Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 04:26:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
587 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Marc Nelson, Jr. writes:
> Well, exactly what our national interests are is certainly a matter for debate.
> I was just saying that whatever we decide they are, it is fine to use force to
> protect them. But if by economic imperialism, you mean free trade, than yes.
I mean dominating other nations through unethical trading practicing or
harsh sanctions or expoitating human labor and natural resources of other
nations. There's no morality in using force to "defend" our greedy business
ventures and economic gain.
> As far as one nation honoring the rights of another nation's citizens, they
> obviously do not have to. I may have rights as an American citizen, but the
> government of China is not obligated to protect them.
I imagine you mean rights as in our Constitutional Rights, not the
"inalienable human rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Those are the rights of all people and should be honored around the world.
> The Founding Fathers were perhaps the wisest bunch of people in the same place
> at the same time. But a lot of what they said was idealistic (their actions
> were a bit more pragmatic), and being idealistic just doesn't cut it in foreign
> policy.
Have we really given it a chance though?
> What was Bush's crime? (not that I'm a big Bush defender)
CIA director responsible for numerous assassinations, death squads in
Central America, Iran-Contra, etc. Bombing Iraq into the stone age and
imposing and orchestrating the brutal sanctions that led to the death and
suffering of innocent men, women and children. Promising support to the
Iraqi people in the north and south of Iraq if they rebel against Saddam,
then withdrawing that support and allowing them to be wiped out. Staying on
the sidelines during the "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia and even block arms
for the Bosnians to defend themselves.
> I think the lopsided kill ratio is more a result of America's geographic
> isolation and technological superiority than any particular policy.
Yes, we kill because we can.
> Harry Browne (the LP presidential candidate) endorsed a policy of
> assassination, which I fully agree with. It makes a lot of sense if you want to
> punish dictators without hurting civilians.
And what, replace one dictator with another? Another puppet for America? Is
assassination the answer? Is America better off that Kennedy or Lincoln were
assassinated, by their own countrymen?
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) debate. (...) to (...) place (...) foreign (...) to (...) So if trade is bad, then shouldn't the Iraqis be grateful that they are sanctioned? Now they don't have to worry about American economic imperialists exploiting their labor and natural (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) policies (...) and (...) Well, exactly what our national interests are is certainly a matter for debate. I was just saying that whatever we decide they are, it is fine to use force to protect them. But if by economic imperialism, you mean free (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
