Was Bush Right? I agree with Harry B.

[billydkid]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne42.html

 

[RandFan]

It is very, very premature to send up the victory flag. The odds of long range success are far from in Bush's favor. I can't see how any reasonable person could conclude otherwise.

Only libertarians have recognized that force never produces good results.

It's hard to believe that there are people with brain stems that spout this old saw.

Force ended Nazism and the holocaust.

Police use force to protect society every day.

Force ended slavery in America.

The use of force has allowed many to gain their independance through revolution or gain a voice that they would not otherwise have had.

 

[kimiko]

I agree with that as well. He wasn't talking about a democracy domino theory from the beginning. If anything good comes from it in other countries, they are unintended consequences. For now, I'm not sure things are actually improving anywhere. I see an ultimatum from Bush that Syria's intelligence and army have to be out of Lebanon by the elections, which could just as easily turn into an excuse for the US to invade as a free Lebanon.

 

[corplinx]

I don't see if it matters that Bush is right or not..... Usually only religious conservative types are so key on being "right".

However, Browne throws out some real good stuff here:

The fact that Iraq had an election (as they did under Hussein), or that Hosni Mubarak is thinking about letting some Egyptian run against him and lose, or that a handful of Saudis got to vote for some local tribesmen, or that Lebanon will be having an election soon (they have them regularly already) doesn't make anyone freer than he was two years ago.

This is the sort of "intentional obtuseness" that Claus uses when expedient. I think anyone comparing the elections held under Saddam to those held now shows that they can't think critically. Do I really even need to dissect why his spin of the rest of these situations doesn't prove his point?

Why are people so hung up on Bush being right or wrong? And why do they resort to this sort of dishonesty inevitably to prove their point?

 

[RandFan]

This is the sort of "intentional obtuseness" that Claus uses when expedient. I think anyone comparing the elections held under Saddam to those held now shows that they can't think critically. Do I really even need to dissect why his spin of the rest of these situations doesn't prove his point?

Yeah, I was thinking about this also. With Saddam they voted out of fear. There was nothing to gain by not voting and lots to loose. Without Saddam they voted in spite of fear. They had much to gain by voiting and much to lose by not. Big, big difference.

 

[corplinx]

Yeah, I was thinking about this also. With Saddam they voted out of fear. There was nothing to gain by not voting and lots to loose. Without Saddam they voted in spite of fear. They had much to gain by voiting and much to lose by not. Big, big difference.

Its not the spirit of the thing, Saddam's elections weren't elections. There was no choice other than life or death.

 

[Rob Lister]

Funny aside, when I read your typo...

They had much to gain by voiting and much to lose by not.

I first read it as...

They had much to gain by vomiting and much to lose by not.

Funny because that is exactly the way I feel every time I vote.

 

[Mycroft]

Why are people so hung up on Bush being right or wrong? And why do they resort to this sort of dishonesty inevitably to prove their point?

Great question.

The important issue is not who was right or wrong, but where to go from here and how to get the results we want. Bickering over who was right or wrong after the fact is just ego stroking and help nobody.

 

[shanek]

Force ended Nazism and the holocaust.

Force allowed the Nazis to come to power and commit the holocaust.

Police use force to protect society every day.

Do I need to point out, again, the numerous court rulings showing that the police have no such duty? All they can really do is mop up afterwards.

Force ended slavery in America.

Again, wrong. That wasn't why the Civil War was waged, Lincoln didn't even claim so until 1862, and slavery was already on the way out thanks to economic progress and the peaqceful work of the abolitionists. 600,000 people didn't need to die to end it.

The use of force has allowed many to gain their independance through revolution or gain a voice that they would not otherwise have had.

Again, wrong. Look at the history of the American revolution. We only resorted to force to repel the tyranny of George III. We didn't use it to establish our government, which was done completely peacefuly, despite much controversy between two opposing philosophies.

 

[hgc]

...
Again, wrong. Look at the history of the American revolution. We only resorted to force to repel the tyranny of George III. ....

Force is always wrong, except when it isn't. Everybody stand on your heads now; we're going to dance a 2-step.

 

[shanek]

Force is always wrong, except when it isn't. Everybody stand on your heads now; we're going to dance a 2-step.

You have been told over and over and over again that Libertarians believe that force is only justified when used against the initiation of force by others, and that the initiation of force should never be used to achieve personal or political goals. Stop lying.

 

[CFLarsen]

Force allowed the Nazis to come to power and commit the holocaust.

And yet, you argue the exact opposite in this thread and this thread that Hitler came to power by free elections....

To wit:

Hitler was appointed Chancellor by democratically-elected representatives in a parliamentary system.
Source

How do you do it, shanek? How do you make that switch in your brain, that enables you to make a 180 degree turn-about in no time flat?

 

[CFLarsen]

You have been told over and over and over again that Libertarians believe that force is only justified when used against the initiation of force by others, and that the initiation of force should never be used to achieve personal or political goals. Stop lying.

