Posted February 15, 2002

Exempt

[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of February 11, "National Review's Military Socialism":]

In the 1970s I was studying Medireview history. One of my best professors had just finished a lecture on why the Roman Empire fell.... He had talked of how the Roman military was increasingly too expensive to maintain, and how the high expenses of that military eventually caused the fall of the entire Roman economy.

I asked my professor, "If military spending led to the fall of Rome, Byzantium, and Persia, then what does that have to say to America and the Soviet Union in the cold war?" His answer was astounding. It says nothing, because in those days the military drew away from national economies, but in our times, the military creates jobs. I walked away thinking I did not understand his logic. I still don't, any more than I understand how someone can understand that the cost of military helped destroy the Soviet Union, but somehow the American economy is exempt from the economic laws that have destroyed other nations. But then, I am sure there were advisors to the Caesars who told them the same thing.

It is a sad thing to see the nation you love choose to destroy itself in search of power. But, history generally shows that once a nation falls in love with world power, it seems like no one turns back until their economy and their nation is in rubble.

~ Dan McDonald

Creating the Poison

This is in response to Justin Raimondo's reply to my letter posted February 7.

Maybe the word "conspiracy" is a bit overwrought, but if so, it's you who's doing the overwreaking, not I -- unless I'm missing the subtle distinction between a conspiracy and "a concerted campaign of calumny and vilification" which in all likelihood has newspaper columnists "in its pay." Bush, as I indicated in my original letter, is an oil man, and he comes from a very powerful family, and with his high approval rating, he could easily expose and fend off any ragtag (comparatively speaking) group of disaffected businessmen, politicians, and interventionist control freaks. All he has to do is pull the old "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" trick. I never said I approved of invading Saudi Arabia or even getting involved in Middle East politics at all. I'm only calling a duck a duck. In fact, I believe (along with Ron Paul, q.v.) that this supports the non-interventionist position, since it exposes the folly of (as Bastiat put it) creating the poison and antidote in the same laboratory. ...If you've actually read those Jacoby columns that you like to quote from -- not just the juicy parts about invading the country, but the details about how Riyadh was silent on Sept. 11 when virtually all other capitals in the Middle East were registering their disgust at the attack; about how they arranged charter flights to whisk Saudi nationals out of America before we had the chance to question them; and about how they've generally obstructed our efforts at every level -- then you'd see a rather disturbing pattern, much more compelling than your "evidence" of smear campaigns on the part of the oil companies.

~ Daniel Basken

Justin Raimondo replies:

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said anyone was in anyone else's pay. What I did say is that they might as well be.

As for your brief about the Saudis: They did indeed condemn the attack; indeed, one Saudi prince tried to give a whole bunch of money to aid the victims of 9/11, but was rudely rebuffed by Rudy "El Duce" Giuliani, who should now volunteer to personally pay all the expenses of those who are being unfairly shortchanged.

The growing US-Saudi rift is due to an increasingly independent stance taken by heir apparent Crown Prince Abdullah. Al Qaeda has pledged to overthrow the Saudi monarchy, so your accusation that the Saudis secretly sympathize with bin Laden makes absolutely no sense.

Eric Blair's Work

...There are some very eloquent thoughts, and answers [to Rich Lowry's question] . . . found in Eric Blair's (George Orwell) work 1984. War, with few exceptions, only produces that which is good for war and not much else. Being in a perpetual state of war is a contrived economic state and assumes of course there are always enough slaves around to keep the contrivance afloat. God bless the Ministry of Plenty (Homeland Security) . . . which will do a double plus good job of looking after you and yours during any US war. Britain learned the lesson of Empire and Mr. Blair's written thoughts are critical comments from a firsthand observer on those very lessons.

~ Bjorn R.

Milosevic

Thanks for publishing ... [Slobodan Milosevic's statement of January 30].

...Was it necessary to add the second sentence in the Editorial Note ["Posting it does not constitute agreement with either the statement, or the history of its author"]? It seems to me the first sentence ["We are posting this statement by Slobodan Milosevic at his 'trial' before the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague for purely informational purposes"] was adequate and "neutral," whereas the addition of the second sentence almost implies an "apologia" -- not what one would expect in Antiwar.com postings!

~ Pyotr K.

Nelson

Who's the blonde babe in today's [February 12] Backtalk? Is it PJC? Wow!

~ Robert O.

The "Backtalk" editor replies:

It's Harriet Nelson. Click on the picture for more information.

Petition

Like ... [Justin Raimondo], I am shocked that neither the Congress, nor the news media, followed up on the very serious and credible allegations raised in Carl Cameron's four part report on Israeli spying against the US after the report was broadcast back in mid-December. (In contrast, the Enron bankruptcy commands front page headlines day after day.)

...I reviewed all the transcripts of Mr. Cameron's report and wrote a 14 point petition . . . based upon what I saw as the most serious allegations contained therein.

If I can gain at least a 1000 signatures, I will send the petition to the President, every member of Congress, and all major media outlets.

~ Anthony Wannick

Plan

As with most opinion sites, all I find at Antiwar.com is constant complaints. I've been an avid reader for more than a year and have yet to see a detailed plan to save our republic. That may seem like a tall order, but we must move in some direction. Yes, things are screwed up; yes, the government has way too much power; yes, the government hides facts, distorts the truth, and is planning to track our every move; but to just sit back and write about it is even worse. How can we help our country? How do we start at the grassroots level? Are there any congressmen or senators aside from Ron Paul that should stay in power? How can we end public education? How can we save our culture? At some point, action is needed because words lose their meanings. Can you offer us a plan?

~ Steve F.