War and Foreign Policy

How comfy we are all in the United States, as we engage in living-room debates about the US occupation of Iraq.

Suppose that Iran got a nuclear bomb. Would it be of any use to it? Let’s say the US attacks Iran and kills half of its population.

But the critical thing is that these people will be governing themselves, and the critical thing that prevents progress today — the presence of the foreign occupier — will be gone. The solution is imperfect, to be sure, but it is better than the opposite of turning the entire world into a prison camp run by the U.S. government.

A solid gold standard in which every dime spent had to come from an existing stock of money would shatter the whole system. Is it any wonder that this is the last subject politicians want to talk about?

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.