Back when I began this blog, I supported going to war in Iraq, all the way up to the initiation of hostilities. I did this on several grounds. Here they are in order of importance:
I once described myself (on a my much lesser personal website) as "a screwy mix of Republican/Democrat and Libertarian/Green Parties! You never know where I'll lean!" That was the initial realization that I couldn't identify with any major political party and that if questioned on only one or two issues, I could come off as just about anything. I realize now that "screwy mix" was due to two things: the misunderstanding of what those parties actually stand for and an inability to logically apply what I considered to be axiomatically true to human action.
These days, when taking yes/no stances on most issues, my political alignment would be indistinguishable from libertarianism. As I ventured further into the blog world, I discovered other bloggers and writers who I'd normally agree with on domestic economic and social issues taking stances that contradicted what I believed to be the correct course of action towards other countries. This was the problem. Was I to be an interventionist libertarian or an isolationist libertarian? By default, I was the former. It took me two years to realize I wasn't asking the proper question. But even before then, I began to question the US government's actions and plans.
The proper question I should have asked is why should others be forced to pay for what I want to happen to other people and other governments? I find myself talking about the injustice of socialized healthcare and the socialized education often; it came to be that I realized I was contradicting myself if I held those positions and turned around to say a government and it's objectives should be supported by taxation.
I supported the intended outcomes of Gulf War II. I wanted a safer, freer world. I still do. But the means by which I advocated that to happen are anything but. Ends do not justify means.
So, on this first anniversary of the second American-Iraq War, I choose to formally drop my support of continued foreign occupation and intervention. In my opinion, the only just thing to do at this point is to do what should have been done in the first place: let the Iraqis choose their own destinies and decide if they want freedom, limited government, social democracy, religious tyranny, or any of the options among them. Questions of Iraq supporting international terrorists, WMD, or regional liberty don't necessitate my attention because I am concerned with myself and my freedom first and I don't want to impose on the liberty of others in order to fight the battles that rightly belong to the parties actually injured.
In abstract, it's entirely possible a terrorist would delight in killing or harming myself or the things I value. I don't discount that from occurring. But I shouldn't have to pay for the retribution or protection of others and I demand no such favors in return. Such a stance implies anarcho-capitalism and that does not bother me.
What bothers me is an ever-increasing state apparatus and ever-decreasing degree of personal freedom.
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
I've found myself in a similar situation. I think defense is the least morally abhorrent reason for extorting money from people, but still is a problem. Problem is, my foreign-policy stance is more jingoistically inclined that most. Someone's running a disgusting dictatorship? "Fuckers need to DIE. By which I mean be overthrown and imprisoned." I like liberty being extended, but I can't support it if it's supported by taxes - it's only supportable IN RELATION to, say, spending money on either social security, or freedom-fighting.
Lately, I've been having trouble with the idea of any government at all. I'm considering posting on my blog about it a little more completely, but isn't advocating even a limited government to protect man's rights essentially just pragmatism? And if so, what makes other forms of pragmatism, such as taxing, wrong?
Posted by: Erik on March 21, 2004 12:09 AM"Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But this must happen in such a way that no one becomes aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand, to be produced immediately."
-- Nicolo Machiavelli
First off, I’d like to say that this is not defined as an absence of war. It is the presence of liberty, stability, and prosperity. In the face of the enemy. Don't buy into the pessimism and apathy that says, ""It's hopeless,"" ""They hate us too much,"" ""That part of the men and women serving here in Iraq the enemy wherever you are.
You are a mighty force for good, because truth is on your side. Together we will ultimately fail. That is why I am asking for your support. Become a voice of truth in your community. Wherever you are fight the lies of the men and women serving here in Iraq the enemy wherever you are.
You are the soldiers at home fighting the war of perception with the media and American people. Our enemy has learned that the people in the highest regard. We love to criticize ourselves almost to an endless degree, because we care what others think.
Our enemies see this as a weakness and are trying to exploit it. When we ask ourselves questions like, ""Why do the Japanese hate us so much?"" or ""How can we change ourselves so that they won't do that again?""
Here in Iraq would be a goldmine. When our so-called ""trusted"" American media takes a quote from an Iraqi doctor as the gospel truth over that of the horrendous tyranny of the world will let us!
If the American Revolution was all about. Have we forgotten? Freedom is not peace. The peace that so-called ""peace advocates"" support can only be brought to Iraq through the military. And we are making the whole world safer.
Your efforts at home and abroad. We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the world will let us! If the American people believe we are playing into our enemies' hands. Our natural tendency to question ourselves is being used against us to undermine our effort to do good in the world. How far would we have to remember is that peace is not peace.
The peace that so-called ""peace advocates"" support can only be brought to Iraq through the military. And we are doing a tremendous amount of good. Spread the word. No one is poised to make such an amazing contribution to the detriment of our brave heroes fighting for liberty and peace.
What we have to remember is that peace is not free and ""peace"" without principle is not peace. The peace that so-called ""peace advocates"" support can only be brought to Iraq through the military.
And we are failing, even if we are making the whole world safer. Your efforts at home and abroad.
We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the enemy is trying very hard to portray our efforts over here, you can refute them by knowing that we are failing, even if we are making the whole world safer.
Your efforts at home are directly tied to our success. You are the soldiers at home and abroad.
We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the people back home will lose the will of the enemy.
Don't buy into the pessimism and apathy that says, ""It's hopeless,"" ""They hate us so much?"" or
""How can we change ourselves so that they won't do that again?""
Semper Fi,
1st Lt. Mark V. Shaney USMC
Baghdad, Iraq
Lt. Shaney, if there is a coherent position within that mess of words, I have yet to find it. If you wouldn't mind, please comment again and with more clarity and less repetition.
Posted by: Drizz on June 30, 2004 12:25 PM