|
|||||||||
Posted September 20, 2003
Mike Ewens Replies
Neil C: I don't consider this a "letter to the editor" so I wasn't sure where to send it. I consider myself to be extremely conservative but more importantly I am constantly striving to understand "the other point of view" rather than simply jumping to conclusions and assuming I understand a particular position – which leads me to a question. Are you against ALL War?
Associate Editor Mike Ewens: Of course not. We believe that individuals have the moral right to defend themselves against aggression. This may include nations that are attacked or imminently threatened. Simply, we are not pacifists. We do have a fundamental problem with State War though, for in modern times it involves the killing of innocents (citizens of other States), which in of itself must be considered aggression.
Neil C: For example, the Civil War saved perhaps hundreds of thousands of blacks from further slavery, death, etc. It would be hard to imagine a "Civil Rights" movement without this war wouldn't it? Are you against this type of War? How about the American revolution?
Mike Ewens: Antiwar.com doesn't have an "official" policy on these two wars, however, the argument you use to justify the former reveals a bit of ignorance on your part concerning the motivations and results of the Civil War. Namely, if one looks at the Civil War as certain individuals (the "South") deciding to leave the Union (much like the American colonists left the British Empire), then an act of aggression occurred where the "North" aggressed upon the South.
Concerning the American Revolution, it was a justified war. Why? Because there was a clear aggressor: the British Empire and clear victims: the colonists. They had a right to expel the British by force as a means of defense.
NC: There are numerous countries where your views would be looked at as illegal and you would be "dealt with" by the government. The image that comes to mind is a young man in China standing in front of a tank during a protest in Tiananmen Square.
ME: So what? The rights that I have were not born from government. In fact, they exist prior to the creation of any government. Government's role, if any, is to protect those rights, not create them. Therefore, I shouldn't be "grateful" and thus subservient to the ends of the government that rules me, for it is I that give it its power.
NC: Don't people, at some point, in order to be truly free HAVE to fight those that would oppress them and doesn't that sometimes require the use of force? If there had not been an uprising in America against the British you may very well not have an America about which you could complain in the first place. Do you think that, had we not fought that war, they would have just "gone away"? Freedom has a price.
ME: No, they wouldn't have just gone way and yes, people have a right to defend themselves. The point of debate is usually defining what a threat is, to whom is the threat the greatest, and what can be done about it before reaping violence and death upon the supposed aggressors. So, yes freedom has a price, however you seem to imply that war is the price of freedom. It may be, but only when that freedom is threatened.
NC: Sometimes, that price comes in the form of human life sacrificed for the betterment and safety of all mankind.
ME:
Who gets to determine this price? You? Bush? Wolfowitz? I would prefer
that I make the decision whether or not I am willing to sacrifice
myself for "all mankind." Otherwise, it is murder. Is 100,000
dead "X" justified if it (supposedly... are you omniscient?)
saves 100,001 "Y"? I hope your answer is no. Murray
Rothbard writes about such a mindset:
"... if Jones finds that his property is being stolen by Smith, he has the right to repel him and try to catch him; but he has no right to repel him by bombing a building and murdering innocent people or to catch him by spraying machine gun fire into an innocent crowd. If he does this, he is as much (or more of) a criminal aggressor as Smith is."
NC: I guess my question and curiosity in your point of view comes down to this. Have you seen or do you believe there is value in ANY War? If America was invaded by another country are you honestly saying you wouldn't want us to fight back?
ME: Of course, this is aggression. However, the government cannot conscript me to defend this nation, even if it is invaded. If Canada decides to invade Montana, I have no "duty" and cannot be forced to defend Montana. I would go voluntarily if I thought such an invasion was a threat to my own person and property.
NC: That's how I understand the antiwar movement and it's simply hard for me to believe you wouldn't want to fight for your country and freedom under direct attack. Again, this is more of an inquiry. I just don't understand your point of view and would like to better inform myself as to what you actually believe.
ME: We would demand that the security forces assigned to defend this nation repel any "direct attack" against our "freedom".
