Foreign Policy // Current TV

U.S. military beginning review of Syria options

Another fake humanitarian crisis after provacatuers were sent into Syria to stir... more

maasanova
added this
1 day ago
|
35 comments

Why Hasn't This Video Gone Viral?

Created by Christian Malazarte

JRBarilla
added this
5 days ago
|
60 comments

Impotence, hypocrisy and Western division over Iran

The consecutive American messages about dialogue with Iran are accompanied by fierce... more

wbradleyjr1
added this
9 days ago
|
1 comment

War Propaganda

The War propagandists are at it again. This time their target is Iran.... more

Radical_Centrist
added this
19 days ago
|
1 comment

Who Started It? Closing Hormuz

Walter Block on Iran and Ron Paul.

The closure of an international body of water is an act of war. If Iran implemented such a policy in the Strait of Hormuz, it would thus constitute an act of war. This is because in order to do so, this country would have to physically violate the rights of peaceful shippers. One might object that at present, Iran has only threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. However, in my understanding of libertarian theory based upon the non aggression principle (NAP) not only are people (or governments!) not permitted to actually invade, or violate the rights of peaceful individuals, they are not entitled to threaten this either.

However, before we unduly criticize the Iranians for this threat, let us put the matter in context. The U.S. government has also threatened a blockade of Iran. With many statements emanating from Washington D.C. to the effect that the U.S. government "is not taking anything off the table," they are menacing actions a lot more serious, and invasive, than a mere blockade.

Why is the U.S. acting in so bellicose a manner? This is because it seems to be a settled part of present American policy that Iran should not persist in its (supposed) goal of arming itself with nuclear weapons.

Now, somewhat paradoxically, I agree with the Obama administration on this matter. Iran should not have nuclear weapons. But, neither should anyone else! Why not? This is because they are necessarily offensive. This type of ordnance cannot be used in a way that distinguishes between the guilty and the innocent. States Rothbard in this regard: "… while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even ‘conventional’ aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction." (For a further elaboration of this thesis and a discussion of its implications, see here.)

However, this demand of Iran on the part of the U.S. comes with particular ill grace given the fact that the latter country has thousands of such nuclear devices. If the Obama Administration had suddenly become infused with libertarianism in general, and with Rothbard’s analysis of nuclear weapons in particular, it would certainly be justified in continuing to press the Iranians not to develop such firearms. But it would begin this quest by getting rid of its own stocks first.

But are not the Iranians unstable? Are they not likely, under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to use these items against innocent people? Did not this person threaten to wipe Israel off the map with them, that is, use such weapons against that country? No. This was a mis-translation of what he actually said (see here, here, here, here, here and especially here {hyperlinks omitted see article at the link}). Nor is it possible to ignore the fact that there is only one country on the face of the earth that has actually employed atomic weapons against innocent men, women and children. And that country, strangely enough, is not Iran. Rather, it is the good old U.S. of A., land of the free and home of the brave. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and especially here {hyperlinks omitted see article at link})

So, while I certainly endorse Rothbard’s analysis according to which any and all atomic weaponry is illicit according the NAP, it does not at all logically follow that a country with thousands of such armaments, that has the distinction of being the only one to have ever murdered people with such a heinous weapon, is justified in using force to prevent another nation from obtaining one for itself. (I here stipulate, arguendo, that this is indeed the case; Iran of course insists it is interested in nuclear power for entirely peaceful purposes.)....

Continued at:

http://lewrockwell.com/block/block193.htmlWalter Block on Iran and Ron Paul. The closure of an international body of water is... more

Dagum
added this
1 month ago
|
5 comments

Ron Paul Town Hall Meeting In Meredith New Hampshire

January 08, 2012 C-SPAN

JRBarilla
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

Grassroots-Made Video: Ron Paul’s 2002 Predictions All Come True

Grassroots-Made Video: Ron Paul’s 2002 Predictions All Come True... more

JRBarilla
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

Ron Paul's Speech - Veterans Rally in Des Moines, Iowa

! 12/28/2011

JRBarilla
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

2012 Predictions by Justin Raimondo of Anti-War.com

Predictions are always problematic – there’s that pesky notion of “free will,” [.pdf] not to mention the stubborn refusal of reality to conform to our preconceptions.

1) War with Iran – One could argue we are already at war with Iran, what with US support for the terrorist Jundallah – a Sunni extremist group with links to al-Qaeda – which is attacking Iranian civilians and wreaking havoc in Iranian Baluchistan. Also, the sanctions we have imposed on Iran are, in themselves, acts of war – and we’ve seen how Iran is responding with threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, which a great deal of the world’s oil must pass through.

In line with my theory of “libertarian realism” – the idea that domestic political considerations determine a nation’s actions on the international stage – I’ll note that the number one force pushing for war with Iran is the indefatigable Israel lobby, which has been beating the war drums for years now and has the full support of both parties in Congress. Sure, the American people don’t want war – but since when have they had any say in our foreign policy?

Click source for predictions 2-6

7) The only antiwar presidential candidate will be continuously smeared, demonized, and eventually driven out of the GOP by the party Establishment – If Ron Paul even comes close to winning Iowa, he will have everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him by a grand alliance of neocons, Obama cultists, and Beltway fake-“libertarians.”

First they’ll blame the weather, then they’ll blame the “fanaticism” of Paul’s army of volunteers, and finally they’ll blame the voters, who are supposedly so poisoned by “resentment” that they must be declared officially mad. Delegates won fair and square will encounter “problems” with their credentials.

Gloria Borger will team up with a famous psychic to divine who really authored the infamous newsletters, and fresh non-scandals will be unearthed by enterprising “journalists.” In the end, a coalition of neocons and Romneyites will issue an encyclical, excommunicating Paul and his supporters from the Republican party – and opening the way for a third party bid that will threaten to put the GOP nominee in third in November.

Probability: 95%Predictions are always problematic – there’s that pesky notion of... more