Martin Radwin

Is that what Ron Paul and his rabid followers want? BTW, very perceptive of the writer to characterize Paul's Republican opponents as "pro-war." We thought we had fooled you guys into thinking that we believed in America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us. In truth, of course, we just love killing people. No, "we" do not love killing people. At least, I certainly don't. In fact, I find the killing of innocent people to be morally abhorrent. You don't seem to mind killing people, as long as they belong to groups that you consider to be of no value, such as Iraqis, Iranians, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghanis, or Libyans, as long as you don't have to do the actual killing yourself. At least, this is the implication of the fact that I've never yet seen you morally condemn any of the killings of people from these countries by the U.S. government. As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were. Martin

So, Ron Paul has the honesty to admit what he and pretty much anyone else who understands the rigged political system in this country understands -- that he has no chance whatever of becoming the next president. As opposed to the rest of the pack of lying, sniveling candidates, who would never admit such a basic truth, who would go on insisting that they can win the nomination and subsequent election, right up until the moment when they are finally forced to concede defeat. Politicians at this level are pretty much all a bunch of professional, sociopathic liars. The fact that Ron Paul has the honesty to speak the truth about his own candidacy in a field dominated by professional liars who will say or do anything to improve their polling numbers is a wonderfully refreshing departure from political campaigning as usual and is deserving of respect. Martin

Jerry: Of course you are correct. He is not an Objectivist. He is, in this rather incredible nexus of history, a serious contender for the nomination. He is brilliant. He is a leader. He is also a political pragmatist who is a strong conservative. He is not a "principled idealougue" like Dr. Paul. He has been on different sides of certain issues depending on the temper of the moment. He is also someone who knows how to get a deal done in Washington and in Congress. Most importantly, he is a lot closer to espousing a free economic model than the marxist in the White House. Now, if it is a choice between Newt and O'biwan, to me, it is a no brainer. Not voting or voting third party is not an option this time, at least for me. Anyone but Mitt and anyone but O'biwan which means Mitt. It is that simple. However, I fully respect anyone choosing not to vote, voting third party, or writing in Dr. Paul's name. Adam Post Script: Martin, I am fully aware that Newt is reprehensible to you, as I am sure O'bama is. However, to deny his intelligence is just inaccurate. Obama was also thought to be highly intelligent, being a professor of constitutional law at an ivy league university, especially as contrasted with the language-challenged idiot who preceded him. Whether Obama is actually intelligent or not, he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents of the last hundred years. He is a murderous war criminal who is doing everything he can to accelerate the degeneration of the U.S. into a militarized police state. Intelligence in the hands of a murderous sociopath is most likely not a good thing. And, make no mistake about it, every one of the republican presidential candidates is a sociopath, with the exception of Ron Paul. Naturally, as a result, Ron Paul was the object of a vicious attack by TAS, which considers an actual advocate of stopping the slaughter abroad and ending the wars and occupations to be far more dangerous than any of the sociopaths who advocate endless war forever. The office of president of the United States is the most powerful position in the entire world, a position which grants the recipient the power of life or death over billions of people around the entire planet. No psychologically normal person would ever seek such power. The lure of such ultimate power is guaranteed to attract noone but power-lusting sociopaths. We are heading for a presidential dictatorship, and none of the presidential candidates seems particularly interested in stopping this, being as they would get to be the dictator. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/29/setting-the-trap/ "Buried in the annual defense appropriations bill is a provision that would give the President the power to use the military to intern anyone – including American citizens – indefinitely, and hold them without charges or trial, anywhere in the world, including on American soil. The provision essentially repeals the longstanding Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the military from engaging in law enforcement on US territory – the greatest fear of the Founders. Approved by a Senate subcommittee in secret hearings, the provisions open the road to a military dictatorship in this country – and for that we can thank Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, who introduced the measure. Both the FBI and the Pentagon came out against the Levin-McCain monstrosity, and Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) introduced an amendment striking the provision: the amendment was defeated in the Senate, 37-61." Does it give you any comfort, imagining that Newt Gingrich rather than Barack Obama will have the power to lock up anyone indefinitely, without charges or trial, forever? Is this the kind of choice that should provide inspiration for objectivists? Does the idea that Gingrich will be a really intelligent presidential dictator make you feel any better? Martin

Jerry: I do not watch much TV at all, and although Sean is a nice guy, he has gotten completely tedious and predictable, so I am not surprised by what you report. As to Newt's baggage, if it is not [gagging] Romney as the nominee, can be turned into a plus. For example, I think that folks are scared enough that all the baggage talk will not stick. Newt will be sold as this country's Winston Churchill. A flawed man who has risen to meet this crisis in history. His intellect is beyond reproach. He has been lecturing at the War College for some twenty years and they do not invite you back there because of your good looks which he does not have. His answers on Iran in that last debate were clear, concise and made rational sense. All delivered in about two (2) minutes. Compare that to Romney's answer which was we should indict Akmadenijad for genocide...really? Mitt has absolutely no hands on, first person knowlege of a coherent foreign policy. Mitt is a manager. Gingrich is a leader and a brilliant man. Adam A leader and a brilliant man? When a crooked, lieing, slimy bastard like Gingrich is held up as a paragon of intelligence and leadership, all under the aegis of objectivism, perhaps it's time to put a fork in modern day objectivism. It's dead. http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2011/11/21/newt-gingrich-2/ Martin

Mike, Have Durk and Sandy ever responded to these reports that large doses of multivitamins have not fared well in this and other studies? Martin

NOTE FROM MSK: I peeled this pearl of wisdom from another discussion. This is your argument against anarcho-capitalism? That a bunch of criminals set free on a desert island would not be very likely to form an anarcho-capitalist society? Well, you're probably right about that. Of course, they also would not be very likely to form a society with a limited government, or a society in which individual rights were respected, rather than a society based on predation. Congratulations! You've just proven not only that anarcho-capitalism is contra human nature, but that limited government, individual rights, free trade, and a peaceful society without violent predation are also contra human nature. All of these things are clearly incompatible with the reptilian side of the human brain that you have been discussing so frequently on this thread. So you might as well abandon your belief in limited government, individual rights, free trade, and peaceful coexistence among people. Which is to say, you might as well abandon objectivism in total, since it's obviously contra human nature. You can start by closing down "Objectivist Living". Martin

Labeling this as altruism is ridiculous. Of course the wars are going to be sold to Americans as doing good for whatever part of the world the war is being fought. What else is the government supposed to say? That they are starting a new war to expand the empire, create new U.S. military bases, and enrich their friends in the military-industrial complex? Every war the U.S. has ever fought has been justified with a pack of lies. The government never admits its true motives in starting any war, since to do so would immediately bring about fervent opposition by Americans, not to mention that it would make the military have a really hard time recruiting cannon fodder for its wars if the young men and women who volunteered for military service knew just what they were fighting for. What matters are not the lies told by the government to justify the wars, but the actual truth behind the wars. And the truth is that there is absolutely nothing altruistic about the motives or the actual results of any of the wars fought by the U.S. government. I can't imagine any of the Iraqis or Pakistanis or Afghanis or Yemenis, with bombs falling over their heads and killing their famiies and friends, thinking to themselves, "Those Americans sure are a bunch of altruists!" Martin