NC: Finally, I believe that there are indeed unjust wars and they should be condemned. I believe history has a way of doing just that. However, I simply feel that attempting to save millions of Jews from the continued extermination of the German government, for example, can be justified and that it could have only been accomplished by using military force? How would you have stopped Hitler and the Germans if you wouldn't use military force?
ME: I won't get too deep into this question, for I have already addressed many of these points. I would like to remind you that American intervention into World War I (which has yet to be justified in my mind), resulted in a crippled Germany ripe for the rise of Hitler (or any other National Socialist dictator). Therefore, this question always makes me hesitate, because perhaps it was American intervention which led to the "need" to aid the European allies. Also, don't forget that the American government rejected the asylum of European Jews for years before American entry, knowing full well what Hitler's plans were. Such a fact undermines the very legitimization that you seek.
I hope that this answered your questions.
NC: Thank you for your response. I enjoyed reading it and as I had anticipated, much of what I "thought" your group believed in based on listening to and talking with different people was way off. In fact, I agree with you on many of the points you made, especially concerning the fact the we certainly do not owe our freedom to government and that their role is to protect our rights. Iraq is a great example of this isn't it, I mean we are told we are going to prevent the future use of WMD. Now, it's obvious that if they do exist they are not in quantities that would justify an occupation.
Did the Iraqi people benefit by us overthrowing what was obviously an "evil" government? Of course they did, but if we only use that as justification to go to war where would it end? We, based on our own values, could pick just about any other nation based on that logic and decide that their government is not legitimate and enforce our will in the name of freedom.
Also, as a side note, I think history shows that people who rise up against their government on their own without a false "revolution" have an easier time sustaining and appreciating that freedom because it doesn't come from government but from their own sacrifice. The WMD claim in Iraq was clearly trumped up. As a good conservative I was even willing to buy into the "we are there to fight the terrorists so they don't attack us here again" claim thrown out a week or so ago, but all I see to date are American troops sitting around getting shot at and killed without any real goal. That doesn't benefit our country, advance freedom, or eliminate any clear threat to our own freedom or security for that matter. Again, I really appreciate you taking time out of your day to discuss your thoughts with me.
Ralph T: I have logged on to your web site today for the first time. You present interesting material and news. Who are you people?
Mike Ewens: As our "Who We Are" statement reveals (https://antiwar.com/who.html) we are conservative and libertarian activists who demand a foreign policy of nonintervention. Our opposition to the current conflicts in the Middle East are similar to our protests against the interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Haiti among many others. Simply, we put "America First"; demanding that all foreign excursions be justified on defense.
RT: Where are you located? ...
ME: Our mailing address is:
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Ave. #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
RT: Do you have any US political leaning? ...
ME: As mentioned, we are conservatives and libertarians – some of us are registered Republicans, some are Libertarians, while others choose to avoid electoral politics (I adhere to the latter). Overall, we believe in free markets, free trade, minimal government and "humble" foreign policy. As an organization, we don't officially endorse candidates for office (it is part of being a nonprofit organization).
RT: From where is your funding derived?
ME: Our funding comes tax-deductible donations from our generous readers (35,000 on average).
RT: I would like to know this so I can better understand your position. I assume your major position is antiwar, a position I can readily agree with. I am retired from the United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is an organization primarily of life savers. We are not warriors like those in the Department of Defense.
ME: If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask.
"Lifting the Wool: Governments Are Mafias, War Is Their Racket?"
"Like Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein is a thoroughly detestable and nasty person whose personal qualities are magnified by the brutal way he has ruled Iraq. Few decent people would spend much time mourning the death of either."
Your column was pretty good except for this. This is outrageous and indecent. It feeds the same criminal acts you pretend to denounce.
Alan Bock replies:
Well, maybe I overdid it a bit with the line about mourning deaths. But if acknowledging that leaders of other states (or quasi-states) besides ours are thoroughly detestable feeds the justification of criminal acts, we're in a lot of trouble. There are degrees of direct criminality – or degrees of distance (or plausible deniability) from the business end of the state – but it seems to me that while the state as an institution is not the only danger to peace and freedom, it is one of the chief and generally unacknowledged dangers. And that means states everywhere, not just the one that happens to rule over us.
