“War is not murder under sane, rational moral codes.”

Willful killing of innocents is murder, Roger. That is truth. No euphemism, no verbal trick can change it. There’s nothing sane, rational, or moral about mass murder, regardless of what you choose to call it.

Typical leftist/anarchist thinking: the US is damned if it does; damned if it doesn’t.

Robert: “It is right and just to murder the innocent as long as your heart is in the right place…”

That’s the anarchist in you speaking. War is not murder under sane, rational moral codes.

Well, to ensure that enough people show up we need to make it mandatory, it’s been a proven solution in the past in prevent no-show wars.

Also, we can mitigate absenteeism by using high tech solutions like high altitude bombing; we get our war but and require far less participants on our side.

Another favorite are sanctions and embargoes, we just constrict, restrict and block trade shipments and just let the reliable four horsemen do the dirty work.

But, if all else fails, it pays to advertise. Sometimes we just need to market the war properly. Remind your citizens that the enemy is inhuman and capable of anything due to their complete and utter irrational hatred toward everything we love.

This has proven to be far more successful method of ensuring war attendance than even mandatory service.

Yes, undeclared, unpopular wars take a lot of work, but isn’t that what makes our country so great?

The lives of other Americans are not mine, nor should they be anyone’s, to dispose of, so your question is moot. When the presidents and cheerleaders for war take the front lines, then they might have some ground to stand on asking others to die for their pet causes (but never forcing them to do so).

Furthermore, the policy you defend involved “letting” Stalin take over Europe, resulting in mass murder and enslavement, making your position hypocritical as well as immoral.

RogerM: “Yes, the US killed a lot of people and lost a lot of soldiers, but it was a very small percentage of the number Japan and Germany murdered. ”

In other words, the ends justify the means. It is right and just to murder the innocent as long as your heart is in the right place (where have we heard this before?), and even if the ultimate outcome is to replace one set of tyrants with another, even worse, set of tyrants.

I don’t want anything to do with your brand of justice, so consider the feeling mutual.

So you would have let Hirohito take over S.E. Asia and Hitler take Europe and murder as many people as they wanted? And you think that is a righteous stance, or even a just position? Thenk, I don’t want to have anything to do with your brand of justice. Yes, the US killed a lot of people and lost a lot of soldiers, but it was a very small percentage of the number Japan and Germany murdered.

For someone who rails on about “leftists,” this sounds an awful lot like the attacks they level against opponents of the welfare state.

The answer to this is, of course, that two wrongs don’t make a right. Let’s examine the results of U.S. intervention in WWII that you would rather us forget:

Over 400,000 U.S. military personnel were killed. Many hundreds of thousands of civilians were blown apart or incinerated by U.S. bombings of Japanese and German cities. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to radiation sickness for immediate survivors and birth defects for later generations.

Our ally, Stalin, went on to murder many more millions than even Hitler, after we handed him half of Europe along with all those POWs who had to be tranquilized because they didn’t want to go back. China was eventually communized by Mao, who made even Stalin look like a piker in terms of mass-murder.

Over 100,000 Japanese Americans were imprisoned in “concentration camps” (FDR’s words) for the crime of being Japanese. Many were robbed of their private property. Dissenters against the war were labelled as Nazi sympathizers and some were even put on trial before kangaroo courts. Income tax witholding was introduced to pay for the war and never repealed, making it easier fo the U.S. government to plunder working Americans.

I could go on. Needless to say, I don’t see these outcomes as “compassionate.” If the justification for U.S. involvement overseas is to stop mass-killing and enslavement, then why are both the means and the ends just more mass-killing and enslavement? Or are some lives worth more than others?

I already answered that. You’re not reading my posts.

Robert:”None of this negates the atrocities committed by the Japanese state…”

It doesn’t stop them either. I really have a hard time with the morals of people who have no compassion for others. You obviously couldn’t care less how many people Hitler and Hirohito murdered, enslaved, and raped, as long as it didn’t happen to you personally.

