I Was Fooled By the War-Makers

[Feeding the Abscess]

http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods201.html


“I am getting more and more convinced that the war-peace question is the key to the whole libertarian business,” Rothbard noted privately in 1956. I am equally convinced. If we can’t get this right, who cares about the Department of Education or the minimum wage?

Also great is this speech. Tom gets fired up in a couple of spots:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5hMiTS2dg

[Sola_Fide]

Great article. I don't know if sound money or war is the key to the whole libertarian business...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Great article. I don't know if sound money or war is the key to the whole libertarian business...

Well if you take the purse strings away they can't wage war - at least not on such a grand scale. However, never underestimate the propaganda of the State to rally the boobus masses so, the overarching goal and importance is elimination of the agency of violence, coercion, force, and monopoly - the State.

[EBounding]

The same thing pretty much happened to me. I actually didn't even agree with Paul's foreign policy when I made my first political donation to him last year. I just figured we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves anyway if we're bankrupt. But then I actually listened to him.

I'm embarrassed to read things I wrote on the internet 8 or so years ago defending the wars. I truly believed what we were doing was good and that it was not only protecting us, but also liberating people around the globe. ugh

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The same thing pretty much happened to me. I actually didn't even agree with Paul's foreign policy when I made my first political donation to him last year. I just figured we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves anyway if we're bankrupt. But then I actually listened to him.

I'm embarrassed to read things I wrote on the internet 8 or so years ago defending the wars. I truly believed what we were doing was good and that it was not only protecting us, but also liberating people around the globe. ugh

Oh we're liberating them - in about a few thousand chunks of flesh. Sad and sickening.

[SL89]

GREAT article and I am going to pass it on, however, I have to take issue with this. "Some 100,000 were burned alive by a chemical agent or buried alive in the desert while making a retreat." I was there and I want to know the "chemical agent" involved. If it is DU and propellant fumes, I get it. But, he sensationalized it and I don't like it. The people I argue with are smart and this one detail could possibly derail any argument, derailing the neo-con agenda.

[RockEnds]

GREAT article and I am going to pass it on, however, I have to take issue with this. "Some 100,000 were burned alive by a chemical agent or buried alive in the desert while making a retreat." I was there and I want to know the "chemical agent" involved. If it is DU and propellant fumes, I get it. But, he sensationalized it and I don't like it. The people I argue with are smart and this one detail could possibly derail any argument, derailing the neo-con agenda.

My ex-husband was there. He was attached to 1st AD. Somewhere around here I have letters he sent to me during the operation. In them he describes coming up on places where everything was dead--both people and animals. I don't know if anyone ever decided for sure just what caused that. I remember reading in the official investigations something to the effect that it was just that time of year when animals die in the desert. Uh, yeah. Of course, they were investigating the causes of Gulf War Syndrome when someone reached that 'conclusion'. Something happened. I don't know what, but something.

[seraphson]

Well if you take the purse strings away they can't wage war - at least not on such a grand scale. However, never underestimate the propaganda of the State to rally the boobus masses so, the overarching goal and importance is elimination of the agency of violence, coercion, force, and monopoly - the State.

I think it was Woods that said it or it may have been Woods quoting someone but "it's no coincidence that the century of central banking coincided with the century of total war". And this is a point that I would like to bring forward more the next time a friend, family, etc. brings up politics and my "questionable"(aka misunderstood) support for Paul. The issue is that it's not exactly something that could be quickly explained AND understood by someone in a 5-10 minute conversation. And I doubt, unless they're sincerely interested, they would pay attention past the "1-minute" newsflash attention span mark that a lot of shit on TV encourages and displays. And hence the dilemma of trying to get people to understand why we support such a different and fantastic candidate. I believe the real dilemma is getting people to actually give a damn. I suppose that's why when you get hit where it hurts (lose your job, crazy health bills, extremely long/expensive wars) you start to pay attention a little more.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

double post

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The issue is that it's not exactly something that could be quickly explained AND understood by someone in a 5-10 minute conversation. And I doubt, unless they're sincerely interested, they would pay attention past the "1-minute" newsflash attention span mark that a lot of shit on TV encourages and displays.


Here's your condensed version... They don't have real support for these wars, so central banks loan them the money to wage them. If they actually had to come collect taxes from you for these wars, you'd either resist or keep 0% of your income. You'd be forced to support these wars with your labor and income, right now. Do you really want to buy a 1 billion dollar embassy in Baghdad?

Maybe throw in something about the number of bases in the number of countries. I don't know that stat.

[Origanalist]

The same thing pretty much happened to me. I actually didn't even agree with Paul's foreign policy when I made my first political donation to him last year. I just figured we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves anyway if we're bankrupt. But then I actually listened to him.

I'm embarrassed to read things I wrote on the internet 8 or so years ago defending the wars. I truly believed what we were doing was good and that it was not only protecting us, but also liberating people around the globe. ugh

Me too. :o It took GW'S second term to open my eyes......slow learner.

[Travlyr]

I am impressed with Tom Woods in this speech. It is brilliant. He makes positive reference to the States many times and he even hints at support of the Constitution. I am convinced that Tom Woods knows more about the Constitution than most people, so he does not directly support it, but, like Ron Paul, he should understand that most people will not work that hard. He should support the original intent of the Constitution, as described by Dr. Kevin R. C. Gutzman, until we can get something better. Brilliant speech Dr. Woods. Nice work indeed.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

That article pretty much sums up my transition from neo-conservatism to libertarianism.