So anyone who has a view on Iraq is stupid and to some extent, immoral, for or against? That's a novel approach.
Is that what you think I meant in this post?
Message 21743378
But I understand your meaning, you don't want the state using those resources at all, correct?
It's strange to ask a question/make such an assertion and then - seemingly, but correct me if I'm wrong - answer that same question/address the assertion, but I suspect that's what you've done here.
At any rate, the answer is: yes. I am opposed to the two "state fares," if you will: welfare and warfare. I and most Libertarians define the latter to the extent that it does not describe a country defending against invaders or responding to an attack made against it.
The current Republican party has certainly decided the state has an unlimited right to use resources for "security" as they define it.
And by that measure, using such a ridiculous delineation of ideology as 'Republican' and 'Democrat', who was a better Republican than Clinton?
The left seems to have endless praise for Clinton, a President who - while not having responded at all to the 1993 bombing of the WTC - launched the greatest bombing blitz against Iraq after the first Gulf War to that point, bombed Yugoslavia, sent U.S. troops to Somalia in what was a massive failure, fired Tomahawk missiles at/against the Sudan and Afghanistan, was hours from invading Haiti, and rattled sabers against China with respect to Taiwan. Under his Attorney General, military equipment and tactics were used in what was arguably the most brutal treatment of U.S. civilians by the government since the Civil War, and at least since Kent State.
And, through that same prism: is Bush really a Republican? He and his minions are currently cobbling together an absolutely Rooseveltian aid package for the Gulf states affected by Hurricane Rita. And, though the new right seems to avoid recognizing such, Bush has his own welfare and public assistance programs, most of which build upon present fixtures and expand the mandate of the state whilst merely redirecting the emphasis of qualification for such redistribution, jawboning about "reform" and representations of ideologies aside.
Don't get wrapped up in the party-affiliation nonsense.
e |
