Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War

Can anyone name a single greater evil in any government's tool box of satanic instruments?

It's bad enough when individuals engage in it. It's much worse when governments, or politicians, do it... They usually have a bigger soapbox.

Perhaps you have it wrong... Or Ron Paul does, in which case he should know better if he wants to be president. Preemptive war, while a contentious issue in and of itself, is often confused with the term preventive war, which is generally considered to violate international law and to fall short of the requirements of a just war. Preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.

It was telling that he was the only candidate on the stage with the humanity and the courage to so identify that hideously evil neo-con contribution to realpolitik...

But you should find out what realpolitik actually means. So should the neocons. It would have kept us out of Iraq. It refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions.

The Constitution has the word "People" in it, too, but is not setting up the American version of the People's Republic of China. Cato is not pro Big Business, if by that you mean it endorses corporate welfare or nefarious lobbying practices, which it does not. Cato is pro markets.

And we've been through this French origin of the term "libertarian" as a species of libertarianism before. In the United States, that has not been the dominant use of the word; Hayek actually preferred the label Old Whig. But his version of libertarianism is overwhelmingly the prevailing one in the modern era, in America. The popular and reasonably influential magazine Reason is Hayekian libertarian.

In any event, if a civil libertarian like the author of this blog sees fit to repeatedly link to an entity on matters of civil liberties and the odiousness of the modern GOP -- and many if not most whose fellows opposed the Iraq war -- it is very dumb of you to try to peddle that entity as akin to Leninist neocons. Or do you think Glenn is so stupid he missed such a rather startling fact about this organization, hmmm? I mean, Kos has been putting out feelers to Cato, and it has been a mutual negotiation as to how far the partnership can go in thwarting a common enemy. I guess Kos is deluded too, and wholly unaware he has been negotiating with the equivalent of Leninist neocons.

You have a lot of work to do, setting all these folks straight!

Dream on, Mona... The appeal to authority (the author of this blog) is a bit much. I wouldn't expect that from you. You are smarter than that, as are most of us here.

A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.

The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries.

Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being mislead. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cato.html

The Cato Institute: "Libertarian"In A Corporate Way

http://www.accuracy.org/article.php?articleId=51

Arne, You play the electric guitar? Or, a banjo, a bongo, or a slobbering hillbilly juice-harp? Any music will do...Tomorrow!...

Bit of banjo and fiddle, a dulcimer ("sweet song" in Latin and Greek melded), and autoharp. May my songs lift your heart, my good man.

Cheers,

Don't get so defensive. We are not that far apart ideologically. My problem is the "intellectual dishonesty" or the "simulated rationality" of Cato and other libertarian tanks.

David Friedman is probably my favorite libertarian. He is far less likely to blow smoke. It hurts me to see you do that. I can't believe you are that gullible so I think you are trying to fool me. I'm not anti-business or pro-business. Cato is pro-business.

Q. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Chomsky: Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html

And wash tub bass.

I've only visited Al-Jazerra's website to compare/verify what I heard on the teevee (I was unpleasantly but not surprised to find that their English version seemed to have different content than the Arab version.) I started doing this shortly after 9/11 because I got mad at the "news" channels who decided what parts I should hear based on their translations. Not that I know Arabic, but I just had to check it out for myself.

Anyway, I don't particularly care about Al-Jazeera, but I do recall an interview with them (several years back) that they were the most open news network in the region (open meaning, willing to air anything that seemed newsworthy?). Qatar govt. is US-friendly, but are they at the point of influencing their media outlets like what has been done here?

tonight I ran across this: http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/06/06/silent-coup-at-aljazeera/

MediaChannel previously reported on a “Pro-US Coup at Al Jazeera”. It is rumored that the new pro-US Board of Directors (which include the former Qatari Ambassador to the United States, Hamad Al Kuwari and Mahmood Shamam who are both are clearly sympathetic to the US Agenda in the region) and their representative at station, the new Qatari Managing Director, Mr. Ahmad Kholeifi is a result of pressure placed on the Emir of Qatar by the US Administration.

Rumours of a “soft editorial shift” towards a more pro-Qatari and pro-US agenda are already floating around media circles in the region.

Sources inside AlJazeera have confirmed that the Board has already instituted radical changes that threaten the stations editorial integrity and independence. In less than a month since the pro-American Board of Directors was appointed, weeping edicts affecting the whole of AlJazeera have been passed down by the newly appointed Qatari Managing Director, Ahmad Al Kholeifi.

There's more to the article, but I didn't want to hi-jack (copyright issues?) the entire thing! However, I am alarmed that our MSM cultural mess is in the process of infiltrating media that doesn't even belong to us (yet?). And I'm wondering who might be behind the changes in management at Al-Jazeera to make sure it is more "pro-US"??

I thought Glenn might want to look into this, if he hasn't already. It may be old news, but its not to me.... remember, I'm the newbie trying to learn as fast as I can and trying not to get too alarmed, but also wanting to have a more active role in the civics of my country.

And I'm mostly a lurker, but I'm here and I'm so impressed with the knowledge shared here and I have a hard time keeping up, let alone posting anything. I feel truly out of my league because I can't really contribute anything, but I do appreciate the comments that add to the knowledge base.

PS: I was sorry to see Libertarian at Large and L.W.M. go at it so viciously, mostly because I've learned so much from both of them (and Paul, and Paul, and Kovie, bebop-o, Karen M, and Timberman, etc., etc.). I would also prefer that the name calling is curtailed -- argue the points, not the person, please. And take a moment to savor some blueberries, strawberries, and kiwi :)