Tim insists that I link to this article about the cost of the US involvement in Iraq. Surprise, surprise, "reconstruction" is costing a fortune. Probably the biggest cost of the war is the cost in increased oil prices (no �blood for oil,� eh?) Since there has been some misunderstanding about my stance on Iraq, let me clear things up.
ATTN: World
Re: �Iraqi Reconstruction�
I adamantly oppose the reconstruction of any oil refinery, factory, or even one golf shack with money taken from me without my consent. Furthermore, I oppose any �peacekeeping� or policing efforts in any foreign country, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo. What I oppose even more than the above however, is die-happy fundamentalist terrorists blowing up my countrymen and putting my life in danger. This is why I support the US military taking whatever steps to kill those bastards as fast and as efficiently as possible, while risking the lives of American soldiers as little as possible. The best way to do this would have been to take out the two governments that are the most active in supporting terrorism around the world: Iran and North Korea. Having failed to do that, Iraq is better than nothing. This involves taking out the Iraqi government by whatever means necessary. What the Iraqis decide to replace Saddam with is not my concern, though I doubt that any semblance of a democracy is possible.
Whew, for a moment there I thought you supported the State.
Posted by: Tim Swanson at August 25, 2003 11:38 PM"I adamantly oppose the reconstruction of any oil refinery, factory, or even one golf shack with money taken from me without my consent."
What if I oppose money taken from me to fund a military intervention to rid the world of those "motherfuckers"? You are utilizing collectivism to justify such actions as removing a threat to _America_" or destroying "terrorism." By collectively blaming the _states_ of Iran and North Korea, you suffer from the very problem you attempt to avoid. These societies -- whom you clearly _collectively_ blame for terrorism -- are the same societies whom Ayn Rand claimed cannot be labelled as things that act or have values. In fact, she maintained that it was only _individuals_ that are responsible, have values and use reason. How then can "Iran" or "North Korea" deserve the plight of US nukes or military intervention? Would that not be collectivism in action?
If you so whole-heartedly believe that stolen tax-money shouldn't be used for reconstruction, how do you differentiate between "removing a dictator" and "nation-building"? I suspect that you believe that Saddam was a "threat." To whom? "America"? --Collectivism! "Democracy"? Collectivism!!! You _cannot_, I repeat, _cannot_ avoid collectivism while supporting tax-funded State actions. Therefore, individualists much shun all State actions.
Posted by: Mike at August 26, 2003 12:31 AMI think you have to consider this as an investment just as we invested in Japan. Not only did it provide better security so that you don't have the "welcome the new boss, same as the old boss" effect in another terrorist-supporting regime that you have to wipe out later on, but a valuable trading partner in the future.
Posted by: at August 26, 2003 04:48 PM"I think you have to consider this as an investment just as we invested in Japan. Not only did it provide better security so that you don't have the "welcome the new boss, same as the old boss" effect in another terrorist-supporting regime that you have to wipe out later on, but a valuable trading partner in the future."
Pure Collectivism.
Feel free to do what you want, but please don't do something "for my own good" that I have not asked for.
And Japan turned out to be a great puppet, why can't everyone think like "us"?!?
Additionally, you really haven't changed anything -- just like the individuals that clamor for "regime change at home" all you effectively did was replace one State with another, the State still exists and it still aggresses.
Posted by: Tim Swanson at August 26, 2003 11:19 PM