My experience has been that criminal gangs tend to use force more efficiently than Government. When I recently went to help a friend move from Manhattan to Florida I found that there were 2 drug dealers who ran the block. No crime (except theirs) was permitted on the block. Small business owners did not need to fear robberies or vandalism. When I arrived in Florida regalia (shorts, deck shoes, golf shirt) I was very courteously asked "who the ##^% are you & what the ^%$^% are you doing here?" When I explained that I was an out of towner (obviously), here to help my friend move, they responded "cool, let us know if we can help." By the next morning I discovered that everyone on the block knew who I was. I think my name was "Yo, Flaada wsup?" Who says New York is a cold place? Everyone (including the dealers) was pleasant & locals helped us move the very heavy barber chair down 4 flights of stairs. It cost us 2 quarts of beer.
If police could run a neighborhood this well I would like them better.
Eric Garris Replies
Is this true?: "London Newspaper Reports 6,000 US Causalities In Iraq, US Government Is Lying, London Observer Charges."
If this is true it's dynamite.
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
It appears to have some credibility. The numbers we have seen in articles certainly well exceeds the thousand or so admitted by the Pentagon. We ran the Observer article that this refers to, as well as some others making similar charges.
David Hackworth believes there is an epidemic of pregnancies in the ranks, and that is also contributing to this number.
Do you have any information about Michael Moore's book on 9/11?
Eric Garris replies:
I have heard about it, but don't know release date. Check on his website: http://www.michaelmoore.com/.
In regards to your article there are couple of problems.
So what now Hizbollah is not a terrorist group? And whose airspace Israel is violating: Hizbollah's or Lebanon? "Since the Israeli withdrawal, Hizbollah has fired no missiles at Israeli towns, though it undoubtedly possesses such weapons."
Is that supposed to make them nice guys? Yeah even they have not fired any missiles onto Israeli territory, but there have been numerous border incidents, fire from Hizbollah side. It is a terrorist organization which is a threat to Israel, and which must be eliminated. If US has a right to enter Afghani airspace to hunt down Bin Laden, what's the difference with Israel? Israel knows Hizbollah still possess Katiusha rocket systems and if Lebanese government cant take out Hizbollah, Israel will try to do it in self defense. For your information, when Israel invaded Lebanon to get rid of PLO terrorists, common Lebanese and Lebanese government were seeing Israeli's as liberators from terrorists supported by Syria.
"After all, Israel has never made secret of its refusal to tolerate the so called 'terrorist Hizbollah threat' along its Northern border, and that it would sooner or later have to 'deal with it'. When official Israel says 'deal', it means war – in this case, as I explained in an earlier column, war against Syria."
What else do you do with bloodthirsty terrorists? Do you pat them on their back and negotiate as some think Israel should do with Hamas which intensifies attacks the more concessions Israel gives to Palestinian authority? And yes maybe there needs to be a war against Syria, because undoubtedly it is a #1 financial and moral supporter of Hizbollah.
Your article is very biased against Israel, and does not achieve anything except stirring up hate against Israel.
Check your logic and definitely your history!
Ran HaCohen replies:
* The
"numerous border incidents, fire from Hizbollah side" you mention
were reactions to Israeli violations of Lebanon's airspace. No provocation
– no fire.
* The Bin Laden analogy does not hold. To start with, the US hasn't held
Bin Laden's country under cruel occupation for decades. If the US, as
you believe, has the right to hunt down Bin Laden in Afghanistan, maybe
the Hizbollah has the right to hunt down Sharon in Jerusalem too? After
all, it's Israel which has been terrorizing Lebanon for decades.
* The old legends about happy Lebanese under Israeli occupation were the
prefiguration of the happy Iraqis under American occupation. For some
strange reason, most people don't like occupation, especially not one
employing forced conscription and torture like Israel did in Lebanon.
* You sound very convinced in your opposition to negotiations with the
Hizbollah. Indeed, this has been Israel's standard propaganda line for
years. But watch out: there are ongoing negotiations between the
two right now, with German mediation. So prepare your alibi when the propaganda
line is changed.