Are you even bothering to read my posts? This is from the post you replied to:

“None of this negates the atrocities committed by the Japanese state, just as those atrocities don’t justify the crimes of the American state, including those directed against its own people, during that war.”

The circumstances of those interventions were drastically different. What wasn’t different was that they all led to blowback and were all detrimental to Americans’ lives and liberties.

Now, why don’t you explain why there has been no 9/11 in Switzerland, Mexico and all the other countries that are just as free/culturally decadent as the U.S. but refrain from meddling in the Middle East?

Roger: “You write like an anarchist …”

I suppose George Washington was also an anarchist?

RogerM: “Please inform me of any policy that could accomplish either one. Isolationism wouldn’t come close to instantiating either one.”

I never said it would. But noninterventionism (not “isolationism”) would at least keep the U.S. at peace.

RogerM: “What’s wrong with stopping a madman from murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents?”

There was nothing wrong with Ron Paul and others trying to stop Bush from invading Iraq. Since we’re in agreement, I fully expect you will oppose the planned attack, by the same madman, against Iran.

We will continue to remind people like you of 1939 until you learn the very simple lessons that history should teach you.

Robert: “The Japanese DID attack the U.S. as a result of our interventionist foreign policy: our embargo against them, FDR’s illegal funding of the Flying Tigers in China and other hostile acts by the U.S. government.”

So let me get this straight: the US funded the Flying Tigers and placed embargoed trade with Japan for no reason whatsoever. The Japanese were minding their own business when the US suddenly decided to bully them. Or did you forget that the Flying Tigers and the embargoes were our response to Japan’s invasions of Korea and China, during which they murdered and raped with impunity? Ever read “The Rape of Nanking”?

Have the US military call in a few airstrikes on German, Japanese, Vietnamese and Korean villages and let me know what happens. The analogy is inapt. However, do you know US servicemen in Okinawa and in Japan are advised to stay close to their bases on Hiroshima day?

Why do you give government a free pass on foreign policy given that it operates under the same perverse incentives as domestic policy? And if Islamic jihadists are such a big threat, why do we buy Middle East oil and sell them UST’s? Why do we keep our borders open? Not even the Bush administration believes such overheated rhetoric.

You side-stepped my question: why aren’t the Japanese, Germans, Koreans and Vietnamese attacking the US as jihadis are? After all, we killed far more of them than we have ever dreamed of killing jihadis.

Robert: “A government can not protect the lives, liberties and property of the governed while simultaneously plundering the governed, suppressing their freedoms and sending them off to die every time there is a war going on overseas.”

Obviously you oppose US intervention overseas because you oppose intervention for any reason under any circumstances. You write like an anarchist who thinks all government is evil, so anything a government does is evil. Why not just admit that and give up on trying to show some kind of cause/effect relationship with US foreign policy?

Robert: “And since U.S. intervention DOES NOT result in lasting peace and DOES NOT bring goodness into the hearts of all foreigners…”

That’s a pretty tall hurdle to overcome. Lasting peace? Are you kidding? “Bring goodnes into the hearts of all foreigners.” Are you serious? Please inform me of any policy that could accomplish either one. Isolationism wouldn’t come close to instantiating either one. US foreign policy has always been less ambitious than that. What’s wrong with stopping a madman from murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents?

It’s always 1939 for Bush supporters, isn’t it? Try moving on because your analogy is flawed. No country has ever invaded the territory of a nuclear-armed state. Israel has nukes. Not surprisingly, Iran wants them too so it can avoid ending up like Iraq.

RogerM: “What if they can’t defend themselves? As Kuwait couldn’t, or Czechoslovakia and Poland?”

You forgot to include Iraq. See my point above about nukes as a deterrent (Israel has them). Regardless, the U.S. Constitution allows the government to provide for the common defense of the United States, not “the common defense of all the countries Roger likes.”

