Dr. Ivan Eland, an anti-interventionist libertarian and Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute on Mayhem in Madrid:
It appears that the Spanish people can thank the Bush administration for the horrendous bombing of four commuter trains in Madrid that killed 200 people and injured 1,500. Although the New York Times editorialized that the attacks were a “reminder that terrorism is a worldwide threat and that fighting it is not America’s problem alone,” Spain was not attacked randomly. It was apparently attacked for being one of the few nations in the world to support the unnecessary U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Read the rest of Dr. Eland's commentary here. This entry also posted at Stand Down.
If this prints then we have comments again!
Posted by Brendan on March 23, 2004 12:31 PM
I see that we are back in the mix now. Well, I thought that I would comment on this, yet another, idiotic statement taken from an organization with alterior motives. Once again, how can you blame a nation that has no authority for another’s tragedy. Give me a break! What exactly is an anti-interventionist libertarian anyway- all semantics and rhetoric and little substance. What purpose is this type of statement serving? Why use rhetorical stipulations of this kind? Here is an example of what I mean: “With the fall of the supportive Spanish government…”. Uh, the Spanish government didn’t fall, nor did it collapse under pressure. It simply changed from one party to another. Any half-witted person would know that. Here’s another one: “(90 percent of the Spanish public had opposed this policy).”-Meaning the policy to support an ally in using military preemptive force- well, there is no way that 90 percent of Spain was opposed to the war, no way! I have lived in Spain and continue to associate with many of the Spaniards with whom I met there and they approved the military action. So what is this guy talking about? Has he ever been to Spain? Talked to actual Spaniards? Does he know where Spain is? There is a majority of Spaniards now that oppose the war, but the majority were for the war at the beginning. I would like to know how anyone could believe that 90% of the population of a country could agree on anything? Perhaps his statistics were taken from his 8th grade algebra book!
(90 percent of the Spanish public had opposed this policy).
Posted by TKM on March 23, 2004 05:55 PM
All the intellectual nit-picking aside, I think TKM made two excellent points.
Dr. Eland is trying to do what the Palestinian propogandists and other Leftist excuseniks do, i.e. “We blow up your children because Sharon tries to stop us”, or in this case, “It’s George Bush’s fault”.
Dr. Eland’s premise is so reprehensible I wasn’t even going to comment, but TKM was attacked ad hominem, or, advocabulem, and I just had to jump in. Please excuse me, I’m going back to my table now.
Posted by Robert Kessler on March 24, 2004 08:42 PM
I agree with your first point Robert, even tho I may say it a lotless directly (and perhaps less efficiently). I think TKM got attacked (at least by me) mostly because he used a discrediting attack in his argument, and those arguments are tiresome dead-ends in my experience. For instance, I can present sources for a statement, but it holds no water to those who think my sources are not credible, so I resort to logical reasoning only. Those who resort to sources I find dubious will find I test their arguments solely on reasoning as well, and they will find no safety in a bibliography. Discrediting an opponent, particularly when the attack becomes personal, is generally away of winning an argument without the tedium of having to be right. I personally would rather be right than win. In this case, I think TKM and you ARE right, I only throw in to reduce the emotional heatedness of the discussion at hand. I likely replace it with tedious rhetoric, so feel free to ignore me.
Posted by limberwulf on March 24, 2004 10:01 PM
TKM said: “another, idiotic statement taken from an organization with alterior motives.”
What are the “alterior motives”? I’m picturing men in black suits chasing aliens…
TKM said: “What exactly is an anti-interventionist libertarian anyway- all semantics and rhetoric and little substance.”
It ain’t hard to understand. It is what it is. Buy a dictionary if the big words are stumping you.
Posted by James Landrith on March 23, 2004 06:17 PM
This is to you James Landrith:
This is what I mean by idiots commenting on these B.S. statements by putative libertarians. I’m in graduate school my friend, I’m sure you’re a real bright guy, maybe even a genius-no, wait, no you aren’t. I was fooled. I don’t need a dictionary for this one. Read below and you’ll see why. That’s all your comment merits.
This is to you Brendan:
“So if you say a sentence is ‘all semantics’ then you are saying it is meaningful. It’s incoherent to then go on to say it lacks substance…” Give me a break! Rhetorical nonsense. Semantics is not just the study of meaning genius, it’s also the interpretation of that word. It’s funny how you can criticize another post yet lack the nerve to post anything productive to the original purpose of the discussion. So when you’ve pulled your head out from under your rock, come and make a real comment!
