Ammo For Sale

« « Shoot out caught on tape | Home | The more things change » »

Quote of the Day*

Phelps:

A lot of libertarians are strict non-interventionists. Im not. When you are a human rights violator, I think that your shit needs to be blown up, and weve got the bombs.

* Yeah, that’s two today. What are you gonna do about it?

38 Responses to “Quote of the Day*”

  1. Nathaniel Says:

    I hope for a day when Americans who want to come to the aid of the oppressed do so as private individuals, not through the state apparatus.

    If someone believes that the Libyan cause deserves help, why does he demand that the president send other people to fight for it? Why does he demand that the president spend other people’s money to support it? Why does he not invest his money, his guns, and his life for the cause that is important to him?

    Why do we assume that the state is the only answer?

  2. Phelps Says:

    Let me buy heavy weapons and issue me a letter of marquise and reprisal, and I’ll go do it.

  3. Phelps Says:

    marque

  4. Dave Says:

    “When you are a human rights violator, I think that your shit needs to be blown up, and weve got the bombs.”

    Yes, well the world is chock full of human rights violators. Should we go after them one at a time or all at once? I’m pretty damn far from a dove or an isolationist, but I see no upside to getting involved in Libya. All the talk of no fly zones is all well and good, but taking out a ruthless dictator usually requires boots on the ground. When the international. consensus for action is reached, guess who will be doing the heavy lifting. No thanks. If the Europeans want to take care of this so bad, how about they do it for a change.

  5. MrSatyre Says:

    Bomb the runways and docks and disable the Libyan war machine, and that will allow the rebels to regroup and go back on the offensive. They have the regime they allowed into power; they can clean up their own mess without our putting troops on the ground. Which is exactly what we should have done in Iraq. If they’d wanted Saddam out badly enough, they would have revolted.

  6. Cargosquid Says:

    Heck, we don’t even need to send people now. Put some predator drones up until we see the bastard and then finish what Reagan started. Oh, and destroy his Air Force with Tomahawks while we’re at it. He only has a couple of airfields.

    However, some of his rebels may not be friends of ours, ie, Al Quada. How do we make sure that “our” guys win when we probably couldn’t tell them apart even if we were fighting with them?

  7. Diomed Says:

    Nathaniel FTW.

    You can rail against your tax money being used to pay for stuff you don’t like, but demanding that it be used for something you like and others don’t just makes you a raging hypocrite.

  8. Dave Says:

    “However, some of his rebels may not be friends of ours, ie, Al Quada. How do we make sure that our guys win when we probably couldnt tell them apart even if we were fighting with them?”

    Yes. Assuming we go all in, and help the rebels any way we can, we have no idea what the next guys in power are going to be like. That seems to be a fairly major problem if you ask me. I know I haven’t spent enough time in Libya to be able to make any reasonable predictions about that. I’m pretty sure not too many members of the current administration or the folks commenting here have either.

  9. Ron W Says:

    Why would we bomb Libya…because the UN authorizes it? Is Libya a threat to us? How so?

    Meanwhile, our southern border has and is being INVADED and part of Arizona is UNDER OCCUPATION and our government does NOTHING!! This according to mainstream news:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1WX4e40Fb0

    But the Constitution mandates that “the United States SHALL…protect the States against invasion (Article IV, Section 4)

    The refusal of our own government to do this specific duty and allow invasion AND OCCUPATION is “treason” according to Article III, Section 3.

    “In defense of the World Order, U.S. soldiers would have to kill and die…We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.”– Aurthur Schlesinger, Jr., July / August ’95 “Foreign Affairs” – Council on Foreign Relations, Flagship Publication

  10. divemedic Says:

    So I guess we can prepare the missile strikes against China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and half of Central and South America.

    Or we could recognize that our intervention causes more problems than it solves.

  11. Phelps Says:

    We don’t bomb them all at once because it isn’t feasible. It’s the same reason I dont own two of every gun made.

    It’s the same argument as “why arrest this murderer when there are so many unsolved murders?” And “if it’s so important why don’t you go find the murderer yourself instead of wanting the police to do it?”

  12. Phelps Says:

    And I’m all for opposing the southern invasion as well.

