Posted August 9, 2002

Constitution of No Authority

[Regarding Steven Small's letter of August 5:]

That all of us are born into existing societies in no way implies or obligates the endorsement of prevalent institutions. I can use all the governmental services which are made possible by the theft of my money without in any way sanctioning the state's operation of same...

Suggest ... [Steven Small] read Lysander Spooner on the
constitution of no authority.

~ Michael P. Hardesty, Oakland, California

The Pentagon

Ordinarily Justin's columns are eminently sensible, but his piece "Attack of the Chicken-Hawks" was an unfortunate exception. His portrayal of the Pentagon (yes the Pentagon!) as the ..."one great obstacle on the road to Empire," is so inappropriate that at first I thought he was being sarcastic. The Pentagon, the gang that has lied through its teeth for nigh on 50 years to justify the ruinous expenditures of the cold war. As Justin typed his remarks, the Pentagon was provoking the Chinese with "reconnaissance" flights, intercepting Iraqi fuel shipments, strafing hapless Afghan civilians, etc.

The only reason the Pentagon opposes an Iraqi adventure (for the time being, anyway) is that they are now caught in their own lies. After crowing about the easy "victory" in Afghanistan, they find it hard to explain why they simply can't reach in their hat and pull out a force to invade Iraq. The truth is that the operation in Afghanistan is far, far more precarious that Pentagon press hacks lead on. If these guys can lie about bombing and strafing scores of Afghans despite hundreds of witnesses, they can (and do) lie about anything. Last barriers to Empire indeed!

~ Robert Jackson

Boot

Found your [Justin Raimondo's] column on Max Boot from last November and it was just what I was looking for. His promoter has been after me to interview him for a show I do on KZYX in Mendocino Co. so I asked him to send me his new book, Savage Wars for Peace, which I just finished. It's a strange book because he presents all the arguments against his war mongering but comes up with a jingoist interpretation. ...

~ Jeff Blankfort

Gravest Danger

Why is it that the authors of so many articles and op-eds opposed to U.S. aggression against a virtually defenseless Iraq, seem compelled to portray Saddam Hussein as a brutish thug, a dictator, a mass murderer etc.? The way I see it, George Bush is just as much, if not more, a brutish thug, a dictator, and a mass murderer -- all under the guise of professing to be a Christian. As the holder of the keys to the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction on the planet, it is George Bush that currently presents the gravest danger by far to civilization -- not Saddam Hussein.

~ SD, Canada

Forewarned

My prediction -- there will be no war with Iraq.

Even a weak enemy (and Iraq is not weak at all) is dangerous if forewarned.

This whole sable-rattling will end up with Iraq making some meaningless symbolic gesture that would allow Bush to back up without losing his face and that will be the end of it....

~ Alex Chaihorsky, Reno, Nevada

Oil

I just stumbled upon your website. Quite refreshing.

It was 1989 when I served in the US Navy in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. I also visited Israel for a few days and I immediately sensed something far more embedded and weblike than the "religious war of fanatics" attitude that we grew up with in the US. There is only one reason we have any interest in the Middle East: oil!

Oil fuels our SUV's, snowmobiles, dirt bikes, heats our homes etc. When I look at the situation that we have created in the Middle East, it's no small wonder why the Islamic extremists tried and succeeded with the 9/11 attack. So my question is this: Why is it so impossible for Americans to consider alternatives to fuel resources and fathom a reduction in burning up our national resources? If we consider just two possible alternative fuel possibilities, hemp and fuel cells, the answer is simple. Ford motor company, Shell, Exxon, Federal Paper (let's not forget Budweiser's active anti-marijuana campaign) are all unwilling to alter their current lucrative business models in favor of an unexplored alternative resource agenda. Why change direction when profits soar? The government should be aware of the lucrative potential in these two alternative possibilities, as we currently spend billions fighting a losing battle in the War on Drugs and billions more on NASA who uses fuel cells to power their billion dollar space ships. While we fight a losing drug war, Europe and Canada search for industrial hemp options. However, corporate lobbyism and oil money are deeply intertwined in our current government and to redirect the entire economic backbone of our economy would be, at least initially, a costly endeavor for our government and big oil companies.

There would be a substantial economic, social and environmental payoff later, but this takes time and patience, both characteristics that capitalism is relatively void of.

For now, it appears that the government and Corporate America will dance us into further conflict until we have more Middle Eastern natural resources at our immediate disposal. The crusade will sadly be portrayed behind masks of moral family values ranging from "Just Say No!" to "The War on Terror." It might be time to consider a new campaign called "No More Oil."

~ Keith A.

Deception

Something odd is going on in the war on terror. After invoking national security as an excuse for secrecy and even baldface lies, rolling back FOI laws, pursuing leak sources, and even pushing lie detector tests for Congress (how about: "Good idea! You first."), we have a paradox. We are broadcasting all the secret plans for the secret invasion of Iraq. ...

2500 years ago, Sun Tse wrote "all warfare is based on deception." So if the "secret" plans being broadcast are not the true plan, which is the conclusion you reach as soon as you see the discussion as a misinformation campaign, then the true plan has not been openly discussed. So what if the true plan has a different objective? What put me onto this notion was seeing someone complain about the public discussion and a piece suggesting the possibility of a palace coup in Saudi Arabia. ...

So why Arabia? Well....

• Oil. Lots of it.
• Seaports.
• Easy access from the sea; the interior is virtually uninhabited.
  Contrast with Iraq, which is 99% interior with one heavily fortified
  seaport.
• All those nice airfields, still manned and maintained in many cases.
• It covers Israel's flank.
• Centrally located. Arabia affords easy access to Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Iran, and Africa. ...
• And mainly, the holy sites! Mecca and Medina.

...I expect a palace coup. Suppose, for instance, Good King Fahd got dead under suspicious circumstances, such as a car bomb. Suppose there was a revolution in Arabia, and we were forced to postpone the invasion of Iraq to step in and help defend the lawful order and the oil fields with all the troops, ships, etc. that we just happened to have in the neighborhood? ...

~ Phil C.

Previous Backtalk