Adam, Like George, I've also lost count. Obama is a murderous war criminal and sociopath. But then again, so was his predecessor, GWB, so was his opponent for the democratic nomination, Hilary Clinton, so was his opponent for the presidential election, McCain, and so is every one of the existing republican presidential candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul. This is the choice we are given. During the presidential debates, there will be no debate at all about the continuation of U.S. foreign policy. Ending the wars and bringing home the troops is not even "on the table" for discussion. Ron Paul is the only candidate who even brings this up, and he is thus labeled as the fringe candidate of the group. TAS wrote a lead article viciously attacking Paul for daring to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. government should end the wars and stop murdering innocent people abroad. Michael has decided to reject his arguments because they are political propoganda, even though he never seemed to be bothered by the political propoganda of Glen Beck. It's kind of ironic the extent to whcih so many republicans hate Obama so much, given that Obama has followed pretty much every policy of his predecessor and in many cases escalated these policies to new heights of evil, from promising to close Guantanamo Bay and then breaking this promise, to continuing the occupation of Iraq, to escalating the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, to escalating the use of drone attacks in Pakistan, to starting a new war in Libya, and now this latest BS in Uganda. Obama has also stepped up immigration enforcement, deporting far more illegal immigrants than Bush ever did, a policy that is generally enthusiastically supported by republicans. He has escalated the drug war in Mexico, leading to dramatically increasing levels of carnage in Mexico, as tens of thousands of Mexicans have been killed in the cross fire in just the last four years. And Obama has completely lied about medical marijuana enforcement by the DEA, something he promised federal laws would not be enforced in the clubs that were in compliance with state laws and something which the DEA is now enforcing even against clubs that are completely in compliance with state law. Obama has proven himself to be an even more loathsome, despicable dictator than Bush, something that most of his supporters would not have believed possible. I regret that there was ever a time in the past when I actually was a financial supporter of TAS. Right now, I'd rather take my money and flush it down the toilet than contribute a penny to either ARI or TAS. As long as either of these organizations are supporting existing U.S. foreign policy and providing moral justifications for the continuing murderous wars fought abroad, they are undeserving of any financial support and unfit to exist. Martin

>Excuse me, but where did you get the idea that the USA has profited from involvement abroad? >It is the same old "it's for the oil" argument. So show us the oil - perhaps 'looted' from Iraq, for instance. You are using "USA" as a collective, as though it is a single collective entity with a single self-interest. The "USA" consists of a national government, multiple state and local governments, and several hundred million individuals. There is no necessary commonality between the government and the individuals living under its rule. Most Americans have suffered greatly as a result of the U.S. government's involvement abroad. In addition to the thousands of soldiers who have fought in these cruel and stupid wars, some who have paid the ultimate price for absolutely nothing, these wars will end of costing Americans trillions of dollars. They have already been a huge contributing factor toward devastating the U.S. economy. So, in response to your first point above, most Americans have not profited at all from our involvement abroad; instead, they have suffered major and sometimes catastrophic losses. The government, on the other hand, has profited enormously from these wars. It has helped the government to expand its powers both internationally and domestically, and has provided its justification for slowly transforming the U.S. into a militarized police state. That may be a bad thing for us, but if you're a government official who wishes to greatly expand the power of government and to get Americans to submit to its authoritarian rule, it's a very good thing indeed. The many "defense" contractors have also profited handsomely from these wars. They are getting rich. The rest of us are paying. Regarding your frequently repeated argument against the "no war for oil" thesis, this has been refuted many times. The purpose of these wars has not been to actually steal the oil directly, which would be quite impossible. Instead, it is to set up new military bases in the middle east so as to establish military control over the oil producing regions. It is all about expanding the U.S. empire. Once a U.S. military presence is established in an area, it almost never goes away. We still have troops stationed in Japan and Germany, 66 years after the end of WW2. We still have troops stationed in South Korea, years after the end of the Korean War. Like all government programs, once established, they are almost impossible to get rid of. >Nope, the US has - largely - been a victim of its "I am my brother's keeper" mindset. This whole idea that the U.S. government is fighting all of these wars out of an altruistic desire to help other countries at our own expense is ridiculous. These wars are all about extending U.S. government hegemony over all of the regions where the wars are being fought, even as these wars have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. >And yes - it would be "so bad". Actions should be initiated by principle, not forced by "economic decline." Actually, it would be good, both for us and for the rest of the world, and especially for the many countries who are suffering mayhem, death, and destruction at the hands of the U.S. government and its endless bombing campaigns. And yes, it would be better if the withdrawal were done based on a principled rejection of violence and the murdering of innocent people. But if it's done due to our impending economic decline, it will still be a good thing anyway. Martin

Brant, I agree with you about the natural moral self-righteousness that has long been a part of American culture. This American exceptionalism, the idea that the U.S. is morally superior to the rest of the world and has the right to dictate to the rest of the world how it should live, is really now a fundamental moral justification for U.S. foreign policy. And I think you're right that nothing is likely to reverse this trend other than America's economic decline, which will at some point just make it impossible for the U.S. government to afford to continue spending a trillion dollars a year on its military and fighting six different wars at the same time. Regarding your statement that "My personal objection to interventionism is the stupid people do it", do you really think that U.S. government interventionism in the affairs of other nations could actually produce good results if only done by really smart people? To me, this is analogous to the idea that, if only the government were run by really smart people, it could do a good job running the domestic economy. How is it that objectivists or objectivist sympathizers, who believe in an absolutely laissez faire market system with no government intervention into the domestic economy, so often believe that this same government is somehow competent to run the affairs of the rest of the world? To me, the exact opposite is true. The government is even less capable of intervening in foreign countries than in intervening in the domestic economy. If it's not capable of running this country's medical care system, it's certainly even less capable of reorganizing Afghani society according to its wishes. Foreign policy decisions made by government are generally even more irrational and destructive than its domestic policy decisions. Martin

