15 July 2005
Military defense: local issue
Some people argue that military defense (or offense) is not a local issue, but I could not disagree more. As long as there are local men and women serving in the military, it is a local issue. As long as we elect congress persons and senators to decided issues of defense in Washington, it is a local issue.
While I have nothing but praise for our soldiers, it is my opinion that our political leadership in Washington has made a grave mistake in invading Iraq. As a libertarian, I find that this foreign intervention in another country is unjustifiable by libertarian principles. By libertarian principles a foreign intervention is prima facie a questionable event. We believe that such military action must be in defense of the U.S. from aggression by another entity. Every justification floated by the Bush administration has been proven to be false. It is time that we withdraw from this quagmire in an orderly and expeditious manner.
The invasion of Iraq has not made us one bit safer from terrorists. In fact, the invasion has played right into the hands of the terrorists who had predicted just such an event. Terrorists do not have to defeat us to win! All they have to do is remain undefeated and take an occasional shot at our people. Armored divisions are made for defeating other military formations who will try to stand up to them. The U.S. military is not designed to fight terrorists. A much better weapon against terrorists would consist of local Iraqi old people and children with cell phones backed up by a few armed men.
It was announced in the paper on July 14th that Senator Clinton along with several of her fellow senators would support an increase in the army of 80,000 persons. When will we learn that the taxpayers are not a bottomless well of wealth that exists to fund the national budget including the military establishment. We do not need this kind of military force to fight terrorism. The Iraqi local people who look and act like the terrorists and speak the language must defend themselves from the terrorists in their midst. Sending more soldiers or allowing the ones we have there to remain is simply providing a ready supply of targets for terrorists.
It may be that the Iraq situation is winding down. We must certainly hope so, but the Bush Administration has set up a line of new enemies for us to vanquish when Iraq is completed, namely, No. Korea and Iran top the list. The dispute they are pushing is over non-proliferation of nuclear capacity which might lead to the production of weapons. The U.S. is reported to have 15,000 such weapons. Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel not to mention the Europeans have weapons. What justification do we have for preventing them from having nuclear capacity? By threatening them we merely increase their fears of us, and incite their resolve to have such weapons to defend themselves against us. Our own actions are creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
We should mind our own business at least militarily. We should reduce our military establishment to one that we can afford long term.
For Liberty, Jay Eckl
While I have nothing but praise for our soldiers, it is my opinion that our political leadership in Washington has made a grave mistake in invading Iraq. As a libertarian, I find that this foreign intervention in another country is unjustifiable by libertarian principles. By libertarian principles a foreign intervention is prima facie a questionable event. We believe that such military action must be in defense of the U.S. from aggression by another entity. Every justification floated by the Bush administration has been proven to be false. It is time that we withdraw from this quagmire in an orderly and expeditious manner.
The invasion of Iraq has not made us one bit safer from terrorists. In fact, the invasion has played right into the hands of the terrorists who had predicted just such an event. Terrorists do not have to defeat us to win! All they have to do is remain undefeated and take an occasional shot at our people. Armored divisions are made for defeating other military formations who will try to stand up to them. The U.S. military is not designed to fight terrorists. A much better weapon against terrorists would consist of local Iraqi old people and children with cell phones backed up by a few armed men.
It was announced in the paper on July 14th that Senator Clinton along with several of her fellow senators would support an increase in the army of 80,000 persons. When will we learn that the taxpayers are not a bottomless well of wealth that exists to fund the national budget including the military establishment. We do not need this kind of military force to fight terrorism. The Iraqi local people who look and act like the terrorists and speak the language must defend themselves from the terrorists in their midst. Sending more soldiers or allowing the ones we have there to remain is simply providing a ready supply of targets for terrorists.
It may be that the Iraq situation is winding down. We must certainly hope so, but the Bush Administration has set up a line of new enemies for us to vanquish when Iraq is completed, namely, No. Korea and Iran top the list. The dispute they are pushing is over non-proliferation of nuclear capacity which might lead to the production of weapons. The U.S. is reported to have 15,000 such weapons. Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel not to mention the Europeans have weapons. What justification do we have for preventing them from having nuclear capacity? By threatening them we merely increase their fears of us, and incite their resolve to have such weapons to defend themselves against us. Our own actions are creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
We should mind our own business at least militarily. We should reduce our military establishment to one that we can afford long term.
For Liberty, Jay Eckl
# posted by Rodney Austin @ 10:03 AM 