  13. Dave Says:

    The difference is, it is in our vested interest to find all of the murderers here. Libya represents no immediate threat. As soon as it is in our national interest to bomb the shit out of somebody, I’ll have your back. Not until then.

  14. Stormy Dragon Says:

    So I assume Phelps wants us to start bombing China then too?

  15. Sigivald Says:

    diomed: How about he can rail about tax money being used for things the State has no business (either Constitutionally or philosphically via his version of libertarianism) doing, and he can ask that it be used for things the State does have business doing*, and there’s no hypocrisy at all?

    Hypocrisy is when one violates one’s own standards with a “but it’s different ’cause it’s me!” excuse, literal or implied.

    Hypocrisy is not the refusal to obey what someone else thinks your standards ought to be.

    (* Though I’m naturally speaking for myself here, though I suspect from his words that Phelps might agree, here’s my example:

    The Federal Government, Constitutionally, has the explicit power to have an army and a navy and to perform warfare.

    Philosophically, well, my libertarianism isn’t isolationist, and there’s nothing in the first principles of it that requires that conclusion, though I freely admit it allows it.

    [Note: The non-aggression principle applies to individuals. It does not apply to States – because States are not persons.

    And indeed even if it does, the Libyan State has violated that principle by continuing oppression (to which acts of armed rebellion are a justified response).

    Very few (and not at all respectable) are those libertarians who say you can’t get involved in a fight to protect the victim from the aggressor “because the aggressor didn’t attack you“.)

  16. Matthew Carberry Says:

    I figure we are going to expend “x” amount of fuel, ordnance, risk, associated costs and payroll on military training this year anyway.

    Might as well let Khaddafi provide the targets and training area.

  17. John Smith. Says:

    We have no business in libya. If we want to play rebel cause support lets go down to the ivory coast where it is really ugly. Or maybe nigeria or somalia… Libya is about the only light weight war in africa. I really do not care if gadhaffi stays in control. He is the devil we know and he is very predictable. He is doing doing exactly what I would do using siege tactics and turning the un no fly zone in on itself. I am not exactly thrilled with the thought of the rebels and their talk of an Islamic Republic… One iran is enough for me thank you very much… Having one that is close to europe and with access to the mediterranean sea is absolute stupidity… Think tripoli pirates but armed with weapons from a friendly nation like iran… I do not believe in isolationism but I also do not want to see american lives lost for no apparent reason… They do not even have enough oil for us to care… Only 1000 killed?? You cannot even call this a war with a straight face much less genocide….

  18. Steve Says:

    I thought that declaring a no fly zone over Lybia would be a good idea because I didn’t thing that the Lybian military would dare to challenge US air power.
    Our enemies are on both sides so if a low/no cost no fly zone evens the playing field so they can go on killing each other for a while longer, I have no problem with it.

  19. John Smith. Says:

    The no fly zone is a joke. If gadhaffi does not shoot at the un planes then they will not shoot at him…
    Artillery and the all exit siege will do the same job just a week or too slower.. That is not to say the rebels will not shoot at a un plane to make them think the libyan army is attacking them… Think battleship maine…

  20. oldsmobile98 Says:

    What Nathaniel said.

    Let me state something that makes sense, no matter what your stance on foreign policy:

    THE U.S. IS $14,000,000,000,000 IN DEBT.

    THERE IS NO !#$%=&* MONEY FOR THIS.

    Thank you.

  21. Ian Argent Says:

    2 QotD!?!?! Madness. I will have to withold my payment for today’s material in protest.

  22. Diomed Says:

    sigivald: Struck a nerve, huh? There’s certainly no obligation to be intellectually or philosophically consistent (I’m not), but it’s usually helpful in the long run to recognize it.

  23. Will Says:

    I’m sure glad France didn’t say “Why should we get involved? There’s no money for this!” 230 years ago…

  24. John Smith. Says:

    France only got involved because we were fighting a common enemy and they liked seeing the british squirm…

  25. comatus Says:

    No particular dog in fight, but some might argue that “we” have had business in Libya since 21 December 1988.

  26. Kristopher Says:

    How about getting a declaration of war first … or at least permission from congress for another police action?