* As for your suggestion that "maybe there needs to be a war against
Syria": Of course, Israel is so peace-loving that it needs to launch
war against each and every of its neighbors. Following your suggestion,
I checked my history, and it seems that wars have always been the best
way to peace. This is why some people confuse the two terms, as one George
Orwell wrote in his historical novel 1984.
"Confrontation over Pristina airport"
What do you folks think of the notion of rallying behind any candidate that has the chance of beating Bush? Yes, I want to vote for whomever is truly the "Best Man for the Job" (as I did in 2000 when I voted for Nader). But at this point in the path of our country's current nose-dive, all I want is "Anyone but Bush 2004". I hate being put in the position of voting for the lesser-evil, but what choice do we have? I want the Democrats to unify a "coalition force" behind the winner of the primary. But will they?
Justin Raimondo replies:
"Anybody but Bush" is a strategy that could, in all too many cases, be described as "out of the frying pan and into the fire." Antiwar.com does not endorse candidates for office, but I can tell you this: The antiwar movement is going to get nowhere linking up with any particular presidential candidate or political party.
I should begin that I am a big fan of Nebjosa Malic's column, and find it an invaluable resource.
His disclaimer at the beginning of his latest column that it's not normally within the bounds of his column to comment on internal American issues is a good idea.
While I'm certainly no fan of Wesley Clark or anything he's done, it seems Malic (justifiably) has seriously got it out for him. Which is fine, but under the auspices of a news column /commentary, his personal agenda taints the good points he does make. A hit piece, justifiable or not, is bad journalism when the agenda is so blatant.
For instance, why even MENTION Waco and speculation that Clark was an involved "mystery officer," and recount the implications of what that would mean, and then start a new paragraph saying that it's been documented that he wasn't! "Wouldn't that be wild IF...." It's like a lawyer blurting something inadmissible in court hoping that the jury nonetheless is impacted. High school journalism classes correct most aspiring journalists of such a transparent and cheap tactic. All that this does is degrade poignant points Malic does present (like Hackworth's quote).
That Malic is not American is all too clear when he compares Clark to Osama.
From a Serbian point of view, this comparison makes complete sense, and logically I find it difficult to argue with as well (not that I couldn't).
But that is not the point. Since it can be assumed Malic did not write this column for Norwegians, to suggest that anybody is equivalent to Osama bin Laden is the quickest way to either force a "pro-war" American reader to ignore the column out of hand or to become so angry that such a reader finds him or herself taking the opposing point of view, just out of anger. Because there is no point preaching to the antiwar choir, it doesn't make sense to alienate the rest of the readers. And sadly, because of this, the important information Malic does give about Clark is lost in the shuffle, and THAT is a crime.
Know your audience, Nebojsa.
Nebojsa Malic replies:
Let me clear the air again and say something I've said before: a columnist is not a journalist, but a commentator. I was not reporting on Clark's candidacy, but commenting on it. If it seems I've got issues with Wesley Clark, that's because I do: with him, and Joseph Lieberman, and a host of other Clintonites, for their involvement and support of a terrorist organization (KLA). I've also spoken out against the Bush administration's support of those very same terrorists, just because they are considered 'with us' and not 'against us', and thus get a free pass. That was the subject of 'The Lost Terror War'.
Speaking of which, I did not suggest Clark was the 'equivalent' of Osama bin Laden. What I did was compare their methods, which given their similarities I believe was entirely fair.
Rumsfeld is looking for a way out of Iraq to avoid being labeled a "scapegoat"? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. In a sane world he would be labeled a war criminal and a mass murderer (along with Bush, Perle, Chaney, Rice et. al.) and then brought to justice.
Justin Raimondo replies:
The key phrase here is "in a sane world." Unfortunately, we aren't even close....
Smoking Gun?