Below is a list of wars and military engagements by the U.S. since the end of WW2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations 1945–1949 1945 – China. In October 50,000 US Marines were sent to North China to assist Chinese Nationalist authorities in disarming and repatriating the Japanese in China and in controlling ports, railroads, and airfields. This was in addition to approximately 60,000 US forces remaining in China at the end of World War II.[RL30172] 1945–49 – Occupation of part of Germany. 1945–55 – Occupation of part of Austria. 1945–46 – Occupation of part of Italy.[citation needed] 1945–52 – Occupation of Japan. 1944–46 – Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines during World War II and in preparation for previously scheduled independence.[citation needed] 1945–47 – US Marines garrisoned in mainland China to oversee the removal of Soviet and Japanese forces after World War II.[3] 1945–49 – Post World War II occupation of South Korea; North Korean insurgency in Republic of Korea[4] 1946 – Trieste (Italy). President Truman ordered the increase of US troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed US Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia..[citation needed] Earlier US naval units had been sent to the scene.[RL30172] Later the Free Territory of Trieste, Zone A. 1947 - Greece. US Marines land in Athens and assist in the re-establishment of monarchy and the arrest of Greek Communists. 1948 – Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the US Consul General.[RL30172] 1948 – Berlin. Berlin Airlift After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the US, British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.[RL30172] 1948–49 – China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans.[RL30172] [edit] 1950–1959 1950–53 – Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. US forces deployed in Korea exceeded 300,000 during the last year of the conflict. Over 36,600 US military were killed in action.[RL30172] 1950–55 – Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the US Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.[RL30172] 1954–55 – China. Naval units evacuated US civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.[RL30172] 1955–64 – Vietnam. First military advisors sent to Vietnam on 12 Feb 1955. By 1964, US troop levels had grown to 21,000. On 7 August 1964, US Congress approved Gulf of Tonkin resolution affirming "All necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States. . .to prevent further aggression. . . (and) assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty (SEATO) requesting assistance. . ."[Vietnam timeline] 1956 – Egypt. A marine battalion evacuated US nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.[RL30172] 1958 – Lebanon. Lebanon crisis of 1958 Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of President Camille Chamoun to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside. The President's action was supported by a Congressional resolution passed in 1957 that authorized such actions in that area of the world.[RL30172] 1959 - Haiti — The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes", who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign.[citation needed] 1959–60 – The Caribbean. Second Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect US nationals following the Cuban revolution.[RL30172] 1959–75 – Vietnam War. US military advisers had been in South Vietnam for a decade, and their numbers had been increased as the military position of the Saigon government became weaker. After citing what he termed were attacks on US destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf, President Johnson asked in August 1964 for a resolution expressing US determination to support freedom and protect peace in Southeast Asia. Congress responded with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, expressing support for "all necessary measures" the President might take to repel armed attacks against US forces and prevent further aggression. Following this resolution, and following a Communist attack on a US installation in central Vietnam, the United States escalated its participation in the war to a peak of 543,000 military personnel by April 1969.[RL30172][not in citation given] [edit] 1960–1969 1962 – Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by July 30, the 5,000 marines had been withdrawn.[RL30172] 1962 – Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis On October 22, President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about US nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.[RL30172] 1962–75 – Laos. From October 1962 until 1975, the United States played an important role in military support of anti-Communist forces in Laos.[RL30172] 1964 – Congo (Zaire). The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.[RL30172] 1965 – Invasion of Dominican Republic. Operation Power Pack. The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent 20,000 US troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.[RL30172] A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes. 1967 – Israel. The USS Liberty incident, whereupon a United States Navy Technical Research Ship was attacked June 8, 1967 by Israeli armed forces, killing 34 and wounding more than 170 U.S. crew members. 1967 – Congo (Zaire). The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.[RL30172] 1968 – Laos & Cambodia. U.S. starts secret bombing campaign against targets along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the sovereign nations of Cambodia and Laos. The bombings last at least two years. (See Operation Commando Hunt) [edit] 1970–1979 1970 – Cambodian Campaign. Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Norodom Sihanouk de:Norodom Sihanouk, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people. US troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked US and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.[RL30172] 1972 - North Vietnam - Christmas bombing Operation Linebacker II (not mentioned in RL30172, but an operation leading to peace negotiations). The operation was conducted from 18–29 December 1972. It was a bombing of the big cities Hanoi and Haiphong by B-52 bombers. The bombing provoked "only" about 1600 casualties due to an evacuation of the big cities Hanoi and Haiphong. 1973 – Operation Nickel Grass, a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. 1974 – Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated US civilians during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.[RL30172] 1975 – Evacuation from Vietnam. Operation Frequent Wind. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported US naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and US nationals from Vietnam.[RL30172] 1975 – Evacuation from Cambodia. Operation Eagle Pull. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reported that he had ordered US military forces to proceed with the planned evacuation of US citizens from Cambodia.[RL30172] 1975 – South Vietnam. On April 30, 1975, President Ford reported that a force of 70 evacuation helicopters and 865 Marines had evacuated about 1,400 US citizens and 5,500 third country nationals and South Vietnamese from landing zones in and around the US Embassy, Saigon and Tan Son Nhut Airport.[RL30172] 1975 – Cambodia. Mayagüez Incident. On May 15, 1975, President Ford reported he had ordered military forces to retake the SS Mayagüez, a merchant vessel which was seized from Cambodian naval patrol boats in international waters and forced to proceed to a nearby island.[RL30172] 1976 – Lebanon. On July 22 and 23, 1976, helicopters from five US naval vessels evacuated approximately 250 Americans and Europeans from Lebanon during fighting between Lebanese factions after an overland convoy evacuation had been blocked by hostilities.[RL30172] 1976 – Korea. Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American soldiers were killed by North Korean soldiers in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea while cutting down a tree.[RL30172] 1978 – Zaire (Congo). From May 19 through June 1978, the United States utilized military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to Belgian and French rescue operations in Zaire.[RL30172] 1979 - Nicaragua — Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. The Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s. [edit] 1980–1989 1980 – Iran. Operation Eagle Claw. On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six U.S. transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran. 1980 - El Salvador — The Archbishop of San Salvador, Óscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D’Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. Death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed. 1981 – El Salvador. After a guerrilla offensive against the government of El Salvador, additional US military advisers were sent to El Salvador, bringing the total to approximately 55, to assist in training government forces in counterinsurgency.[RL30172] 1981 – Libya. First Gulf of Sidra Incident On August 19, 1981, US planes based on the carrier USS Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra after one of the Libyan jets had fired a heat-seeking missile. The United States periodically held freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, claimed by Libya as territorial waters but considered international waters by the United States.[RL30172] 1982 – Sinai. On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. Participation had been authorized by the Multinational Force and Observers Resolution, Public Law 97-132.[RL30172] 1982 – Lebanon. Multinational Force in Lebanon. On August 21, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 800 Marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the Palestine Liberation force from Beirut. The Marines left September 20, 1982.[RL30172] 1982–83 – Lebanon. On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. On September 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the continued participation for eighteen months.[RL30172] 1983 – Egypt. After a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan on March 18, 1983, and Sudan and Egypt appealed for assistance, the United States dispatched an AWACS electronic surveillance plane to Egypt.[RL30172] 1983 – Grenada. Operation Urgent Fury. Citing the increased threat of Soviet and Cuban influence and noting the development of an international airport following a bloodless Grenada coup d'état and alignment with the Soviets and Cuba, the U.S. invades the island nation of Grenada.[RL30172] 1983–89 – Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed US military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.[RL30172] 1983 – Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces.[RL30172] 1984 – Persian Gulf. On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a US AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.[RL30172] 1985 – Italy. On October 10, 1985, US Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking.[RL30172] 1986 – Libya. Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986) On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported on March 24 and 25, US forces, while engaged in freedom of navigation exercises around the Gulf of Sidra, had been attacked by Libyan missiles and the United States had responded with missiles.[RL30172] 1986 – Libya. Operation El Dorado Canyon. On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that U.S. air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in the Libyan capitol of Tripoli, claiming that Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi was responsible for a bomb attack at a German disco that killed two U.S. soldiers.[RL30172] 1986 - Haiti — Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination. 1986 – Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.[RL30172] 1987 – Persian Gulf. USS Stark was struck on May 17 by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi F-1 Mirage during the Iran-Iraq War killing 37 US Navy sailors. 1987 – Persian Gulf. Operation Nimble Archer. Attacks on two Iranian oil platforms in the Persian Gulf by United States Navy forces on October 19. The attack was a response to Iran's October 16, 1987 attack on the MV Sea Isle City, a reflagged Kuwaiti oil tanker at anchor off Kuwait, with a Silkworm missile. 1987–88 – Persian Gulf. Operation Earnest Will - After the Iran-Iraq War (the Tanker War phase) resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased US joint military forces operations in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf to protect them from Iraqi and Iranian attacks. President Reagan reported that US ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 21 (Iran Ajr), October 8, and October 19, 1987 and April 18 (Operation Praying Mantis), July 3, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988.