Debating someone over their illogical and blind support of war propaganda fires me up! It's even better when advocates of an interventionist foreign policy call themselves capitalists. It's a contradiction to everything capitalism stands for -- economic freedom; not just for the individual, but for the country adopting free market principles. So what does that mean?
For starters, it means government grants private property rights, an essential liberty required for capitalism to work. After all, capital is anything that can be used to make a profit, and that includes land.
Secondly, it means minimal government intervention in the economy. I say minimal because their should be specific regulations for corporations to prevent corruption and monopolies. Fundamental capitalism encourages competition.
Third, in addition to limited government, it means a low level of overall government spending and taxation. This includes military spending. I urge you not to get confused with
defense spending, which is a necessary expense to protect the liberty of our citizens. However, when a country spends trillions of dollars to promote empire expansion across the globe, it does nothing to foster a positive economic environment. In fact, deficit spending in anything, not just military, threatens the very liberty we are told is being preserved by invading Afghanistan.
Allow me to post for you the discussion I had with a group called "American Capitalists" on Facebook. To my initial surprise, the founder of the page responded to my post. Here's the original post:
"Normally, I hate to leave in a rush, but lets get out of the entire country now, not just the villages. Again, that or remove Karzai and start over I would do that but realize no one in government is prepared to do that, as a result we must leave now. Do it safely per military standards, but move the timeline to pre-election."
This is in response to an article titled Karzai Calls for U.S. Troop Pullback. After reading the above statement, I had to respond. But I had to answer to the last comment made as well. I will not give names of the user to respect their privacy.
"I agree, even though this would be admitting defeat and there will be a stiff price to pay, in the future. Defeat due to a lack of will, not means."
Here is my response to both:
"We shouldn't even be considering "starting over". We needed to get the hell out a LONG time ago.... we should've never been there in the first place. And we are NOT admitting defeat. can't lose anything if we never declared war; or fought an actual army. Think logically people. Quit listening to the war propaganda."
I was totally expecting someone to respond. In fact, that's why I posted in the first place. And here was the founder's response:
"Well last I checked the Taliban had an army and we went there due to 911. I know you and Ron Paul feel it was an inside job, but I am here to help you find out it was not. We should have been there, we did get congressional approval per the Constitution, and we did accomplish some goals, but we should have also nation built them for many strategic reasons not least of which was weakening Iran on both its east and west borders."
I laugh at this illogical argument. It sounds like something a politician would say in order to persuade someone that an aggressive foreign policy is the only way to make our citizens safe. I replied:
"Congressional approval does not mean declaration of war. We can't declare war on terrorists, which is what the Taliban is, because terrorism by legal definition of U.S. law is a "criminal act", not military. Also, I encourage you to further explain to me the reasons why military involvement in Afghanistan was necessary when they presented no clear military threat. Afghanistan did not have an active air force, navy, or army. If they did, it was practically unheard of.
To bring up another point, you call yourself an American capitalist, but you support trillions of dollars in overseas and military spending. Every intelligent capitalist knows that government spending and accumulation of debt is hazardous to a nation's economy. Please explain your reasoning."
So far, I have not gotten a response. I will update as soon as I do.
Since I have this extra time, I want to make a few points about foreign policy. I have studied both sides of the debate for years. During that time, I was a stout defender of "winning the war on terror". But with much thanks to the good Dr. Ron Paul, I have now changed my view and stand for the defense of liberty through peaceful means.
The rhetoric surrounding our military involvement in Afghanistan is based on lies. When I hear our military is "defending our freedoms", I smell a pile of bull****. We can better defend our freedoms when our troops are massed right here at home, not spread thin globally. When I hear the concept of "preventive war", I don't quite understand the logic behind that philosophy. How can you prevent a war by starting one? When I hear the United States has an obligation to "spread democracy" across the globe, it reminds me of the numerous wars and international conflicts we've been involved in since World War I. Are we spreading democracy, or are we occupying nations and forcing democracy unto them?
Granted, these may not be the best arguments, but they make a strong case in my favor. However, like lawyers attempting to win a case, I save my best argument for last. Here it is:
How would you like it if there was a large Chinese military base a few miles from where you reside, and Chinese troops were patrolling through your town? What would we call it? Occupation? Invasion? Regardless, I will correctly assume you'd be angry. So why do we continue to do this? We have 900 military bases established in 130 countries, all deemed to be "strategic" striking points. This is where the Golden Rule comes into play. If you don't want a country doing this to us, we should not do it to them.
Your honor, the defense rests its case!
No comments:
Post a Comment