When to go to war

While I agree with Austrian economists on economics and the free market, I do find it hard for me to grasp their anti-war stance. Let's be honest, most people don't like war, but to believe that you can avoid war by just isolating yourself seems hard for me to believe.

There are books out now that argue we could have avoided WWII, but I don't see how something like that is possible as you watch a Hilter capturing most of Europe, the Japanese capturing much of Asia, Mussolini taking Africa, etc.

I guess my question is when do you believe war is justified? Do you believe we should have a strong military? Do you believe isolationism works?

Austrian/libertarian theory doesn't have anything to say a priori about war or isolationism. It is true many of us have gripes with WWII, but instead of debating the logistics, we should instead focus on war through libertarian means. No drafting, no taxation, no killing of innocents etc. This raises a host of issues, but it is down this path the Austrian Libertarians tread.

You may find this interesting.

Thanks for the reply. I am an open minded person, and I'm trying to learn what I'm missing. I would have voted for Ron Paul if it was not for his isolationist tendencies. I don't think we can pull out of the middle east and we'll just be left alone. Islam's biggest problem with us is our culture. They think we are vulgar and corrupting of their "virtuous" culture. This is why they call us the devil.

I'm not saying I am right, this is just my perspective from books and articles I have read from both sides. Again, I am trying to find out where I went wrong. I would love to vote for Paul if I wasn't so concerned that he'd stick his head in the ground while other nations gain power and don't have the best intentions in mind.

ProudProfiteer:

Thanks for the reply. I am an open minded person, and I'm trying to learn what I'm missing. I would have voted for Ron Paul if it was not for his isolationist tendencies. I don't think we can pull out of the middle east and we'll just be left alone. Islam's biggest problem with us is our culture. They think we are vulgar and corrupting of their "virtuous" culture. This is why they call us the devil.

I'm not saying I am right, this is just my perspective from books and articles I have read from both sides. Again, I am trying to find out where I went wrong. I would love to vote for Paul if I wasn't so concerned that he'd stick his head in the ground while other nations gain power and don't have the best intentions in mind.

 

Now the truth is the vast majority of these "bad guys" who hate us are really normal everyday people who are simply trying to feed their families.  They want the sons and daughters to grow up.  They want to have normal lives.  Really no diffrent from you or I.  But we wont let them live in peace.  We use thier nations as pawns in our lust for power.

Now put yourself in thier shoes.  Why and how do they think we are corrupting their culture?  By simply existing?  Or by sending troops and bureaucrats half way across the globe manipulating thier governments, spreading "democracy", and nation building?  Many of the problems that we are dealing with in the Middle East are a direct result of our previous interventions.  You are right though.  If we were to leave immediately the attacks would not stop immediately.  We have created a huge fire that will take time to burn out.  But we have to stop adding fuel.

As far as military intervention in Iraq and Afganistan goes, we have played right into thier hands.  We are being bled militarily, politically, and economicly.  The people who wish us harm cannot be beaten with a conventional military.  It is an unwinnable situation and it does not make us any safer.  The harder we push the more fuel we add. 

ProudProfiteer:

While I agree with Austrian economists on economics and the free market, I do find it hard for me to grasp their anti-war stance. Let's be honest, most people don't like war, but to believe that you can avoid war by just isolating yourself seems hard for me to believe.

There are books out now that argue we could have avoided WWII, but I don't see how something like that is possible as you watch a Hilter capturing most of Europe, the Japanese capturing much of Asia, Mussolini taking Africa, etc.

I guess my question is when do you believe war is justified? Do you believe we should have a strong military? Do you believe isolationism works?

Yes, isolationism works.

I will repeat this again. Isolationism works. Many successful nations have been isolationist nations, who managed perfectly well without going to war.

Sweden maintained a completely neutral position during both the World Wars. Both British and German navies blockaded Sweden and pushed for them to come out of neutrality and take a side. It did not. Nor did it actively work against belligerents of the war. It still traded under whatever terms were available with its outsiders, regardless of whether they were Axis or Allies. It traded iron ore with Germany, while still selling equipment and supplies to Allied Nations. It simply went on existing as its own nation, exporting freely and importing freely. It even allowed traffic to soldiers of both sides. Nothing happened to Sweden as a result. Its young did not die, its economy was not devastated, its land was not ruined.