[RL30172] It was the largest naval convoy operation since World War II.[5] 1987–88 – Persian Gulf. Operation Prime Chance was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S. -flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack during the Iran-Iraq War. The operation took place roughly at the same time as Operation Earnest Will. 1988 – Persian Gulf. Operation Praying Mantis was the April 18, 1988 action waged by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship. 1988 – Honduras. Operation Golden Pheasant was an emergency deployment of U.S. troops to Honduras in 1988, as a result of threatening actions by the forces of the (then socialist) Nicaraguans. 1988 – USS Vincennes shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655 1988 – Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as the United States increased pressure on Panamanian head of state General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in the Panama Canal Zone.[RL30172] 1989 – Libya. Second Gulf of Sidra Incident On January 4, 1989, two US Navy F-14 aircraft based on the USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The US pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions.[RL30172] 1989 – Panama. On May 11, 1989, in response to General Noriega's disregard of the results of the Panamanian election, President Bush ordered a brigade-sized force of approximately 1,900 troops to augment the estimated 1,000 U.S. forces already in the area.[RL30172]The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA's payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA's knowledge since 1972. 1989 – Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Andean Initiative in War on Drugs. On September 15, 1989, President Bush announced that military and law enforcement assistance would be sent to help the Andean nations of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru combat illicit drug producers and traffickers. By mid-September there were 50–100 US military advisers in Colombia in connection with transport and training in the use of military equipment, plus seven Special Forces teams of 2–12 persons to train troops in the three countries.[RL30172] 1989 – Philippines. Operation Classic Resolve. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1, Air Force fighters from Clark Air Base in Luzon had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay to protect the United States Embassy in Manila.[RL30172] 1989–90 – Panama. Operation Just Cause. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered US military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.[RL30172] Around 200 Panamanian civilians were reported killed. The Panamanian head of state, General Manuel Noriega, was captured and brought to the U.S. [edit] 1990–1999 1990 – Liberia. On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the US Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.[RL30172] 1990 – Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the US armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.[RL30172] American hostages being held in Iran.[RL30172] 1991 – Persian Gulf War. Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. On January 16, 1991, U.S. forces attacked Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait in conjunction with a coalition of allies and under United Nations Security Council resolutions. Combat operations ended on February 28, 1991.[RL30172] 1991 – Iraq. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.[RL30172] 1991 – Zaire. On September 25–27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Kinshasa. American planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled evacuated American citizens.[RL30172] 1991–96 – Iraq. Operation Provide Comfort. Delivery of humanitarian relief and military protection for Kurds fleeing their homes in northern Iraq, by a small Allied ground force based in Turkey. 1992 – Sierra Leone. Operation Silver Anvil. Following the April 29 coup that overthrew President Joseph Saidu Momoh, a United States European Command (USEUCOM) Joint Special Operations Task Force evacuated 438 people (including 42 third-country nationals) on May 3 .Two Air Mobility Command (AMC) C-141s flew 136 people from Freetown, Sierra Leone, to the Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany and nine C-130 sorties carried another 302 people to Dakar, Senegal.[RL30172] 1992–96 – Bosnia and Herzegovina. Operation Provide Promise was a humanitarian relief operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Yugoslav Wars, from July 2, 1992, to January 9, 1996, which made it the longest running humanitarian airlift in history.[6] 1992 – Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.[RL30172] 1992–2003 – Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces "no fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. (See also Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch) [RL30172] 1992–95 – Somalia. Operation Restore Hope. Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)[RL30172] 1993 – Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.[RL30172] 1994–95 – Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy. U.S. ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.[RL30172] 1994 – Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.[RL30172] 1995 – Bosnia. Operation Deliberate Force. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs.[RL30172] 1996 – Liberia. Operation Assured Response. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered U.S. military forces to evacuate from that country "private U.S. citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy compound...."[RL30172] 1996 – Central African Republic. Operation Quick Response. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private U.S. citizens and certain U.S. government employees", and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."[RL30172] United States Marine Corps elements of Joint Task Force Assured Response, responding in nearby Liberia, provided security to the embassy and evacuated 448 people, including between 190 and 208 Americans. The last Marines left Bangui on June 22. 1997 – Albania. Operation Silver Wake. On March 13, 1997, U.S. military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens from Tirana, Albania.[RL30172] 1997 – Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.[RL30172] 1997 – Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, U.S. military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens.[RL30172] 1997 – Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 U.S. military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations. [RL30172] 1998 – Iraq. Operation Desert Fox. U.S. and British forces conduct a major four-day bombing campaign from December 16–19, 1998 on Iraqi targets.[RL30172] 1998 – Guinea-Bissau. Operation Shepherd Venture. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.[RL30172] 1998–99 – Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. [RL30172] 1998 – Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach. On August 20, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.[RL30172] 1998 – Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia. [1] [RL30172] 1999–2001 - East Timor. Limited number of U.S. military forces deployed with the United Nations-mandated International Force for East Timor restore peace to East Timor.[RL30172] 1999 – Serbia. Operation Allied Force. NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict.[RL30172] [edit] 2000–2009 2000 – Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000 a US Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed.[RL30172] 2000 – Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.[RL30172] 2000 – East Timor. On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). [RL30172] 2001 – On April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals surveillance aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States and the People's Republic of China called the Hainan Island incident. 2001 – War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and "begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters."[RL30172] 2002 – Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.[RL30172] 2002 – Philippines. OEF-Philippines. January 2002 U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[RL30172] 2002 – Côte d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d'Ivoire, US military personnel went into Côte d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.[7] [RL30172] 2003–2010 – War in Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal being "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States."[RL30172] 2003 – Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War. On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 US Marines into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the US Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.[RL30172] 2003 – Georgia and Djibouti. "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[8] 2004 – Haiti. 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US sent first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the US Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, MINUSTAH.[RL30172] 2004 – War on Terrorism: US anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.[9] 2004–present: Drone attacks in Pakistan 2005–06 – Pakistan. President Bush deploys troops from US Army Air Cav Brigades to provide Humanitarian relief to far remote villages in the Kashmir mountain ranges of Pakistan stricken by a massive earthquake. 2006 – Lebanon. US Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit[citation needed], begins evacuation of US citizens willing to leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.[10][11] 2007 – Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected Al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.[citation needed] 2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia. Helped Georgia humanitarian aid,[12] helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia. [edit] 2010–Present 2010 - War in Iraq. Operation New Dawn. On February 17, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that as of September 1, 2010, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" would be replaced by "Operation New Dawn". This coincides with the reduction of American troops to 50,000. 2011 - Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn. Coalition forces enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 with bombings of Libyan forces. 2011 - War on Terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is killed by U.S. military forces in Pakistan. 2011 - Drone strikes on al-Shabab militants begin in Somalia.[13] This marks the 6th nation in which such strikes have been carried out, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya. I counted a total of 122 wars or military engagements by the U.S. since the end of WW2, a period from 1945 - 2011, or 66 years duration. Thus, the U.S. has been involved in almost two wars or military engagements per year since the end of WW2. You wrote, "If you see a country devoted to conquering the world gearing up to conquer its neighbors, the issue gets complicated." Exactly which of the countries listed in the above military conflicts could even plausibly have had both the intent and capability of "conquering the world"? About the only two plausible candidates fitting this description are the old Soviet Union and the United States. In fact, since the dissolution of the old Soviet empire, the only remaining candidate for this role is the United States. The U.S. government spends about as much money on its military as the rest of the world combined, controls at least 800 military bases around the world, controls thousands of deliverable nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction, and has spies planted in at least 60 countries around the world. It is presently engaged in military conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, and has repeatedly threatened Iran with horrific military attacks ("All options are on the table"). Last I checked, none of these countries is either devoted to or capable of conquering the world. Insofar as there exists any country that has the capability and intent of controlling as much of the world as possible, that country is the United States. So the criterion you have listed is in fact a perfectly good justification for other countries to start launching attacks against the United States, not for the U.S. to launch attacks against other countries. Somehow, I have never seen this conclusion reached by any self-identified objectivist. Martin

