, 2006 at 3:51 pm

Re: Mark Brabson
Mark,
Soviet military did what it wanted in Afganistan in 80ies and retreated orderly when told to do so. If you think for a second that Afgan resistance was possible without massive infusion of American cash and weapons and safe bases in Pakistan, you are deluding yourself. Small militias, right.

Brett Celinki October 16, 2006 at 3:57 pm

I don’t think the military is doing ENOUGH to fight terrorism. Want to know why? Because its position as an intrinsic power structure for politicians and the President.

Half of what the institution is used for in our era is at odds with Constitutional theory.

Roger M October 16, 2006 at 4:00 pm

Sione:”This is another one of those silly national myths.”

It’s not as bad as the snake oil you guys are pushing that “a well armed citizen militia can never be conquered by regular troops”.

Gee, why didn’t the Germans and Japanese think of that at the end of WWII? All they had to do was disband their militaries and give everyone a gun and grenade. Had they been half as smart as the Afghan Mujahid or the Iraqi insurgency, they would still be under their very own military dictatorships.

The USSR had the Afghans whipped until we gave them Stinger missiles. But even that didn’t defeat the Soviets. Gorbachev decided to pull out because the war was unpopular. The Mujahideen had little to do with it.

Brett Celinski October 16, 2006 at 4:04 pm

Did the German and Japanese people want that, though, Roger?

Militias come from people with fanatical devotion to their cause, something which wasn’t really present in the above nations at the war’s end.

Brett Celinski October 16, 2006 at 4:11 pm

I too am wondering about the ‘militias versus regular armies’ claim.

In terms of the 4th generation warfare arguments of William Lind, I think the claim can only be true in that regard. I think there are too many historical examples that disprove that claim, however, especially in cases where militias fought in older styles of warfare.

But, are militias almost always fighting in 4th Generation terms? I’d like to be enlightened by anybody here.

Brett Celinski October 16, 2006 at 4:23 pm

“Iraq is not a military problem. Simply the civilian government is trying to use the military in a role that it’s not meant to perform. The military is used to kill people and destroy things and the US military is the best in the world in that regard. That said, no government agency is capable of “creating prosperity”. The only means a government has to do anything is through the use of force, which directly contradicts the point of the intervention.”

Exactly. It would be even better if this was a private force. Imagine if Wal-mart owned this military. Half of the world’s dictators would be dead within a few years.

The problem is, that method doesn’t work. Especially when its a government matter. The economy would be obliterated. There’d be more dictators. There’d be more terrorists.
Just, really obvious.

Bush cannot say “Mission Accomplished” and mean it, for his Mission included stability and social democracy in Iraq. Trotskyite social engineering if anything. However, the strict military mission of overthrowing Saddam= smash success. But, I’d think most in the military would regard that and nothing more as a terrible strategy. As it is.

Roger M October 16, 2006 at 4:29 pm

Brett:”Did the German and Japanese people want that…?”

I can’t speak for the Germans, although they seemed to support Hitler to the very end. The Japanese were actually preparing for a guerrilla war and were training children and old people to use anything at hand for weapons. Had we invaded Japan, we probably would have had to kill every last Japanese citizen. A recent documentary on the History Channel said that our dropping two atomic bombs didn’t bother the Japanese military much. They decided to surrender when the USSR decided to invade Japan. They figured that the US was too soft to kill everyone, but the Soviets would.

Vince Daliessio October 16, 2006 at 5:06 pm

Roger M said;

“The Japanese were actually preparing for a guerrilla war and were training children and old people to use anything at hand for weapons. Had we invaded Japan, we probably would have had to kill every last Japanese citizen. A recent documentary on the History Channel said that our dropping two atomic bombs didn’t bother the Japanese military much. They decided to surrender when the USSR decided to invade Japan. They figured that the US was too soft to kill everyone, but the Soviets would.”

The above is probably the most ahistorical thing I have ever read on this blog, Roger – the Imperial Japanese government tried to surrender well before the atomic bombings, but were rebuffed because they wanted to retain their emperor;

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2006/jap_midway.html

Against the majority of military and civilian counsel, Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing and maiming civilians on an unimaginable scale, kicking off the arms race, and in the end allowed the Japanese to surrender and retain their emperor anyway.

Vince Daliessio October 16, 2006 at 5:13 pm

Ok, that wasn’t the best link…try these;

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-14627507.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

More than ample evidence that the US could have gotten the Japanese to surrender without bombing or invasion. Truman was not interested in such an outcome.