A government can not protect the lives, liberties and property of the governed while simultaneously plundering the governed, suppressing their freedoms and sending them off to die every time there is a war going on overseas. The latter function makes a joke of the former and implies the existence of a ruling elite entitled to dispose of its subjects as property in wars of its choosing.

“You’re avoiding my point, which was that all the evil in the world today is not caused by US foreign policy.”

I already responded to this point. Yes, wars and evil will always exist in this world, regardless of whether the U.S. participates in these things or not. And since U.S. intervention DOES NOT result in lasting peace and DOES NOT bring goodness into the hearts of all foreigners, but DOES harm the lives and liberties of Americans in direct contravention of the purpose of government, it makes no sense whatsoever to meddle in foreign conflicts. Is that clear enough?

“If you think US foreign policy has caused muslims to attack the US, then please explain why the Japanese, Germans, Koreans and Vietnamese aren’t doing the same.”

The Japanese DID attack the U.S. as a result of our interventionist foreign policy: our embargo against them, FDR’s illegal funding of the Flying Tigers in China and other hostile acts by the U.S. government. In fact, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a deliberately sought-after manifestation of “blowback” that allowed the lying Roosevelt to drag America into WWII. None of this negates the atrocities committed by the Japanese state, just as those atrocities don’t justify the crimes of the American state, including those directed against its own people, during that war.

Ditto for the Germans, who declared war on the U.S. shortly after Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt made America a belligerent on the side of the British long before December 7.

The fact that individuals then did not come here and engage in suicide terrorism does not negate my point. Those were wars between states. The U.S. is (but not for long) the only superpower and no conventional military can challenge its dominance. In addition, many Muslims rightly view their governments as U.S. puppets.

Either way, the end result is blowback: Americans dying, growth of government, loss of liberty and prosperity.

Ever notice how so many of today’s problems are the result of yesterday’s government solutions? That’s the blind spot in your libertarianism. Intervention begets intervention, with the government using each new crisis to justify its expansion. Muslim terrorism was not a problem for the US until we decided to cast our lot with Israel in its eternal dispute with other Semites over too little land.

You should change your name to Chamberlain.

Robert:”If the Israelis feel genuinely threatened by Iran, it is incumbent upon them, not the U.S. government, to deal with the problem.”

What if they can’t defend themselves? As Kuwait couldn’t, or Czechoslovakia and Poland?

Robert: “If wars break out regardless of whether or not the U.S. government gets involved, that is hardly an argument for it to drag the American people into foreign conflicts.”

You’re avoiding my point, which was that all the evil in the world today is not caused by US foreign policy. If the US tried to isolate itself for a few years, as you suggested, not much would change, as history demonstrates. If you think US foreign policy has caused muslims to attack the US, then please explain why the Japanese, Germans, Koreans and Vietnamese aren’t doing the same.

Yes, and how many Americans died in those wars? How many liberties did Americans lose because of them? And how much wealth was confiscated from Americans as a result?

If wars break out regardless of whether or not the U.S. government gets involved, that is hardly an argument for it to drag the American people into foreign conflicts.

The classical liberal tradition respects the limitations of what government — aka force — can accomplish in this world. Clearly, and despite all the promises, our involvement in foreign wars has never brought about lasting peace.

Attempts to eradicate evil from the world by bombing and shooting people are just as doomed to failure as attempts to eradicate poverty by subsidizing it through legalized robbery. The burden should fall on the interventionists to explain why, if there are going to be wars anyway, Americans should join the killing and dying.

RogerM: “Should we allow Iran to use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and murder millions of Jews? Stopping them would require a pre-emptive strike that might kill millions of Iranians.

Think about what you’re saying. We should kill MILLIONS of innocent people to prevent something that MIGHT happen but is historically unprecedented and highly unlikely (only the U.S. has ever used nukes against an enemy and even that was during wartime). Do you see the insanity in this?