Switzerland also maintained neutrality, was also blockaded by both sides, and also did not do anything to either favour for or against any side. Switzerland now has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

Same for Leichtenstein and so on. All of them could have easily been invaded had they made on compromise on their isolationism and neutrality.

Again thanks for the reply. I'm trying to think this out. I'm not trying to convince you, so please don't take it that way. I'm challenging my beliefs to either strengthen them or discard them. Based on that, here is my concerns about what your reply was.

Southern:

Now the truth is the vast majority of these "bad guys" who hate us are really normal everyday people who are simply trying to feed their families.  They want the sons and daughters to grow up.  They want to have normal lives.  Really no diffrent from you or I.  But we wont let them live in peace.  We use thier nations as pawns in our lust for power.

While this may be the case for Westerners and many every day people in the middle east, it is not the case for their leaders. It also, is not the case for all the people. This idea that they just want to go to work and feed there kids is based on our western values. Surely, you would agree all cultures are not the same and do not value the same things. Islam is a religion of laws and values virtue above freedom and tolerance. It was started and spread by conquest. Christianity on the other hand was founded on the belief that we are all sinners and can be forgiven; therefore no man should judge another. (tolerance)

Islamic society is based on virtue, while western society is based on freedom. Those are two different ideas. I agree we should not militarily jam our values down their throat, but we cannot stop our values and culture from spreading around the globe. This has been termed Americanization, and it has spread voluntarily through trade. Islam sees this growth as immorality encroaching on their society which is based on virtue.

While I don't know the answer of how to handle this, because I don't think we should have to supress our culture, I don't ignore the fact that this is a clash between two different cultures and civilizations. If we pull out of the middle east, we will not be able to ignore Islamic fundamentalism. It will not go away because our military does, and it will still pose a serious threat.

Here's a great article on the different types of anti-americanism. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=872

Unfortunately, pulling back the military in my opinion will not stop terrorism, and part of the reason for terrorism is our existence. I'm not trying to justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I am saying you have to be willing to wage war. I don't think we fight wars for domination. Some people in government may, but the fact that the majority of Americans supported the wars says differently. Americans do not want domination.

Again, I don't really want to argue the justification of Iraq and Afghanistan, because I believe at this point both sides have a half way desent argument. My concern is would someone like Ron Paul be willing to wage war? Would he keep a strong military in the event that we must wage war?

If we followed Ron Paul's policy of pulling back our military and not sending them around the world, I think the only way to insure our liberty from foreign threats would be to maintain a strong military. I could handle disengagement as a rational policy, but I do not agree with drastically shrinking the military. I believe foreign threats must fear the power the US could exert if forced to act.

 

ProudProfiteer:

when do you believe war is justified?

self defense

ProudProfiteer:

Do you believe we should have a strong military?

not if created through force or fraud by the state

ProudProfiteer:

Do you believe isolationism works?

sure it can but there's nothing wrong with voluntarily joining forces with a neighbor to defend against a common offense (Dr. Paul has been propagandized as an isolationist, but he's not)

Southern:

Islam's biggest problem with us is our culture.

While that's true, please differentiate between militant extremists, who are in the minority, from the peaceful Muslims, who are in the majority.  Now the gripe I have with some Muslims is that they don't speak out against Muslims who perform the most heinous acts.  I'll also say that the same is true among Christian and Jewish populations in their own way.  There seems to be a position by some that it's good to kill the infidel as long as my hands don't get dirty.  I blame a lot of that on the state, which produces the situation where immoral actions are performed absent of conscience.  And remember that Islam is their religion and state (in their hearts and minds despite western intervention).

Southern:

Now the truth is the vast majority of these "bad guys" who hate us are really normal everyday people who are simply trying to feed their families.  They want the sons and daughters to grow up.  They want to have normal lives.  Really no diffrent from you or I.  But we wont let them live in peace.  We use thier nations as pawns in our lust for power.

These normal people love their children so much that they're willing to strap bombs to them.  While I agree that people are people, there's a lot more going on in the Middle East than people just trying to live normal lives.  Stoning women to death for being raped is not normal.  Open talk of genocide is not normal.  While Islam was well ahead of the curve in the middle ages, it leaves a lot to be desired in this modern age.  Even the more liberal countries practice some pretty barbaric stuff.  So I can't take "Islam is for peace" at its face value.  There is a real need for reform, not just for the benefit of the world, but for these "normal" people who claim to want to live normal lives.

********

The U.S. would not have stayed out of WWII indefinitely.  Hitler viewed the U.S. as a rival to his Third Reich, admiring the U.S. at first before he condemned it because in his view the Aryan race was corrupted by blacks and Jews.  He had plans drawn up for the conquest of the U.S. after the UK was conquered.  If they had stayed out of the war, who knows whether the U.S. could have survived?

********

In general, a nation should not go to war unless it is threatened.  By threatened, the enemy must have intent to do harm, the capability to do harm, and has provoked action.  A declaration of war by the enemy is an announcement of intent and provocation.  The degree of potential harm should be factored in the method of response.  While there is a sense of proportion to war, the first objective of war is to win.  War is damaging to a nation, and should be conducted as the means of last resort.  An enemy with an announced intent of genocide cannot be ignored no matter how long such action may take.  Though controversial, an enemy with the intent of genocide must be either be defeated until that intent changes or must be removed completely (a more humane method is assimilation into other cultures if that is possible).

Prateek Sanjay:

Sweden maintained a completely neutral position during both the World Wars. Both British and German navies blockaded Sweden and pushed for them to come out of neutrality and take a side. It did not. Nor did it actively work against belligerents of the war. It still traded under whatever terms were available with its outsiders, regardless of whether they were Axis or Allies. It traded iron ore with Germany, while still selling equipment and supplies to Allied Nations. It simply went on existing as its own nation, exporting freely and importing freely. It even allowed traffic to soldiers of both sides. Nothing happened to Sweden as a result. Its young did not die, its economy was not devastated, its land was not ruined.

Switzerland also maintained neutrality, was also blockaded by both sides, and also did not do anything to either favour for or against any side. Switzerland now has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

Same for Leichtenstein and so on. All of them could have easily been invaded had they made on compromise on their isolationism and neutrality.

This may be the case, but we don't know what the outcome would be had Hilter won the war. It is hard for me to believe that their neutrality would have long endured based on the map of Europe under Hiltler's control. Why would a man who wanted to exterminate all Jews decide to be descent and let a small nation maintain their sovereignty?

ProudProfiteer:

it is not the case for their leaders

Stop watching the news and do your own research. Our talking heads blast them and misquote them. Particularly Iran.... go look it up on wikipedia.

ProudProfiteer:

to work and feed there kids is based on our western values. Surely, you would agree all cultures are not the same and do not value the same things

No feeding your kids is a human value.

ProudProfiteer:

Christianity on the other hand was founded on the belief that we are all sinners and can be forgiven; therefore no man should judge another. (tolerance)

Catholic church? Nahh inquisition never happened. Also, islam and christianity are practically the same. When they talk about religion and government/policies it is really just a mask for ethnic tensions or something. Sunni and Shia hate eachother because they are different ethnicities/culture, not because of some deeper philisophical disagreement of religion. Blaming religion is like blaming the sand or the temperature. Its different from what we have over here but its not the cause....

ProudProfiteer:

Islam sees this growth as immorality encroaching on their society which is based on virtue.

Thanks for the generalizations. 90% of kids in Iran/kuwait/oman/etc are crazy partiers with more sex and drugs than Americans ever touch. I'm speaking from personal experience.

ProudProfiteer:

While I don't know the answer of how to handle this, because I don't think we should have to supress our culture, I don't ignore the fact that this is a clash between two different cultures and civilizations. If we pull out of the middle east, we will not be able to ignore Islamic fundamentalism. It will not go away because our military does, and it will still pose a serious threat.

Yeah actually we can ignore islamic fundamentalism. It has never been a problem. 9/11 conspiracies aside, if we had had the same national defense as we did in the 70's, 9/11 would have never happened. When a plane gets hijacked, they used to send up 2 fighter jets to shoot it down if it got close enough to anything to pose a danger. See cold-war era when planes used to get hijacked all the time by latin-american terrorists/kidnappers.