John R October 16, 2006 at 6:09 pm

In the absence of the total destruction of Iraq and the extirpation of all of its miserable inhabitants, it doesn’t appear that the U.S. will be able to achieve a favorable solution to its disastrous military adventure in that hapless country. How, for the life of me, the American people could have for a moment imagined that the Iraqi nation, eviscerated by years of war and starvation, could have presented a viable threat to the security and integrity of the most powerful country on the planet, so as to justify a “premptive” war, is beyond my humble ability to comprehend. And what is even more amazing, if that is possible, is to read comments on an otherwise informed and erudite blog like this by individuals who somehow still don’t seem to get it. Truly, the end must be mercifully at hand.

John R October 16, 2006 at 7:11 pm

The notion that Truman utilized the atomic bomb against the Japanese in order to faciitate their surrender and thereby prevent the loss of huge numbers of American combatants during a projected invasion of Japan has been thoroughly discredited in pretty much the same manner as Roosevelt’s “surprise” at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Liberal control of both the information media and the academy has made it difficult, if not impossible, to get the truth about these, and other, residual propaganda lies from the last “good” war out to the educated public. Suffice to say, that our current national malaise is a testimony to how much further we need to go in this direction.

M E Hoffer October 16, 2006 at 7:52 pm

RogerM,

Who owns “The History Channel” ?

Simon October 16, 2006 at 8:00 pm

The History Channel is owned by A&E Television Networks.

A&E Television Networks is jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company (37.5%), The Hearst Corporation (37.5%), and NBC Universal (25%).

NBC Universal is owned by General Electric (80%), Vivendi SA, and Barry Diller.

M E Hoffer October 16, 2006 at 8:14 pm

Simon,

You well know it, though I was hoping that ol’ RogerM might put 2 & 2 together while answering the Q :)

Yea, maybe he still will…

CAITM October 16, 2006 at 8:41 pm

I love you guys but libertarians and free market economists need help from converted military historians and actual vets who know the true nature of their former employer.

Militia vs. standing army: tough call. really this boils down to Clausewitz vs. Sun Tzu (i.e. brute force attrition vs. maneuver warfare)

simon October 16, 2006 at 9:02 pm

CAITM,

With all due respect, brainwashed soldiers and experts on death and destruction are the last people we need to consult on how to organize a civil society based on mutually beneficial exchange and respect for property rights.

Maybe we should look to the founders who were deadly afraid of standing armies, and warned against going abroad in search of enemies, or even Gen. Eisenhower who warned against the military-industrial complex.

The fact is that many countries on this planet with plenty of wealth are not constantly repelling invaders or invading ohter countries because they have learned to coexist with the other people inhabiting this planet. America can learn to do the same.

We must first change our foreign policy.

Learn not to trade at the end of a bayonet. And realize that building and selling bombs, missiles and fighter jets does not make the American people or the citizens of the world safer.

CAITM October 16, 2006 at 9:16 pm

On the history of the attrition vs. maneuver debate, most statist pay lip service to latter but privatley believe the former. That being said, the bulk of Washington’s problems with the militia of the Revolutionary period stemmed from two factors: how they were employed and how they were mobilised.

Employment: Washington was an embittered colonial militia officer who had been denied a regular commission in the British Army during the previous war. And it’s not worth repeating that he was a member of the colonial gentry. As such, he was going to prove that he could beat them at their game. This meant that the militia wouldn’t be used as would be the optimal way for non-proessional soldiers to fight. Washington wanted a prussian-style and volley machine that could fight in line and soak up vollley after volley from the opposing line while delivering their own.

the Problem is, the colonial militia, so derrided by statists since the Revolution, amounted to conscription. the colonists in the militia line weren’t all the citizen-soldier minute men any more that all soldiers today are Rangers and Delta troopers. What the State Legislature did during the Revolution was, in effect, no different than what Stalin did to raise the Red Arm to 9 million.

In short, washington wanted to use cannon fodder to do what Fredric the Great had done two decades earlier.

CAITM October 16, 2006 at 9:25 pm

Simon,

we are no more innatley statist than a firearms instructor who teaches a concealed carry class.
CAITM stands for Closet Anarchist In The Military!

And I, and my friends here who couldn’t be neither brainwashed and indoctrinated nor emotionally chained to our employer would like to render our unique observations in hope that at some point, a free people may successfully defend their territory from a resurgent statist entity some day.

Jack October 16, 2006 at 9:36 pm

The premise is wrong; terrorists were behind 9/11. This is easily debunked;

1.

The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.
2.

The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.
3.

UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly–about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North–to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.
4.

If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.
5.

There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.
6.

There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.
7.

Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of “pancake collapse”, which can only occur with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in “redundant” welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.
8.

The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.
9.

The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.
10.

Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.
11.

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it”, displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.
12.

The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
13.

The Pentagon’s own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when it was shown on “The Factor”; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
14.

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory–flying at high speed barely above ground level–physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
15.

If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government’s official scenario.

There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; tthe cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at st911.org.

This is just common sense. But as someone once told me common sense isn’t so common. The real terrorists are in the White House. The fact that so few libertarians can see this is both shocking and sad.

