Paulie Wants To Debate Iraq and Waco

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/01/thomas-sipos-on-angela-keaton-and-ron-paul

Paulie, I have two separate goals here: 1) make the Platform reflective of ecumenical libertarianism, and 2) correct the LP membership's view of what constitutes ecumenical libertarianism in the few areas where I disagree with it.  The first is not nearly as hard as the second.

When your "new Islamic Republic of Iraq" has established the same reputation for due process that the U.S. government has, then sure, I'd hand Tony Blair over to them.  Got any other easy questions for me? :-)

This "evidence" complaint strikes me as silly.  Is your position that we didn't know al Qaeda had committed 9/11 by the time we attacked the Taliban?  That would be silly.   Is your position that we could have persuaded the Taliban to hand over al Qaeda to us, but we blew the opportunity?  That too would be silly.  Sorry, but this "evidence" complaint strikes me as disingenuous.  Is this *really* the difference on which turned your support for overthrowing the Taliban?

U.S. occupation deadlier?  False -- you're confusing the occupation with the civil war it unexpectedly unleashed. Saddam's genocides were U.S. responsibility?  Laughable.  Green light for invading Kuwait?  False.  You want to talk Fahrenheit 911? Saudi Learjet? Downing Street Memo? the 158 mentions of Iraq in the 9/11 Commission report? April Glaspie? Teicher's affidavit? Rumsfeld 1983 Baghdad trip? American WMD sales to Iraq? Saddam's support for anti-American terrorists? Bush's alleged lies in his pre-invasion speech? UNSCR 1441? Saddam's bodycount? Halliburton profits? Bush's sales of Harken stock?  I've covered all this ground before.  See the cross-posting of this comment in my blog for all the links in this paragraph.  I have chunks of such claims in my stool. :-)

Note the asymmetric burden of proof here. I'm not arguing that every libertarian should have favored deposing Saddam.  I'm merely arguing that reasonable principled libertarians could have differed on the matter.  Do you claim that no reasonable principled libertarian could have favored deposing Saddam?

Sorry, I don't debate such claims about that child molester David Koresh.  I've done my time debating the claims of 9/11 troofers; somebody else can debate Koresh-related claims.

PA, it's blatantly false to say that I want you "to prove everything the Bush government said was false".  I just want you to give evidence that even ONE pre-invasion official claim about Iraq was knowingly false.  If you can't do it, just admit it, and stop lying about what I've asked you to do.

My position on Hiroshima stands unrebutted at http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=187.  Wake me when you have a single cogent sentence to utter against it.

"No meaningful due process to anyone"?  I'll school you about the difference between U.S. and Taliban due process as soon as even one bystander seriously claims that they're not sure which has a better record on that matter.  Otherwise, I'll just assume that they're all laughing at your comment like I am.