Then I spend more time answering it!
Posted by TKM on March 24, 2004 12:01 PM
‘all semantics and rhetoric and little substance’
Pedant’s point: semantics is the study of meaning. So if you say a sentence is ‘all semantics’ then you are saying it is meaningful. It’s incoherent to then go on to say it lacks substance, since what you have just said is that it does NOT lack substance. I know i know i should get out more.
Posted by Brendan on March 24, 2004 07:42 AM
temper temper TKM
1) I find Dr. Eland’s statement to be a bit misplaced. Bush is not to blame for a bombing in Spain, terrorist monsters were to blame for that. Bush’s actions in Iraq may well have been unnecessary or in poor timing, the jury is still out on that. The truth of his sales pitch has been called into question many times and many of those questions have a great deal of merit. Im no fan of Bush for a host of reasons, but I refuse to agree with those that would set him up as a Jonah or a fall guy, and have everyone beleive that he is the source of the world’s problems. To beleive such a preposterous thing is lunacy. To beleive that he alone is to blame for all that instigated terrorist action is short-sighted, and to think that America in general’s actions are sufficient to legitimately be blamed for mass murders done in “protest” is ridiculous. Murderers with explosives are to be blamed for what happened in Spain, and the Spanish citizens can thank them, not Bush, for the deaths of their fellow citizens.
2) On the other hand, I find Dr. Eland’s principles to be not that far removed from my own. I would very much like to see the US use its military in a more limited scope and for actual defense of US territory only. Pro-active wars are often based on little more than “symantecs and rhetoric”, and are akin to pro-active policework, something I am not a big fan of. Dont take my right to own a gun as a pro-active step to prevent murder, because you are taking away my rights as an individual and are accomplishing a largely counterproductive result. I find “pre-emptive strikes” to be little different in principle. A non-interventionalist libertarian is simply someone who thinks the government should have far less power and shouldnt meddle in the affairs of other countries. I cant say Im particularly opposed to that. A less powerful government that didnt try to send my friends off to police the rest of the world?
Sounds good to me.
Posted by Limberwulf on March 24, 2004 05:41 PM
I’m back. You’re right Limberwulf, perhaps I should have handled the derision a bit more diplomatically. Everyone who takes a stand is prone to attack, I shouldn’t feel like the exception. And thank you Robert for reading my entire pos tbefore making any conclusions.
Back to the discussion: “A non-interventionalist libertarian is simply someone who thinks the government should have far less power and shouldnt meddle in the affairs of other countries.” Finally, someone who addressed the question instead of my dislike for cyclical and redundant verbage. This is a tricky issue, like most are when we deal with billions of peoples’ lives, should the government- or us for that matter-decide to strike out before we are attacked? In my opinion, the U.S. needs to protect itself, just like Israel, Spain, Britain, etc. from imminent attacks. A group has declared war on its people and stated that it is its goal to kill them. Al Quaeda didn’t make any effort to stipulate that it was just against the government; they targeted innocent people, and attacks were committed long before good ol’ Bush came around. Well, in my books those are threats and should be dealt with as such. I would like to know what everyone thinks about that? If the U.S. doesn’t preemptively strike then what should be done to curtail these threats/attacks against Americans? Remeber, in the States a threat on someone’s life can land you in prison.
Posted by TKM on March 25, 2004 08:20 PM
After nearly 20 years, re-reading your smug arrogance is just as infuriating. You were a pompous fool, pretending to be more educated than your muddled, faux intellectualism could possibly demonstrate.
Your appearances on the Stand Down blog always amounted to you attacking people personally, then crying victim when people hit back. Fucking stop.
You have blood on your hands. You will ALWAYS have blood on your hands for cheerleading for mass murder. The forever wars are finally ending. I guess your smug life went on without impact.
I also find it fascinating that on other postings at Stand Down (NoWarBlog) you felt empowered to harass and disrespect other commenters for generic names while using only initials yourself. Gross.
90 % of Spaniard against the war before it started not true?
Well it was the result of polls at that time.
Short memory everyone ?
Wouter
Posted by Wouter on March 25, 2004 02:24 PM