Also, what rational or moral argument can be advanced in favor of millions of dead Iranians as opposed to millions of dead Israelis? Is not every innocent life of equal worth, regardless of the perceived goodness or badness of the ruling classes that start all wars? Why should Americans partake in the unqualified evil of mass murder? What values are we defending in doing so?

Finally, do you honestly believe an Iranian holocaust would be the end of Israel’s problems or the beginning of something far worse?

For what it’s worth, I don’t see a conflict between Iran and Israel as being inevitable, the chest-thumping of Iranian leaders aside. I might remind you that our own politicans have publicly threatened, by way of refusing to rule it out, a nuclear strike against Iran.

If the Iranians were truly suicidal, they could cause plenty of damage right now with conventional weapons. Let’s not fall for the state’s tactic of demonizing its enemies as irrational savages.

RogerM: “And if we sacrifice Israel for our own comfort, who will we have to sacrifice next? Sounds very similar to sacrificing the Czechs to Hitler, doesn’t it?”

We, meaning the American people, are not in a position to sacrifice the Israelis. Nor did we sacrifice the Czechs to Hitler. Their lives were never ours to give.

The principle, and only defensible, justification for the existence of government is defense. If the government cannot defend its people it does not deserve their support.

If the Israelis feel genuinely threatened by Iran, it is incumbent upon them, not the U.S. government, to deal with the problem. And if individual Americans wish to donate their own blood and treasure to such a venture, let them not drag the rest of us along.

Niall Ferguson, history prof at Harvard, has a new book called “War of the World” in which he states that both WWI and WWII were caused by growing protectionism. Both Japan and Germany were highly industrial nations who depended upon exporting manufactured goods and importing food. As their trading partners increasingly blocked their exports of manufactured goods, the US included, Japan and Germany feared that their people would starve because they couldn’t produce enough food on their own. So both Japan and Germany decided the only was to survive was to capture good farmland to feed their people. In Germany, the policy was called lebensraum, or living room.

If you believe that sending troops overseas for any reason whatsoever is unjust and immoral, regardless of the cause, then I can’t argue with that. But if like normal people you weigh the justness of the cause, then some of our ventures could be deemed just, some unjust.

Robert:”Of course, the US is not the only player in these crimes but it should not be a player at all.”

What would happen if the US decided not intervene anywhere in the world for the next generation? Well, we can look to history for come clues. Until the Spanish American War, we stayed at home. Were there any wars in the world until then? I can think of a few in Europe. The US was isolationist in the extreme between WWI and WWII. Did that bring world peace? The world is too much interconnected for any nation to think it can quarantine itself from the diseases of humanity.

What do you think about Iran? Every leader since the 1979 revolution has promised to destroy Israel and Iran will have that capability within 5-10 years. Several leaders have publicly stated that Iranians wouldn’t care if the US or Israel destroyed Iran, too, as long as they could destroy Israel because there would be plenty of muslims left, but no Israelis. Israelis are pretty confident they can’t defeat a nuclear armed Iran. Should we allow Iran to use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and murder millions of Jews? Stopping them would require a pre-emptive strike that might kill millions of Iranians. A lot of people would answer yes, allow Iran to nuke Israel because it’s none of our business. Others of us wonder if failing to prevent such a crime, when we have the ability, doesn’t make us partners in the crime. And if we sacrifice Israel for our own comfort, who will we have to sacrifice next? Sounds very similar to sacrificing the Czechs to Hitler, doesn’t it?

Apparently, you missed this from my previous post:

“Of course, the US is not the only player in these crimes but it should not be a player at all.”

No, we didn’t start WWI and WWII, although our involvement in WWI almost certainly precipitated the rise of Hitler in Germany.

And in both wars, the president promised to keep us out while secretly scheming to draw us into hostilities. Nonintervention was as wise a course then as it is now.

But keep calling me a “leftist.” I suppose you are also unaware that it was “leftists” — communist agents, to be precise — who had infiltrated the Roosevelt administration and influenced government policy.

Chodorov was right. Many of the people who are quick to denounce communism actually advocate communism themselves, when it suits them.