Congratulations! I'm sure you'll fit right in at ARI. The U.S. government will continue bombing the shit out of a bunch of foreign countries, dropping bombs on them, firing hellfire missiles at them from drones, occupying them, and killing lots of innocent civilians, including American citizens who have been put on secret assassination lists. And ARI will continue performing its valuable function of providing moral justifications for all of this, strictly in the name of objectivism, of course. Undoubtedly, you will turn out to be a valuable ally to ARI in assisting it with this mission. Martin

If I had to remain perpetually angry at people with whom I have serious disagreements, I would have very few friends left. JR and I would never have remained friends for the past 40 years, since we have some serious disagreements about natural rights, war, and other topics. For example, I took a lot of flak from JR and other anarchists on Atlantis II when I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (with qualifications) shortly after 9/11. I didn't merely say that Dennis is a "really nice guy in person." The fact that he is a reasonable person is much more important, in this context. I didn't like JR's reference to Dennis supposedly "strutting around." Expressing one's opinions with confidence does not qualify as "strutting." If it did, then both JR and I strut as much as anyone on OL, and probably more. Ghs Obviously, almost all people maintain friendships with other people with whom they have sometimes serious disagreements. But I think that the issue of just how serious are the disagreements would come into play at some point. For example, suppose you met a really nice person with whom you shared many common interests. You found yourself really enjoying this person's company. However, you also discovered that this person was a white supremacist who advocated an apartheid state in which all non-white people would have to exist as serfs in legally segregated communities. Would you still want to maintain a friendship with this person? Regarding your dispute with JR on Atlantis II about the invasion of Afghanistan, I don't really remember most of the arguments that were made, but I would guess that your support of the invasion was predicated on the basis of the U.S. government following a more or less libertarian approach to the invasion, if there is such a thing. For example, killing only those members of the Afghan government responsible for harboring Al Qaeda, absolutely minimizing civilian casualties, and then leaving. (Please correct me if I am wrong in supposing that this was your actual position.) The problem is that the U.S. government is not the slightest bit libertarian in its approach to anything. It never has been and it never will be. It has a long history of brutally killing huge numbers of innocent civilians in foreign wars, going all the way back to the Spanish-American war. So what reason is there to suppose that it would fight any war, including the Afghan war, with any kind of respect for libertarian ethical principles? So in advocating for a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, what you're inevitably going to end up getting is exactly what has happened in Afghanistan, with huge numbers of innocent Afghan civilians killed, massive destruction of infrastructure and destabilization of the entire country, thousands of U.S. military casualties, and untold billions of dollars going to fight an unwinnable war to defend what is among the most corrupt governments in the entire world. The war has also led to the use of drones in Pakistan, killing large numbers of Pakistani civilians and helping to further destabilize Pakistan, a country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. The Afghan war is now the longest war in American history, and there are no signs that it is ever going to end. The U.S. government is simply planning on building permanent military bases in Afghanistan in order to expand its empire and to maintain a permanent military presence there. The troops are not leaving -- ever. If you had known prior to the start of the Afghan war that it was all going to turn out like this, would you still have advocated a U.S. invasion? Martin I expected the Afghan war to turn out like it has, and I expect things to get even worse. After 9/11, I said the U.S. should go in, kill Bin Laden and as many of his cohorts as we could, and then get the hell out. I added that this probably would not happen, unfortunately; rather, we would end up mired down in that hell hole of a country for many years, in the name of "nation building." But this outcome was not inevitable. So you were advocating a course of action by the U.S. government that you yourself knew had a negligible chance of happening and would almost certainly end in the current disaster. Perhaps this outcome would not have been inevitable if the U.S. government had a shred of respect for libertarian principles of just war. Unfortunately, it didn't then and it doesn't now. There's a very easy way to avoid this problem. Don't go to war. Now, if one is attacked, there may be no alternative to going to war to defend oneself. But the last arguably defensive war fought by the U.S. was WW2 (and possibly Afghanistan, if one counts the 9/11 attacks as acts of war rather than criminal acts by a stateless terrorist group). Every other one of the many wars fought by the U.S. since WW2 was non-defensive; as such, there was no moral justification for the killing of innocents in the fighting of a non-defensive war. I can't believe you're making these statements. Who the hell are you favorably comparing the U.S. government to with regard to its treatment of innocent civilians -- the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or China under Mao or Cambodia under Pol Pot? Just in the last ten years, the U.S. government has slaughtered untold thousands of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and, most recently, Libya. It has a long history of aiding death squads in Columbia, Nicaragua, and other Latin American countries. It contributed aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, in which an estimated 1,000,000 Iranians were killed. the expansion of the War on Drugs into Mexico has led to the death of at least 50,000 people in Mexico in just the last four years. The Iraq sanctions, which were targeted squarely at innocent civilians, have killed huge numbers of Iraqis and brought unbearable misery to that country. Below is a link describing the estimated casualties associated with these sanctions: http://en.wikipedia..../Iraq_sanctions ************************************************************************************************************************************************************* Estimates of deaths during sanctions Estimates of excess deaths during sanctions vary depending on the source. The estimates vary [30][37] due to differences in methodologies, and specific time-frames covered.[38] A short listing of estimates follows: Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."[30][39] Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[40] Iraqi Baathist government: 1.5 million.[28] Iraqi Cultural Minister Hammadi: 1.7 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning) [41] "probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20. October 2003[42] 350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[43] Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less than] than half a million children." He claims that these estimates are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of "anything resembling a controlled experiment".[44][44] "Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[45] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[46] Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., The Lancet (1995, estimate withdrawn in 1997):567,000 children.[44] Editor (then "associate editor and media columnist") Matt Welch,[47] Reason Magazine, 2002: "It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has ... contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990."[28][46] Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark: 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning).[48] British Member of Parliament George Galloway: "a million Iraqis, most of them children."[49] [edit] Infant and child death rates Iraq's infant and child survival rates fell after sanctions were imposed. A May 25, 2000 BBC article[50] reported that before Iraq sanctions were imposed by the UN in 1990, infant mortality had "fallen to 47 per 1,000 live births between 1984 and 1989. This compares to approximately 7 per 1,000 in the UK." The BBC article was reporting from a study of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, titled "Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq", that was published in the May 2000 Lancet medical journal.[51] The study concluded that in southern and central Iraq, infant mortality rate between 1994 and 1999 had risen to 108 per 1,000. Child mortality rate, which refers to children between the age of one and five years, also drastically inclined from 56 to 131 per 1,000.[50] In the autonomous northern region during the same period, infant mortality declined from 64 to 59 per 1000 and under-5 mortality fell from 80 to 72 per 1000, which was attributed to better food and resource allocation. The Lancet publication[51] was the result of two separate surveys by UNICEF[30] between February and May 1999 in partnership with the local authorities and with technical support by the WHO. "The large sample sizes - nearly 24,000 households randomly selected from all governorates in the south and center of Iraq and 16,000 from the north - helped to ensure that the margin of error for child mortality in both surveys was low," UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said.[30] In the spring of 2000 a U.S. Congressional letter demanding the lifting of the sanctions garnered 71 signatures, while House Democratic Whip David Bonior called the economic sanctions against Iraq "infanticide masquerading as policy."[52] ************************************************************************************************************************************************************* And what the hell is an "enemy combatant" in a war zone in which the U.S. has invaded another country in a non-defensive war? For example, since the U.S. had absolutely no right to invade Iraq in the first place, the Iraqis are perfectly within their rights to fight American troops in any way they wish. Hell, if we were invaded by 100,000 Iraqi troops, and our government was defanged such that it could no longer fight to defend us against the Iraqi invaders, Americans would be in the streets in force with their guns, shooting them down, blowing them up, doing anything we could to fight them. We would be the American version of "enemy combatants". This would not give the Iraqi soldiers the moral right to kill us, since they were the aggressors and we were merely defending ourselves. Martin

