CATO's Take on Iraq

[AutoJC]

I first became aware of CATO's unusual stand against the Iraq war about a year ago in a debate forum at the Mac Addict site. A poster, whom I normally respect for his defense of capitalism and individual rights, linked an article and claimed that true capitalists would not have approved of or supported this war effort for any reason.

And now, this has surfaced yet again. In my respect to this forum so that I don't hijack the thread I extracted this from, here we go again:

I agree with you on that.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-502es.html

Excerpt:

But even if Iraq was in violation of a UN resolution, the U.S. military does not exist to enforce UN mandates. It exists to defend the United States: its territorial integrity and national sovereignty, the population, and the liberties that underlie the American way of life.

I highlighted this for a reason.

Much of the UN's military support comes from, yes, the U. S. Military. By its commitment to the United Nations, America supplies such military support and is therefore very much involved in enforcing UN mandates.

The article would be far more accurate had it stated that.

The article also mentions that Israel conducted a "pre-emptive self-defense" against the Arab states back in 1967. As I remember, Arab forces amassed along the Israeli border with every intent of attacking Israel.

[Invictus]

The U.S. did not invade Iraq to enforce a U.N. mandate. It invaded to ensure the security of its people. The United Nations is a money sucking waste of time that exists to serve the agenda of a bunch of bigheaded unelected officials out to deepen their pockets and further their own agenda's. It is time for the US to withdraw and let the UN fade into complete obscurity. Enough tax dollars have already gone to fund the huge list of UN failures.

[Richard_Halley]

This is not suprising; this is a libertarian organization were talking about..

[AutoJC]

Inclined not to disagree with Invictus; however, the U. S. did seek the help of the U. N. in arriving at its decision to invade Iraq.

In order to do this, America had to cite a previous UN treaty secured in 1991 which forbade Iraq from developing or using weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq's support of terrorism was not mentioned very often. Iraq did support international terrorism, but its role against America per se didn't seem as significant as such role played by Iran, who harbored Taliban and Al Qaeda fugitives, Syria, Libya, and, until recently, Afghanistan.

So, in my opinion, the remaining justifcation for the Bush administration to invade Iraq was that his father didn't finish the job back in 1991. Nor did the U. N., for that matter.

Iran remains untouched and unchallenged, to this day. It is my opinion that the Bush adminstration erred greatly in prioritizing Iraq in the war on terror.

[Skywalker]

I have to agree w/Invictus. Iran's support of terrorism is well-documented. They're listed as the state department's number one sponsor of terrorism. Whatever problems you have with "libertarian" organizations like CATO, I think it's rational to assert that had his priorities out of whack with the Iraq attack. It's not that we weren't justified in removing Saddam; it's that at this point in time, we shouldn't have been doing the UN's dirty laundry. We should have been going after more blatant threats, like the nuke-making Iran (instead of the merely nuke-wanting Saddam). there was something wrong with the reports, or the weapons were moved?

Keep in mind also that "libertarian" is a word meaning advocate of limited government and laizzes faire capitalism. Many objectivists have demonized the term because of the stupidity of the Libertarian party, but not everyone who calls him or herself a libertarian is on that low level.

[Richard_Halley]

Keep in mind also that "libertarian" is a word meaning advocate of limited government and laizzes faire capitalism. Many objectivists have demonized the term because of the stupidity of the Libertarian party, but not everyone who calls him or herself a libertarian is on that low level.

I bet we have threads about why libertarian's ought to be "demonized." You should find, and read one.

[Invictus]

I have to agree w/Invictus. Iran's support of terrorism is well-documented.

Did I say something about Iran?

[Skywalker]

Whoops, I meant to say I agree w/Auto JC about Iran. Sorry, Invictus. As to the libertarian organizations, I understand your problem with them, but I don't understand why we should dismiss anyone calling his or herself a libertarian because of a disagreement with the Libertarian Party and other such organizations. Libertarian is a word that means advocate of laizzes faire capitalism and limited government. I haven't read much released by the CATO institute, but none of the few things I've seen were offensively wrong, or even out of step with Objectivist principles. How is arguing that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it wasn't in our self-interest not an Objectivist argument?

In hopes of allaying my confusion, I'll search for one of the anti-libertarian threads.

[AutoJC]

Whoops, I meant to say I agree w/Auto JC about Iran.

[erik]

I think we were more than justified going into any totalitarian regime if it was deemed to be threat to national security. What Bush and co. did was go in to "save" the Iraqi people and we can see that is not possible. The British and French failed there long ago why would it be different this time.

I think what they should have done is take out Saddam. Leave immediately and then when Turkey or Iran or Saudi Arabia trys to invade and take over the oil fields ( which all we really care about anyway ), attack them. One after another we would topple the totalitarian regimes and hunt for Osama and gang at the same time. Terrorist organizations need stable totalitarian regimes to train in. If there are none left they have nowhere to plan in safety.

Its either that or do what Peikoff said and nuke em all.

[AutoJC]

Its either that or do what Peikoff said and nuke em all.

I have to admit, I'm with Peikoff

[student]

..."do what Peikoff said and nuke em all.

Was he serious?

Are you?

[erik]

student,

a little digging will find the entire speech by Peikoff on the nuke subject. Do some research on it and draw your own conclusions.

[WGD]

Peikoff never said "nuke em all."

His comments were on civiliam leaders demanding victory but then putting all kinds of restrictions on the military. He said the military should be allowed to decide which weapons are appropriate.