Someone sent me the "smoking gun" yesterday. Hard proof that the Bushite planned to attack Iraq long ago. Here is a US Army website which explains the first contract to rebuild and run the Iraqi oil fields was awarded in December 2001 to Brown and Root, which is part of a company which gave Dick Cheney $20 million in severance pay for five years of service when Cheney quit to become VP after he set up a disastrous deal to buy Dresser Industries: http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/iraq/factsheet.htm.
This website has become popular so make copies before it gets pulled.
You have no understanding of international politics.
You have no understanding on who you are dealing with in the Middle-East. The only way you will ever understand is when Islamic Republic's nuclear bomb is detonated in your neighborhood. I am an Iranian, and I tell you right now, not one American really understands the threat posed by a nuclear Islamic Republic. These hard-liners in Iran are not your ordinary neo-cons that you see in Washington, or Israel, they see their actions as an extension of Allah's will, and murder, and mayhem is totally justified.
Please have a chat with the mullahs in Iran, than give us lecture on the justification of war. The war should continue all the way to Tehran at whatever cost necessary. This is the only way peace can be brought to that part of the world. Consider yourself lucky that there are people like GW Bush willing to make a tough political decisions needed to secure America and people like you.
Justin Raimondo replies:
It seems to me that YOUR main concern is not securing America for Americans, but securing Iran for the likes of you. No thanks, bud: to paraphrase Lord Byron: he who would be free must himself strike the first blow.
Only the British Guardian reports this on the casualties. Most interesting, with all the embedded reporters they are virtually the only ones. Anyway, if there were any truth to the report, media the world over would be champing at the bit to publicize it, as America bashing is easy and it sells. Also kind of interesting is that any one who agrees with the war effort is simply labeled as "propaganda" and attacked personally but to attack Mr. Bush results in fame and adulation for the attacker. Given the evidence, the Guardian report is in all likelihood simply more propaganda from the America haters.
Your site is www.antiwar.com. I'm thinking you really need to be "pro" something. This is generally better. For example you have "pro-life" and "pro-choice." I'm no marketing expert but pro lifers probably would not want to be labeled "anti-choice" nor would pro choice folks want to be labeled "anti-life." This would not go over well in their marketing campaign. So you really should be "pro" something. The problem is what. You certainly could not be www.proamerica.com because not trying to take out these brutal thugs in Iraq and elsewhere would eventually result in our national suicide. To name your site this would be a contradiction. You could be www.prosaddam-osama.com but this want work either. Pro Saddam or pro Osama messages might do well in the middle east but I don't think they will go over so well here. You can't be www.proliberty.com because.
If we are not successful in the war on terror, we might as well get ready to live in UANA (United Arab Republic of North America.) In other words if we fail here in the 'war on terror' this would mean loss of liberty not only for the USA but eventually the entire free world. This is why we will not fail because we cannot. If the Arabs and the Russians lay down their weapons, we will have peace. If the Americans lay down their weapons, an Arab-Russian confederacy would simply overrun the entire world within a few weeks. So I guess to be www.antiwar.com is the only choice for you.
Justin Raimondo replies:
How not intervening all over the world is going to result in the loss of our liberty is a mystery that only you have access to, bud. There is about as much chance of establishing an Islamic Republic in the USA as there is of – well, of convincing you that you have been brainwashed. And I'll bet it wasn't much of a laundry bill....
"What Every Person Should Know About War"
$8.10
a day for food.
This doesn't surprise me. My friends 18-year-old son left for the army last year at this time with the promise of, "The Car Of His Dreams," for 1 Year of Service in the Army. One year has past – no car – just another offer for a "Laptop For His Life."
The One Man Army is still over there and describes it as hell. He pays for email service, and has to call his family collect.
He doesn't earn enough over there, on the lines, to pay for email service, phone calls back home, much less, shaving or soap supplies.
And, WE'RE DOING THIS FOR WHAT AGAIN?
"A Letter to James Abourezk from the Webmaster at Antiwar.com"
I commend you for taking a public stand against James Abourezk's lawsuit, despite that you disagree (perhaps strongly) with the defendant. Free speech is an issue where right, left and libertarian should always come together – but far too often don't.
For what it's worth, I disagree with most of the views on your site, but I will always defend your right to express them.
~ Scott P.