If I had to remain perpetually angry at people with whom I have serious disagreements, I would have very few friends left. JR and I would never have remained friends for the past 40 years, since we have some serious disagreements about natural rights, war, and other topics. For example, I took a lot of flak from JR and other anarchists on Atlantis II when I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (with qualifications) shortly after 9/11. I didn't merely say that Dennis is a "really nice guy in person." The fact that he is a reasonable person is much more important, in this context. I didn't like JR's reference to Dennis supposedly "strutting around." Expressing one's opinions with confidence does not qualify as "strutting." If it did, then both JR and I strut as much as anyone on OL, and probably more. Ghs Obviously, almost all people maintain friendships with other people with whom they have sometimes serious disagreements. But I think that the issue of just how serious are the disagreements would come into play at some point. For example, suppose you met a really nice person with whom you shared many common interests. You found yourself really enjoying this person's company. However, you also discovered that this person was a white supremacist who advocated an apartheid state in which all non-white people would have to exist as serfs in legally segregated communities. Would you still want to maintain a friendship with this person? Regarding your dispute with JR on Atlantis II about the invasion of Afghanistan, I don't really remember most of the arguments that were made, but I would guess that your support of the invasion was predicated on the basis of the U.S. government following a more or less libertarian approach to the invasion, if there is such a thing. For example, killing only those members of the Afghan government responsible for harboring Al Qaeda, absolutely minimizing civilian casualties, and then leaving. (Please correct me if I am wrong in supposing that this was your actual position.) The problem is that the U.S. government is not the slightest bit libertarian in its approach to anything. It never has been and it never will be. It has a long history of brutally killing huge numbers of innocent civilians in foreign wars, going all the way back to the Spanish-American war. So what reason is there to suppose that it would fight any war, including the Afghan war, with any kind of respect for libertarian ethical principles? So in advocating for a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, what you're inevitably going to end up getting is exactly what has happened in Afghanistan, with huge numbers of innocent Afghan civilians killed, massive destruction of infrastructure and destabilization of the entire country, thousands of U.S. military casualties, and untold billions of dollars going to fight an unwinnable war to defend what is among the most corrupt governments in the entire world. The war has also led to the use of drones in Pakistan, killing large numbers of Pakistani civilians and helping to further destabilize Pakistan, a country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. The Afghan war is now the longest war in American history, and there are no signs that it is ever going to end. The U.S. government is simply planning on building permanent military bases in Afghanistan in order to expand its empire and to maintain a permanent military presence there. The troops are not leaving -- ever. If you had known prior to the start of the Afghan war that it was all going to turn out like this, would you still have advocated a U.S. invasion? Martin

I know, Dennis. It is extremely embarrassing for all those of us who have to share this board with you - your strutting around expressing your moral indignation about how few Muslim civilians the U.S. government is murdering, that is. Your doctrine about how the murderer can just announce that someone else - the people who provoked him - is responsible for the murders - well, it's comical in a macabre sort of way, I suppose. But surely this can't be what you describe as "serious ideas"? Best, JR Jeff, Although you don't get along with Dennis online, I suspect he is one of those people you would like a great deal if you knew him personally. I spent quite a bit of time with Dennis in earlier years, and I found him highly intelligent, reasonable, and a pleasure to be around. Ghs George, Dennis has made it quite clear that he is an enthusiastic supporter of the U.S. government's foreign policy of fighting multiple non-defensive wars and ongoing occupations which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people abroad. Oh, he might disagree with some of the specifics, such as believing that the U.S. government should have gone to war with Iran and murdered several hundred thousand Iranians rather than several hundred thousand Iraqis. But in terms of agreeing with the basic policy of murdering innocents abroad and justifying this as somehow being within the realm of legitimate self-defense, Dennis has made his position quite clear. He has also enthusiastically advocated torture as a justifiable U.S. government policy, despite the horrenous ethical and practical consequences of this policy, which is now a standard part of U.S. government behavior around the world. Now, for all I know, Dennis may be a really nice guy in person. But this raises a rather interesting question. Just how abhorent do a person's ideas have to be before the issue of whether or not he or she is a really nice person becomes irrelevant? Martin

Thanks, George. This little bit of objectivist history that you have presented here should be read by every single objectivist who has ever entertained the notion, even for a moment, that the FBI is their friend, or that FBI investigation of a group is any kind of evidence that the group has any kind of ties to terrorism. It's kind of comical, in a sick, twisted way, that a student objectivist group was under regular FBI surveillance, and that you of all people, a student and future libertarian freelance philosopher, was approached by FBI agents to obtain information that they could easily have obtained by walking around campus. But, of course, this time, it's all different. This time, we should really believe that FBI investigation of antiwar.com proves their ties to terrorism. I would not be at all surprised if Objectivist Living and, by extension, every registered member of Objectivist Living, is under FBI surveillance and part of a potential terrorist watch list right now. Why not? If they were surveilling your student group years ago, long before 9/11 provided a justification for every act of government spying, why wouldn't the FBI be keeping tabs on Objectivist Living and its members, now that we are living in the age of the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. I would, of course, consider this to be a moral abomination, with one or two exceptions. For example, it would be kind of funny if Mike Renzulli found himself on an FBI terrorist watch list and subject to an FBI terrorism investigation. To which I could only say, "Brother, you asked for it!". Martin

For the record, antiwar.com has four fund raising appeals per year, one every three months. For each fund raising appeal, antiwar.com raises a total of $100,000. Raising this $100,000 normally takes between two and three weeks, so apparently, there are no rich donors, Islamic or otherwise, who are throwing money at antiwar.com, which is supported almost exclusively by many small donations from readers. Doing the math, the total annual budget should be about $400,000, since this is roughly the amount of money being raised. It might be slightly higher than this, based on matching donations that they receive. It's nice that you're so concerned about the possible corrupt influences associated with this money. Perhaps, then, you might want to consider that the annual U.S. military budget, including all supplementary expenses for unbudgeted wars, as well as miscellaneous military expenses, is at least $1,000,000,000,000. The cost of the Iraq war alone is now approaching $1,000,000,000,000 dollars and may end up costing the nation up to $3,000,000,000,000. Billions and billions of dollars have been embezzeled in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other areas of U.S. military involvement. The money has simply disappeared, and the Pentagon claims to have no knowledge of just what happened to it. Then there are all of those thousand dollar coffee pots and five thousand dollar toilets. All of those "defense" contractors whose only customer is the U.S. government naturally have a rather strong interest in convincing the U.S. government to funnel as much money to them as possible, so naturally, they have a rather large army of lobbyists whose sole purpose is to lobby the government to do just that. Their annual budget for lobbying most assuredly exceeds the antiwar.com annual budget of $400,000. So, maybe, you just ought to worry a little about the corrupting influence of all of that money. It's at least as dangerous as antiwar.com, which is only a web site that prints and links to articles suggesting that eternal, perpetual, endless war may not be the solution to the world's problems. In all of its years in operation, no people have ever been killed by antiwar.com. Whereas the defense contractors sell to the U.S. government bombs, missiles, drones, and banned chemical weapons, all of which have been used to kill hundreds of thousands of foreigners. Well, we each have our own demons to slay. I'm glad that you've discovered antiwar.com. Some day, you might even discover some actual demons that have caused massive amounts of actual death and destruction. Martin

