reworked from ‘Thoughts On Freedom’
“We shouldn’t have went to Iraq.”
Bullshit. You haven’t made that case. Don’t pretend you have.
“Which of the WMD had you so scared of Saddam? Mustard gas?”
For the love of dumb-big-titty-blondes-who-just can’t-say-no-everywhere. Did you catch this morons disease off H——-?
I wasn’t the least bit frightened of Saddam but the appeasers were. Now lets get this thing straight. We were talking about you guys lying and been dupes to leftist American-spook-town.
We were talking about you guys, for convenient ideological reasons, adopting every mindless mantra and lie that the dumb-left had to offer.
We were talking about public policy. Not about some sort of internal phobia.
The two of you have to be quits with that mental smokescreen for starters.
Now the fact of the matter is he had WMD, was seeking WMD, had plans for WMD and WMD was found.
This is a matter of straight fact.
And it just goes to show that if a million leftists tell a lie a million times the weak-minded amongst us will buy into it.
“All horrible things, to be sure, but still not a justification for war.”
No-one needs a justification to remove a regime of this sort.
If they had knocked down all of the offending regimes and terrorism was therefore down to next to nothing we would not now be talking justification.
The ongoing murder of coalition soldiers and Iraqi civilians is whats giving wind to the anti-war apologetics and this is a feature of mass psychology.
But its just bizzare. Our enemies are helping along these murders and its a display of just what evil bastards they are. A lesson if ever there was one that there are regime leaders who need killing.
It could not be a more dangerous notion for libertarians to be weak on defense. We do not yet have a way to turn war-making into a competitive, profit-making business.
I will listen to anything that Hoppe has to say about how things might eventually pan out in terms of privatised defense.
But until we can sort out an easy way to get from here to there libertarians ought to be strong on defense. If not military boffins to the last man.
We can look at some semi-privatised ways of going about things. But measures of this sort are going to be that much more effective if our own military power is awesome.
We would want to make a list of the regime leadership in these offending countries. Maybe you would find the most 10 000 influential people in the country. And you then might want to find the 10 000 most culpable in terms of enabling jihadism.
Where these two lists intersect you might be able to draw up a list of two, three or four thousand people in each of these countries that need killing.
Then whenever a major attack comes you are ready to issue and vigourously communicate a series of bounties and other inducements for their own security staff to murder these people, chop off their heads and take them, their families and the heads to the nearest friendly border to pick up their reward and gain sanctuary.
These inducements ought to only last for (lets say) three months at a time unless Australians are involved. To serve as a disincentive to the regimes rather then a fait accompli.
And to introduce a bit of a now-or-never gold-rush mentality in the security staff in the position to do the right and courageous thing.
For each dead civilian in a terrorist attack we would want at least two severed heads on the end of a stick of influential regime leadership. And there’s a good chance done right that we’d get it since our net would be thrown over a number of countries with as many as 20 000 eligible targets.
Contrast this strategy against the naieve, stupid and damaging attempts of the CIA to kill Castro and Saddam. All that happens when you try that on is you get Kennedy assasinated and 9/11 being planned.
Two government heads on the end of a stick for each civilian death, and some bombed out planes and tanks thrown in for good measure.
We want this happening SO FAST after the offense that people feel the excitement building as soon as any good-country-civilians are hurt.
And its not a matter of tying a regime to any particular incident.
They can come out to a desert border, leave their muscle behind, toss down their weapons, come forward towards our SAS and terrorist victim delegation, and right there on live TV they can beg for their life with reverence to Australian civilians and not to Allah, and such entreaties ought to be taken seriously.
Such entreaties ought to be taken seriously. Particularly if loud crying and real tears are involved and self-flagellation to the point where blood pours down the penitents back as the hot sun beats down. Such a display ought to be a thing weighing in the sinners favour.
They can beg to be taken off the list.
But what they can’t do is protest innocence over any one attack.
“I DON’T CARE!” is the proper answer to such bleating.
These governments are nothing if their own muscle would only turn the guns round the other way.
Viewed in that sense they are piss-weak. A paper tiger. A thing of scorn and a weak-ass medieval-pantomime-Lucifer, fit only to be made fun of.
The subject of surgically killing or intimidating such filth ought to be made into a joyful science. And I see such a science and such a Hawkish attitude as being fully compatible with wider libertarian anti-government principles.
Now this is just one idea made on the fly. In terms of bringing back a range of semi-privatised measures.
A middle power may well have some uses for Letters Of Marque And Reprisal for example:
But for the time being not one of these potential measures nor all of them together can be a substitute for outstanding kick-ass power.
A complement not a substitute.
But perhaps a way forward towards Hoppes-world if that world is indeed possible.