No, no, no. You stop lying.

You have made it blatantly clear that Libertarians believe that force is only justified when used against people who are not Libertarians.

 

[RandFan]

Force allowed the Nazis to come to power and commit the holocaust.

Yes, and then force was used to stop them. Your point?

Do I need to point out, again, the numerous court rulings showing that the police have no such duty? All they can really do is mop up afterwards.

Can you clarify? When two bank robbers with AK47s exited a bank in North Hollywood the police used force to prevent them from any further crimes thus protecting society.

L.A. shootout

Again, wrong. That wasn't why the Civil War was waged, Lincoln didn't even claim so until 1862, and slavery was already on the way out thanks to economic progress and the peaceful work of the abolitionists. 600,000 people didn't need to die to end it.

Debatable.

Again, wrong. Look at the history of the American revolution. We only resorted to force to repel the tyranny of George III.

Did it work?

 

[shanek]

Yes, and then force was used to stop them. Your point?

That you can't use it as an example of force solving anything since force created the problem to begin with. If it hadn't been for our aggression during WWI, and if it hadn't been for the allies force in the Treaty of Versailles ruining the German economy, the Nazis would have been laughed out of the room. That created the exact conditions to make the people want to vote them into power.

If you break my legs and then hand me a crutch, don't go saying, "See? Without me, you couldn't walk!"

Can you clarify? When two bank robbers with AK47s exited a bank in North Hollywood the police used force to prevent them from any further crimes thus protecting society.

Tell that to the old ladies who were attacked by intruders, who phoned the police several times, who were "held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers" for 14 hours, and who were told by the court in Warren v. District of Columbia that the police had no mandate to protect them.

Did it work?

Considering that Washington and the Continental Army lost every single battle...

 

[RandFan]

That you can't use it as an example of force solving anything since force created the problem to begin with. If it hadn't been for our aggression during WWI, and if it hadn't been for the allies force in the Treaty of Versailles ruining the German economy, the Nazis would have been laughed out of the room. That created the exact conditions to make the people want to vote them into power.

Every event is dependent on every past event since the big bang. Such an argument is silly. When the Nazis were killing Jews and others we had a choice to use force or not use force. I ask you now, should we have used force?

If you break my legs and then hand me a crutch, don't go saying, "See? Without me, you couldn't walk!"

Chamberlain appeased Hitler. For your argument to be valid Hitler would have to end his aggression after he got what he wanted from Chamberlain. Hitler's aggression must be put on the shoulders of Hitler. Blaming the killing of 6 million Jews on anyone other than Hitler is wrong.

Tell that to the old ladies who were attacked by intruders, who phoned the police several times, who were "held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers" for 14 hours, and who were told by the court in Warren v. District of Columbia that the police had no mandate to protect them.

Irrelevant. Did the police use force to stop these men from committing further crime?

Considering that Washington and the Continental Army lost every single battle...

Non responsive. I will ask again. Did it work?

Oh, and Shane, I'm surprised that you are unfamiliar with The Battle of Trenton

Winner: The battle was a resounding physical and moral victory for Washington and his American troops.

 

[shanek]

Every event is dependent on every past event since the big bang. Such an argument is silly.

No, it isn't. The fact is, force begets force.

Irrelevant.

No, not irrelevant; it's exactly the point!

 

[RandFan]

No, it isn't. The fact is, force begets force.

Everything begets everything.

No one told Hitler to build gas chambers, attack England and invade the Soviet Union. You suggest that any force no matter its relevance can be used to justify any response.

If a driver forces me off of the road then I can force him off, right?

Such argument removes responsibility from the aggressor. Assuming that Hitler was provoked and I think an argument that the Treaty of Versailles was a provocation but that cannot justify Hitler's aggression and it certainly cannot justify genocide.

No, not irrelevant; it's exactly the point!

Did the force stop the men from committing more crime?

 

[shanek]

Everything begets everything.

Well, that's a good way to both justify atrocities and dismiss scientific notions...

Such argument removes responsibility from the aggressor. Assuming that Hitler was provoked and I think an argument that the Treaty of Versailles was a provocation but that cannot justify Hitler's aggression and it certainly cannot justify genocide.

This is amazing...I'm sitting here talking about how force isn't justified and you're trying to rebut me by telling me that force isn't justified.

 

[RandFan]

Well, that's a good way to both justify atrocities and dismiss scientific notions

What? I'm pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

This is amazing...I'm sitting here talking about how force isn't justified and you're trying to rebut me by telling me that force isn't justified.

No, you are saying that the force used by the Nazis was a direct result of the force used during WWI. I'm saying that is a justification and is bull.

Hitler must accept responsibility for attacking England and invading the Soviet Union. Trying to tie that to the Treaty at Versailles or anything that happened as a result of WWI is inappropriate and wrong.