And, or course, governments can certainly be trusted to decide when torture is necessary to protect innocent life, just as they can be trusted to do all of the other wonderful things that they do to us every day. Governments would never abuse this power. They would never torture innocent prisoners under the mistaken impression that they had valuable information, or just for the sheer fun of it. Governments would never abuse this hideous power, because they are so honorable. Only the highest calibre of human being would ever apply for the job of government interrogator, never some sadistic bastard who got his jollies doing this kind of work. All of the prisoners tortured at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Bagram, as well as all of the black op sites where prisoners were renditioned to be tortured, were obviously guilty, because otherwise, why would the government have tortured them? Governments never make these kinds of mistakes. This country's founders, who got the fourth amendment to the constitution passed, were just a bunch of pussies. Right? No one claims that the U.S. government can be trusted, and this kind of silly oversimplification undermines your case, weak as it is. The fact is that, so far at least, the government has managed to prevent a recurrence of 9/11. So apparently they are doing something right. You have argued that torture when used against proper targets is a good thing and a demonstration of moral courage. Since this torture of which you so enthusiastically approve is to be carried out by the U.S. government, the fact that the U.S. government cannot be trusted with such a power is highly relevant to the issue of approving of torture as an acceptable government policy, for it is the government that will be carrying it out. A cursory glance at the actual use of torture by the U.S. government demonstrates not only the barbarity but the utter uselessness of torture as an instrument to accomplish anything but barbarity as an end in itself. From the torture administered at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram, and the CIA's renditioning of prisoners to be tortured at various sites around the world, just how much useful intelligence has been achieved and at what cost? Prisoners at Guantanamo were obtained by offering bounties to Afghan warlords, and these prisoners, almost all of whom were innocent of anything, included children as young as twelve. These are despicable crimes committed by our government against innocent people, which you pathetically attempt to justify, using the moral calculus of collective punishment. How many innocent people is it okay for our government to torture, under your theory that some useful intelligence might be obtained from one or two of them? Regarding your statement that "so far at least, the government has managed to prevent a recurrence of 9/11", perhaps you need to take a refresher course in basic logic. All we know is that there has been no recurrence of a 9/11 type attack. This does not in any way imply that the government prevented it. We have not been attacked by the Martians either; this doesn't mean that the government has protected us against a Martian attack. Granting the government credit for this is especially bizarre in view of the fact that it was gross incompetence on the part of the U.S. government that made the 9/11 attack possible in the first place, there being evidence of suspicious individuals taking flight training courses without being concerned about learning to land the airplane and these individuals not being investigated. My mistake. I meant the Eighth Amendment, with its forbidding of cruel and unusual punishments. I think torture pretty clearly qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment. Exceptions were not made in the amendment for persons thought to possess intelligence useful to the government. In this respect, the founders were very wise. Politically correct, touchy-feely, crypto-pacifist, happy horsecrap. Like it or not, torture clearly does work. And, fortunately for you and other innocent citizens, many very real ticking time bombs have so far been defused—thanks in part to the use of the techniques you think are so unspeakable. Politically correct? I had no idea that the founders who wrote the eighth amendment were guilty of political correctness. No, being against torture is not a matter of political correctness or crypto-pacifism. It is a matter of being a civilized human being. It is an ethical stand taken against the cruelest, most despicable barbarism, invariably used against innocent people. The ticking time bomb scenarios are bullshit and have been shown to be bullshit, with standard interrogation techniques being at least as effective. Just look at the thousands of people around the world tortured, by the U.S. and other governments. Just how many of these torture victims were guilty of anything and were in ticking time bomb scenarios? Just look at all the prisoners in U.S. jails who have been tortured, subjected to prisoner rape and other forms of barbarous punishment. How many of these prisoners were in ticking time bomb scenarios? This torture is done, not because it accomplishes anything of value, but as an end in itself, to satisfy the sadistic cravings of the torturers. That's the reality of the actual world of torture, not the bullshit euphemisms and rationalizations spewed by those who are looking for any excuse to justify it. John Yoo, along with the rest of the pack of Bush appointed lackeys, are a bunch of fucking liars. They have lied about everything, including lying us into the murderous Iraq war. And we should believe anything this jerk has to say? What else can he be expected to say, given that he was one of the first Bush proponents of torture? Of course he's going to attempt to justify torture in any way he can, including lying through his teeth about its alleged benefits. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that this particular allegation is true. Suppose the use of torture actually did lead to the government learning about the whereabouts of Bin Laden. How many innocent people is it okay for our government to torture in order to extract one such piece of information? You would use this as an example of the effective use of torture. Never mind that the French were an imperialist, colonialist power that had absolutely no business being in Algeria in the first place, and that their treatment of the Algerians was one of the great crimes against humanity committed in our long and bloody history, just as the U.S. has no business bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. In your moral calculus, bombing, invading, and occupying countries in non-defensive wars, killing boatloads of innocent people, and torturing lots of others in order to defend the occupation, are morally praiseworthy activities. Many other self-described objectivists feel exactly the same way. For this reason, I am truly thankful that, in response to Phil's query, what passes for modern day objectivism is not a growing movement in our culture. Martin

I agree completely. It's mostly a lot of quasi-pacifist claptrap. Spinning Ayn Rand's words to make her viewpoint fit theirs. I suspect Ayn Rand would have been a huge fan of Jack Bauer. Absolutely! Rand was a huge fan of torture. That's why the leading hero of Atlas Shrugged was Dr. Floyd Ferris and his brilliant invention, the Ferris Persuader. John Galt and his band of terrorists were attempting to destroy the society around them and, especially, the U.S. government. Ferris swept in there just like a Jack Bauer hero to stop this nefarious plot and protect society against the evil Galt inspired terrorists. Unfortunately, Rand had a malevolent sense of life, so the evil terrorists won in the end. Martin Rand was a huge fan of strong fictional characters who demonstrated moral courage in the defense of innocent victims and in the pursuit of justice for thugs. My guess is that she felt torture was a necessary evil in certain situations where no other option was available. But using torture when absolutely necessary to protect innocent life does require a certain level of courage that most people do not have. Bauer did have it. That is why she would have admired Jack Bauer. And, or course, governments can certainly be trusted to decide when torture is necessary to protect innocent life, just as they can be trusted to do all of the other wonderful things that they do to us every day. Governments would never abuse this power. They would never torture innocent prisoners under the mistaken impression that they had valuable information, or just for the sheer fun of it. Governments would never abuse this hideous power, because they are so honorable. Only the highest calibre of human being would ever apply for the job of government interrogator, never some sadistic bastard who got his jollies doing this kind of work. All of the prisoners tortured at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Bagram, as well as all of the black op sites where prisoners were renditioned to be tortured, were obviously guilty, because otherwise, why would the government have tortured them? Governments never make these kinds of mistakes. This country's founders, who got the fourth amendment to the constitution passed, were just a bunch of pussies. Right? By the way, it has long been known that torture does not even achieve its alleged benefits. Prisoners will say anything to get the torture to stop, whether it is true or not. Civilized forms of interrogation have been shown to produce far better results. And the ticking time bomb scenarios that have been used to justify torture are absurd on their face, involving ridiculous hypothetical situations that would never occur in real life. Martin

I agree completely. It's mostly a lot of quasi-pacifist claptrap. Spinning Ayn Rand's words to make her viewpoint fit theirs. I suspect Ayn Rand would have been a huge fan of Jack Bauer. Absolutely! Rand was a huge fan of torture. That's why the leading hero of Atlas Shrugged was Dr. Floyd Ferris and his brilliant invention, the Ferris Persuader. John Galt and his band of terrorists were attempting to destroy the society around them and, especially, the U.S. government. Ferris swept in there just like a Jack Bauer hero to stop this nefarious plot and protect society against the evil Galt inspired terrorists. Unfortunately, Rand had a malevolent sense of life, so the evil terrorists won in the end. Martin

Tough question. Ideally I'd want schools run on a mixture of Montessori and Summerhill methods, foster a culture where the individual (NOT the "School Community" (or the tribe or the pack or the group or the master race or the brotherhood of the proletariat or the nation state)) is seen as the fundamental unit, there's no "school spirit" and no religion, and there are absolutely no rules EXCEPT "do not start force/fraud/coercion/bullying." Run classes like a University. No coerced attendance, lecturers have expertise but not authority (observing Sharon Presley's distinction between the two). No uniforms. In other words, treat children like human beings rather than pack animals. As a consequence, they'll be less likely to act like pack animals themselves (i.e. bully others and create conformist cliques). Authoritarianism CREATES and PERPETUATES bullying; the military is full of 'hazing' but there's almost none in universities (some fraternities are an exception but they're basically structures that exist for those that gravitate towards pack-animalism). Montessori schools are basically bully-free, authoritarian schools are full of bullies. More freedom, less bullying. Some people might say some kids "need" structure and control, but I say that people naturally thrive under freedom. I certainly did and I'm not Superman. Call me a social darwinist if you will, but those that "need" structure and control strike me as malformed examples of human beings. My daughter went to a Montessori pre-school and is now in a Montessori elementary school. She will be entering sixth grade, the final year of her Montessori elementary school. I cannot say enough good things about her school. It is truly a wonderful, nurturing place. All of the Montessori values are strongly emphasized. In addition to a first rate academic education, the entire educational experience is beautifully balanced. The focus is on the development of the total child, not just academically but socially and ethically. Needless to say, kids are strongly encouraged to be nice and to respect each other's rights. This is an integral aspect of the school's culture. Bullying is absolutely not tolerated. And there are no school uniforms. The idea is most definitely not to prepare the kids for a regimented, soul-destroying life in the military or anywhere else. Maria Montessori was definitely a woman way ahead of her time. She was a true heroine. Martin