L.R. October 16, 2006 at 9:44 pm

Jack,

So an entire planeful of people–plus the plane–just vanished. Perhaps they flew to Atlantis to meet up with D.B. Cooper and Elvis.

Simon October 16, 2006 at 9:58 pm

Closet Anarchist in the Military,

Then I guess you are no better than a mercenary who will kill for money and pays no attention to principle, but only hopes and dreams for one day in the future when you can act like a real honorable man. Here is a clue, you aren’t doing anything to bring about that day, but only prolonging it.

You and those like you should quit now and end the evil, I am sure you can get a job in the productive (not destructive) private sector.

You are even worse than the brainwashed, impoverished, no other choice, young soldiers because you know it is wrong, but you do it anyway.

If you think you are no more statist than a firearms instructor you need to seriously rethink what it is you do for a paycheck.

Jack October 16, 2006 at 11:47 pm

L.R.,

It’s a “plane” full of people. Like I said, common sense isn’t so common.

Sione Vatu October 17, 2006 at 12:20 am

Roger

It is insufficient to attack a purported Libertarian position in order to validate your own. That approach does not establish your view as valid and correct. Yet all we hear from you is excuses and excoriation of non-Roger view points. So, rather than attempt to cast aspersion upon the views of those who have the temerity to disagree with your assertions, why not evaluate what it is YOU are promoting? Things like “good” wars. Invasion and destruction of innocent people’s property. “Good” genocide. Kill “them” before they kill “us”. And so forth.

The trouble with the myths I mentioned is they are an attempt to hide failure.

The German invasion of France in WW1 was a complete and utter failure. Instead of the German military accepting that fact, they invented a myth to evade responsibility for what they had done. Then not so long after, they tried prosecuting a war again and this time the end results were even worse than the first time around. Avoidable.

In the case of the USA there has been the lesson of Vietnam; an utter rout, a defeat which severely damaged the reputation and safety of the USA and US citizens everywhere. Then along comes a nice wee myth to help evade the lesson. So off again, this time with the adventure in Iraq. This is heading for another failure. How bad do you reckon it’ll be this time around? As with the Germans, results are likely to much worse the second time.

Sione

PS did anyone see the “pyramid of skulls”? It was on the news here not so long ago. Some guys worked out what the number of Iraqi deaths due to the invasion was. Then it was calculated how big a stack you’d get if you put the skulls of the victims in a pile in front of the Whitehouse. That pile would be taller than the Whitehouse. A picture was mocked up to show what it’d look like. A sobering scene…

Simon October 17, 2006 at 12:39 am

CAITM (since you obviously didn’t internalize this comment when I first posted it):

With all due respect, brainwashed soldiers and experts on death and destruction are the last people we need to consult on how to organize a civil society based on mutually beneficial exchange and respect for property rights.

Maybe we should look to the founders who were deadly afraid of standing armies, and warned against going abroad in search of enemies, or even Gen. Eisenhower who warned against the military-industrial complex.

The fact is that many countries on this planet with plenty of wealth are not constantly repelling invaders or invading ohter countries because they have learned to coexist with the other people inhabiting this planet. America can learn to do the same.

We must first change our foreign policy.

Learn not to trade at the end of a bayonet. And realize that building and selling bombs, missiles and fighter jets does not make the American people or the citizens of the world safer.

TGGP October 17, 2006 at 2:24 am

Holy crap, some of you need some intro to logic. A writer made a statement of the sort “For all X, P is true”. I laughed at that claim (meaning I do not believe it to be true). That does NOT mean I believe “For all X, P is not true”.

States exist for a reason, and that reason is that they can exist. They have beaten citizens militias in the past (Washington himself did so after the revolution, and Saddam did so before we overthrew him) and will continue to do so. Will/do they do so always? I would never make such an expansive claim.

I also note that you seemed to assume a right-wing militarist or something. I am/was actually opposed to the current occupation/invasion of Iraq, the Gulf War, intervention in Kosovo/the Balkans. I am an isolationist and I do not want my country to engage in any war for any reason other than defense. I am also in favor of secession/decentralization and wish we had stuck with the articles of confederation and that the U.S federal government had not been so succesful in defeating armed groups of citizens. I’ve laid out my normative position now, but I’d like to note that you WOULD NOT have been able to deduce that from my judgement of an empirical claim (those who attempted to seem to have gotten it wrong). You are mixing up “is” and “ought” and it is my belief that doing so is dangerous. I strongly urge you to remember not to do so in the future. Of course you can ignore me, but be prepared for the tidal wave of mockery I will send your way!

I suppose I should note that the author could attempt to salvage the statement by clutching to one adjective phrase, but that would be a “No true Scotsman” statement, which would deserve to be laughed out of discussion.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: