War and Foreign Policy

It seems that Poles, much like the ancient Spartans, have a choice to end up either with a shield or upon it.

Let's get out of the fevered delirium of war, with the hallucination that all the money in the world is to be made in the madness of war and the wildness of its aftermath.

By now there’s been a great deal of libertarian criticism and discussion of Randy Barnett‘s

Mises was not surprised by WWI, 1914-1920.  He was posted on the Northern Front of the Austro-Hungarian towns as a Lieutenant in an artillery unit.

The world would be a much safer place if Giuliani and those other eight "bomb Iran" candidates were behind bars, and police stopped harassing Paris Hilton and her girlfriends in Hollywood.

As Quigley aptly notes, military force is supposed to be the last resort in a crisis, not the first.

Randy Barnett lectures us that libertarians can and should be all f

They have merchants of death in their districts that get the cash. They benefit from the huge spike in "homeland security" funds, and so have every incentive to keep the level of war hysteria high and growing. They are part of the state apparatus, and war is the health of the state. They too have much to lose from ending the war and much to gain from keeping some form of the war going.

John Quigley's book has a valuable main thesis and, I suggest, an even more valuable claim that underlies this thesis. The purpose of his book, Quigley tells us, is to explore "U.S. military actions abroad over the past half-century.

Adding more government intervention in virtually every aspect of our lives because politicians who oppose war call everything else a war, cannot stand up to careful examination.