ProudProfiteer:

Unfortunately, pulling back the military in my opinion will not stop terrorism, and part of the reason for terrorism is our existence

There is no great threat of terrorism. If there were, it would be icredibly easy to stop. See above.

ProudProfiteer:

My concern is would someone like Ron Paul be willing to wage war?

I think the point of liertarianism is that you don't wait for someone else to solve your problems, particularly if they're going to do it through taxation. There are many articles on mises.org about private defense.  Look them up.

Seriously, get off these statist news sources. As long as you listen to the sate, you will be mislead and duped into their agenda in spite of your libertarian instincts.

ProudProfiteer:

This may be the case, but we don't know what the outcome would be had Hilter won the war. It is hard for me to believe that their neutrality would have long endured based on the map of Europe under Hiltler's control. Why would a man who wanted to exterminate all Jews decide to be descent and let a small nation maintain their sovereignty?

For one, the country is naturally fortified, surrounded (I believe) on all sides by mountains which make moving troop formations and tank columns practically impossible. I think there is a quote, the Germans referred to Switzerland as a "porcupine"

German troops referred to Switzerland as a porcupine (Stachelschwein); the Swiss air force consisted of 250 planes, none of them bombers. The most famous element of Swiss defense were the sabotage plans: At the moment of German invasion, the Simplon and St. Gotthard tunnels would be blown up, as well as all bridges over the Rhine, power stations, and air fields. Avalanches and landslides would be set off to block armor and infantry movement.

For two, the population is heavily armed, and well-trained in rifle shooting, note the significant range advantage of the Swiss amateurs:

Every Swiss home had a rifle. Sharpshooting was and is the national sport; each weekend the hills are alive with the sound of gunfire, with fathers delighting in instructing their kids in proper technique. Swiss youths were trained to shoot at 300 meters, Germans at 100

Additionally,

Germany’s invasion of Switzerland would have cut off their access to their forces in Italy, ended Swiss exports, closed the German gold window with the BIS and stopped the gold sales utilizing the neutral vault location at the  Swiss National Bank.  The price of Swiss invasion was just too great for Germany to bear.

ProudProfiteer:

Prateek Sanjay:

Sweden maintained a completely neutral position during both the World Wars. Both British and German navies blockaded Sweden and pushed for them to come out of neutrality and take a side. It did not. Nor did it actively work against belligerents of the war. It still traded under whatever terms were available with its outsiders, regardless of whether they were Axis or Allies. It traded iron ore with Germany, while still selling equipment and supplies to Allied Nations. It simply went on existing as its own nation, exporting freely and importing freely. It even allowed traffic to soldiers of both sides. Nothing happened to Sweden as a result. Its young did not die, its economy was not devastated, its land was not ruined.

Switzerland also maintained neutrality, was also blockaded by both sides, and also did not do anything to either favour for or against any side. Switzerland now has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

Same for Leichtenstein and so on. All of them could have easily been invaded had they made on compromise on their isolationism and neutrality.

This may be the case, but we don't know what the outcome would be had Hilter won the war. It is hard for me to believe that their neutrality would have long endured based on the map of Europe under Hiltler's control. Why would a man who wanted to exterminate all Jews decide to be descent and let a small nation maintain their sovereignty?

You don't waste military resources fighting a neutral country - unless that nation offers a strategic advantage (Sweden and Switzerland do not).  Isolation makes it easier for the aggressor to pick apart the map.  Once the major fighting is over, then the neutral countries receive the ultimatum to join or die.  Now I don't fault Sweden, Switzerland, etc. from staying out of the fight because there's little doubt they would have been annihilated.

Hitler's error was that he underestimated the resolve of the Brits.  He doubled his error when he invaded Russia prior to being ready.  If the nations had fallen as planned, then the U.S. would have been next for invasion.  The Third Reich required war to exist.  Blood was the lubricant of its engine.  Any assumptions that Hitler would have left the U.S. alone are naive.