Yeah, Rearden, Dagny, Galt, don't listen to them, they're engineers and would set up a totalitarian government. Shayne Actually, they would set up no government at all. Galt was offered the job of "economic dictator of the nation" and turned it down, choosing instead to be tortured. As for Dagny, when her idiot brother James said something to the effect of (paraphrasing, because I don't have AS in front of me) "You can't run the national economy according to your convenience", she replied (again paraphrasing), "I don't want to run the national economy. I want your national economy runners to leave me alone!". Neither did Rearden or any of the other heroes of AS exhibit any desire to have anything whatever to do with government. This is among the attributes that made them heroes to Rand. Galt's Gulch was itself an anarchic society with no government and was portrayed as Rand's idea of utopia. Had any of them decided to try to take over the government, they would have been no more successful than the band of idiots who were actually running it. Noone, no matter how brilliant or talented they may be, is fit to govern others. Martin

Of course! Because, obviously, anyone who is opposed to any of the actions of the Israeli government, such as imposing blockades, occupying land that is not theirs, seizing vessels in international waters, bombing and killing thousands of innocent civilians, and keeping entire populations living in nearly subhuman conditions, obviously is motivated by nothing but hatred of Jews. Similarly, anyone who is opposed to the actions of the government of China is obviously a racist who hates Chinese people. Anyone who is opposed to the actions of the government of Russia obviously hates Russians. Anyone who is opposed to the actions of the Mexican government obviously hates Mexicans. Oh yeah, and lets not forget the most important of all instances of this rule. Anyone who is opposed to the actions of the U.S. government, such as its ongoing wars, bombing, and occupation of multiple countries, which have resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of people, obviously hates Americans and is presumably a terrorist as well. I'm glad we've cleared that up! Martin Quite a screed: facts, factoids and diatribe. --Brant You know, I am really pretty sick of defenders of the Israeli government smearing anyone who dares to question anything that it does as being anti-semitic. This smear has been used ever since the founding of Israel as a bludgeon to attack anyone who even suggests that the Israeli government is not as pure as the driven snow. It is continually used to intimidate people into being silent about the crimes committed by the Israeli government, lest they be labeled as anti-semites. No other country in the world has an equivalent status such that saying negative things about its government it equated with hating its people. And in the unique case of Israel, the charge of anti-semitism means hatred not just of Israeli citizens but of all Jews, including the millions of Jews who do not live in Israel and who perhaps have never even been to Israel. As such, this charge is absurd on its face. But it continues to be used against anyone who speaks out against the Israeli government. This is not to deny that there really are people who both hate Israel and Jews, who really are virulent anti-semites. Obviously, such people really exist, just as there are racists who hate muslims, protestants, catholics, blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Poles, Germans, Italians, French, and pretty much every other ethnic group in existence. Tribalism and its corresponding hatred of outsiders belonging to other tribes is a more or less universal attribute found among people everywhere. But Mike's statement that everyone who supports the Palestinians in their efforts to bypass the brutal blockade and despotic conditions under which they have been living is anti-semitic is simply just the worst kind of smear. It demonstrates an appalling ignorance of the extent of this support, and that most of this support is not coming from anti-semites but simply from people who are opposed to the Israeli blockade on humanitarian grounds. Everything that I said in my post about what the Israeli government has done is true. It is not intended as a complete, context free description of everything going on in Israel, and it certainly does not exonerate anything done by individual Palestinian terrorists or Hamas. Martin Since I didn't accuse you of anti-Semitism, why are you accusing me of accusing you of that? --Brant Brant, You misunderstood my post, whose meaning I thought was perfectly clear. I didn't accuse you of anything. My post was specifically addressing Mike, who started all this by repeating the argument, used all too frequently, that anyone in favor of the Gaza flotilla or condemning the Israeli government in any way was anti-semitic. I answered your post in order to explain what was the intent behind my "screed" and "diatribe". Martin

It's noble of you to assert that all of the deaths of civilians killed by the Israeli government attacks and blockade are the fault of Hamas and Fatah. This is the perfect guilt-free argument used to justify mass murder by a government or private terrorist group against innocent people. It's the same argument that has been used repeatedly by the U.S. government to justify its murderous foreign policy in Iraq, first via the sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, then Gulf War 1, then Gulf War 2, which killed hundreds of thousands more. No, it's not the fault of the U.S. government for all of these dead people. It's the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to do what the U.S. government ordered him to do. Because the Iraqi dictator refused to follow American orders, all of those Iraqis had to die, and we can blame it all on Hussein. Our government is now bombing people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Libya. And, of course, it's not our government's fault for all of those dead people. No matter how many people die, it's never their fault. This is the same argument used by terrorist groups who murder innocent people; they're all collateral damage. The last cease fire agreement was broken not by Hamas but by the Israeli government. The Israeli attack of Gaza killed over a thousand Palestinians; the Israeli death toll was 13. The rocket attacks launched against Israel have killed far fewer Israelis than the number of Palestinians and Lebanese that the Israeli government has killed. There is plenty of guilt on all sides of this conflict. But you, like most defenders of Israel, try to pretend that the Israeli government is guilt free and that everything it does is morally justified, and that all of the people it has killed and occupied are collectively guilty and therefore deserve whatever they get. Martin

Of course! Because, obviously, anyone who is opposed to any of the actions of the Israeli government, such as imposing blockades, occupying land that is not theirs, seizing vessels in international waters, bombing and killing thousands of innocent civilians, and keeping entire populations living in nearly subhuman conditions, obviously is motivated by nothing but hatred of Jews. Similarly, anyone who is opposed to the actions of the government of China is obviously a racist who hates Chinese people. Anyone who is opposed to the actions of the government of Russia obviously hates Russians. Anyone who is opposed to the actions of the Mexican government obviously hates Mexicans. Oh yeah, and lets not forget the most important of all instances of this rule. Anyone who is opposed to the actions of the U.S. government, such as its ongoing wars, bombing, and occupation of multiple countries, which have resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of people, obviously hates Americans and is presumably a terrorist as well. I'm glad we've cleared that up! Martin Quite a screed: facts, factoids and diatribe. --Brant You know, I am really pretty sick of defenders of the Israeli government smearing anyone who dares to question anything that it does as being anti-semitic. This smear has been used ever since the founding of Israel as a bludgeon to attack anyone who even suggests that the Israeli government is not as pure as the driven snow. It is continually used to intimidate people into being silent about the crimes committed by the Israeli government, lest they be labeled as anti-semites. No other country in the world has an equivalent status such that saying negative things about its government it equated with hating its people. And in the unique case of Israel, the charge of anti-semitism means hatred not just of Israeli citizens but of all Jews, including the millions of Jews who do not live in Israel and who perhaps have never even been to Israel. As such, this charge is absurd on its face. But it continues to be used against anyone who speaks out against the Israeli government. This is not to deny that there really are people who both hate Israel and Jews, who really are virulent anti-semites. Obviously, such people really exist, just as there are racists who hate muslims, protestants, catholics, blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Poles, Germans, Italians, French, and pretty much every other ethnic group in existence. Tribalism and its corresponding hatred of outsiders belonging to other tribes is a more or less universal attribute found among people everywhere. But Mike's statement that everyone who supports the Palestinians in their efforts to bypass the brutal blockade and despotic conditions under which they have been living is anti-semitic is simply just the worst kind of smear. It demonstrates an appalling ignorance of the extent of this support, and that most of this support is not coming from anti-semites but simply from people who are opposed to the Israeli blockade on humanitarian grounds. Everything that I said in my post about what the Israeli government has done is true. It is not intended as a complete, context free description of everything going on in Israel, and it certainly does not exonerate anything done by individual Palestinian terrorists or Hamas. Martin