  27. Mita Says:

    It’s all very noble to speak of human rights and saving a people from a murderous tyrant but, please – this isn’t about Libya. This is about Obama and his need to appear capable and decisive. He’s getting slaughtered in the press, and his people have decided he must DO something. Libya was just convenient.

  28. Ancient Woodsman Says:

    I do indeed need new glasses and have known so for a while – although I have new glasses, what I needed was bifocals and didn’t want to admit that stage of life yet.

    I read this and my brain said ‘librarian’ instead of ‘libertarian’ and thought it was a Breda quote.

    Guess I need to get back to Lenscrafters this week.

  29. Dave Says:

    “Im sure glad France didnt say Why should we get involved? Theres no money for this! 230 years ago”

    They were sticking it to the British. They believed it was in their national interest to take Britain down a peg or two. Any romanticism about the revolution was limited to individuals. I doubt idealistic zeal played any part in the decisions of the French government. As for the money, there was not enough money for it. As I recall, that conflict bled the French white.
    Speaking of money here in America in 2011, we just happen to have a debt bomb that could go off pretty damn soon. That is a situation that could make the great depression look like a pillow fight with supermodels. Aside from that there is the inconvenient fact that we still happen to be involved in a couple of little dust ups in Iraq and Afhganistan. So spreading our armed forces around is a factor as well. We have gone in to Iraq, not once but twice. We have gone in to Afghanistan. Pardon my french, but we gave at the fucking office already.
    In my opinion, if we send planes and troops anywhere, two of the first places should be to help close our unsecured border, and then to deal with Somali pirates. You know, things that are actual, immediate threats to the lives or security of American citizens.

  30. comatus Says:

    Woodie, that reminds me of Bitter Bierce’s definition of war as “God’s way of teaching Americans geography.” Were American lives not at stake, circulation would be way down. Most of us would need to “take out our Replogle” (FDR’s plug) to re-learn where the Shores of Tripoli are.

  31. Patriot Henry Says:

    “A lot of libertarians are strict non-interventionists. Im not. When you are a human rights violator, I think that your shit needs to be blown up, and weve got the bombs.”

    Stealing from me to attack other people is not part of libertarianism. We have plenty of human rights violators here at home – should we bomb ourselves and everyone else in the world?

  32. Kristopher Says:

    Patriot Henry:

    So … are you going to never set foot on a public street?

    Those streets are paved with stolen money.

    You had best not dial 911, either, cops are paid with stolen funds.

    And don’t even think about voting, as everything a politician ( the agent of all those majority voters ) does involved initiating the use of force against a minority, and making them pay for shit they don’t want.

  33. Linoge Says:

    Questoin: have we started producing Tomahawks again? Because, last I looked, the inventory was rather… static (but it has been a while since I actually looked).

  34. Justthisguy Says:

    Oh, hell, yeah, gunboat diplomacy. Throw a few shells into the King’s palace, and all that. Just don’t invade and try to occupy. Thwack ’em if they get rude and act up, otherwise leave ’em alone.

    We are the friends of Liberty everywhere, but the guardians only of our own Liberty.

    Fuck those recycled Trotskyites from New York City who style themselves Neo-Cons! What they really are is Neo-Jacobins, going around the world, minding other people’s business, whether said people like it or not.

  35. Charles Mazza Says:

    So we are fighting 2 wars, can’t protect our borders, and are in debt 14 trillion. Why not get involved in another war that will last for yrs? Why don’t we just put a map on the wall and get some darts to see who we bomb next.

  36. bwm Says:

    ITT I learn new definitions of libertarian.

  37. Patriot Henry Says:

    “So are you going to never set foot on a public street?

    Those streets are paved with stolen money.”

    I try to avoid the public roads. In time I hope to avoid them entirely.

    “You had best not dial 911, either, cops are paid with stolen funds.”

    One thing I’ve learned in this life is don’t call 911.

    “And dont even think about voting, as everything a politician ( the agent of all those majority voters ) does involved initiating the use of force against a minority, and making them pay for shit they dont want.”

    I don’t vote for that reason.

  38. Phelps Says:

    One thing Ive learned in this life is dont call 911.

    THAT I agree with. The only time I call them is when I need a CYA report.