 

Snowflake:

Catholic church? Nahh inquisition never happened. Also, islam and christianity are practically the same. When they talk about religion and government/policies it is really just a mask for ethnic tensions or something.

Ok, I like a lot of your arguments, but you are comparing the actions in the middle ages with current day actions in the middle east. I don't think that makes a very good argument that we can ignore the middle east. I'm pretty sure neutrality in the middle ages wouldn't have saved you.

I probably phrased this badly. I didn't mean to frame it in religion against religion, because our state isn't based on religion. It is based on a belief that came out of our religion that all men are created equal, but it was also founded on religious freedom.

Snowflake:

Thanks for the generalizations. 90% of kids in Iran/kuwait/oman/etc are crazy partiers with more sex and drugs than Americans ever touch. I'm speaking from personal experience.

I agree with this but the kids aren't running that state. While in Iran, I believe the youth are pro-American, it still doesn't ignore the threat of their state against us.

Snowflake:

When a plane gets hijacked, they used to send up 2 fighter jets to shoot it down if it got close enough to anything to pose a danger.

Are you arguing that we should just ignore threats and kill our own citizens when they are hijacked? That doesn't seem like a good policy to me.

Snowflake:

Seriously, get off these statist news sources.

Thanks buddy. Why you think I'm on here.

ProudProfiteer:

Thanks for the reply. I am an open minded person, and I'm trying to learn what I'm missing. I would have voted for Ron Paul if it was not for his isolationist tendencies. I don't think we can pull out of the middle east and we'll just be left alone. Islam's biggest problem with us is our culture. They think we are vulgar and corrupting of their "virtuous" culture. This is why they call us the devil.

I'm not saying I am right, this is just my perspective from books and articles I have read from both sides. Again, I am trying to find out where I went wrong. I would love to vote for Paul if I wasn't so concerned that he'd stick his head in the ground while other nations gain power and don't have the best intentions in mind.

the thing about culture wasn't the reason for war. That was a lie fabricated by the government and media. If someone followed actual proper translations of what these people say, 100% of the attacks and wars that happen to the United States is a result of the United States' unnecessary involvement in the middle east. "They hate our freedoms" is a very, very ignorant statement that is baseless.

Had there been no government, and hence no government interest, there would have been no such attacks or wars.

It is important to read up on the creation of Israel, the post-WW2 political climate in Iran, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan in order to get a clue as to what's happening over there and why it is happening. It bewilders me that people think "it's so complicated over there, it's impossible to understand" and also think they understand the motivation, which they phrase as "they did it because they hate our freedoms"

ProudProfiteer:

If we followed Ron Paul's policy of pulling back our military and not sending them around the world, I think the only way to insure our liberty from foreign threats would be to maintain a strong military.

There is no military threat to the United States today, has not been in the past 30 years, and there is not one in the foreseeable future.  No nation on the planet posseses the capability to cross the pacific or atlantic and wage war against us.  We have a huge advantage over most nations of the world in that we are geographicly isolated and our only 2 neighbors are friendly.  We do not need a large military to protect ourselves.  If a real threat emerges we can mobilize for war.  The only arguement that can be made about a military threat, is to those american troops and assets we have deployed around the globe.  Remove those troops and all military threats to US personell dissappear.

ProudProfiteer:

If we followed Ron Paul's policy of pulling back our military and not sending them around the world, I think the only way to insure our liberty from foreign threats would be to maintain a strong military.

Who do we need protection from?  Only one or two nations on the planet possess the manpower and resources to potentally become a threat.  We are the 900 pound gorilla, no one would be willing to risk direct conflict with us.  If you say the threat is islamic fundamentalism then a military will not keep us safe.  These people do not have a nation or a military. You cant fight an unconventional war with conventional militaries.

 

ProudProfiteer:

I believe foreign threats must fear the power the US could exert if forced to act.

They always have, even when we pursued a policy of nonintervention.  Large standing militaries are very dangerous.  Not to boogiemen overseas but to the people that they are supposed to protect.

 

Giant_Joe:

the thing about culture wasn't the reason for war. That was a lie fabricated by the government and media. If someone followed actual proper translations of what these people say, 100% of the attacks and wars that happen to the United States is a result of the United States' unnecessary involvement in the middle east. "They hate our freedoms" is a very, very ignorant statement that is baseless.

I never said they hate our freedom, I said our culture. Much of it comes out of Hollywood, and much of it is the Americanization of the world (our culture).

I also didn't say that was the reason for the war, but how can you say that has nothing to do with what terrorism. You may want to challenge your assumptions that culture has nothing to do with it.

Here's a great article to read on it. http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2002_spring/ahmed.html

 

ProudProfiteer:

Ok, I like a lot of your arguments, but you are comparing the actions in the middle ages with current day actions in the middle east.

Well you said islam was spraed through conquest. the  last time that happened was the middle ages.

ProudProfiteer:

I agree with this but the kids aren't running that state. While in Iran, I believe the youth are pro-American, it still doesn't ignore the threat of their state against us.

What threat?

ProudProfiteer:

Are you arguing that we should just ignore threats and kill our own citizens when they are hijacked? That doesn't seem like a good policy to me.

No. Im trying to remind you how we used to deal with terrorists. Let me spell it out more clearly this time: If a plane got hijacked, we wouldsend it fighter jets to make sure it didnt do anything crazy. They would follow the plane till it had landed wherever. We never had to shoot any planes down, but we were prepared to if the terrorist was going to do anything 9/11-y. Surely you agree shooting down a plane before it can crash into a building with 3,000 ppl in it is the better choice.

Summary: There is no threat out of the middle east. The only time the states has ever been attacked was easily preventable but didnt get stopped for some reason. Do not buy into the terrorist scare. It will turn you from a libertarian into a patriot-act supporting reactionary fascist.

The most pressing argument libertarianism can make is for non-aression. This includes not only a ban of warmongering but also  abhorrence of taxation. Self defense is okay. Just pay for it through volunatry organization.

Southern:

There is no military threat to the United States today, has not been in the past 30 years, and there is not one in the foreseeable future.  No nation on the planet posseses the capability to cross the pacific or atlantic and wage war against us.  We have a huge advantage over most nations of the world in that we are geographicly isolated and our only 2 neighbors are friendly.  We do not need a large military to protect ourselves.  If a real threat emerges we can mobilize for war.  The only arguement that can be made about a military threat, is to those american troops and assets we have deployed around the globe.  Remove those troops and all military threats to US personell dissappear.

If everyone agreed not to have standing armies, I'd agree with you. The problem is you cannot mobilize fast enough to address a major threat in the world today, and other nations are not going to stop developing military power and technology just because we do.

Southern:

Who do we need protection from?  Only one or two nations on the planet possess the manpower and resources to potentally become a threat.  We are the 900 pound gorilla, no one would be willing to risk direct conflict with us.  If you say the threat is islamic fundamentalism then a military will not keep us safe.  These people do not have a nation or a military. You cant fight an unconventional war with conventional militaries.

Again, I am not trying to argue so much about a current wars, as I am about being prepared with significant military power to address a threat if need be. We are the 900 pound gorilla because of our huge military. If we decide to put the gorilla on a massive diet then, you are no longer the 900 pound gorilla and cannot expect the same treatment as the 900 pound gorilla. As far as islamic fundamentalism, that is just one threat where I don't think you can stick your head in the ground and it will go away.

Southern:

They always have, even when we pursued a policy of nonintervention.  Large standing militaries are very dangerous.  Not to boogiemen overseas but to the people that they are supposed to protect.

This may be the case historically, but we've done a good job of keeping it separate from our civilian population, and if you got rid of gov't control over our internal affairs, I think the threat is even lessened.

Giant_Joe:

It is important to read up on the creation of Israel, the post-WW2 political climate in Iran, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan in order to get a clue as to what's happening over there and why it is happening. It bewilders me that people think "it's so complicated over there, it's impossible to understand" and also think they understand the motivation, which they phrase as "they did it because they hate our freedoms"

Exactly. We also dirtied our hands during the cold war, arming most of those governments and indulging in subversive psychological operations. See iran-iraq war and the overthrowing of iran's government in the 60's for gross evidence of the USA intentionally destabilizing the region.