The Real State of the Union

The Real State of the Union

President Obama gave his 7th State of the Union speech  last night, January 21st 2015. After hearing these speeches year after year, president after president I have come to see them not as projections of what the actual state of the nation is, but rather an advertisement for things the president thinks he did well,

“ ...more of our people are insured than ever before...”

Well yeah, they kind of have to be, remember you made them criminals if they didn’t buy insurance.

Not mentioned in last nights remarks is the reality of the real state of the union.

What about the National Debt?

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Jan 2015 at 06:03:20 PM GMT is:

The estimated population of the United States is 319,850,520

so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,565.23.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$2.40 billion per day since September 30, 2012!

Or maybe the amount of new regulations?

A little over 75,000 pages of new burdensome and restrictive regulations were imposed on US businesses. Each one a hinderance to the growth and expansion of businesses.

No mention of the prison population.

More than 1.57 million inmates sat behind bars in federal, state, and county prisons and jails around the country as of December 31, 2013. Many from victimless crimes.

We could go on with the rising tax rates, poverty levels, inflation, wasteful spending, the drug war, real wars and their destructive nature, the rate of returning soldiers committing suicide, the rate of bankruptcy and homelessness, the NSA…. And so on and so on.

The State of the Union has become nothing more than promises of future action and commercialization of past actions, not to give a statistical breakdown of how the nation is functioning.

Afghanistan War: The Take Away

13 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, and 1 day 

The Afghanistan War is finally over at least in the sense that there will no more US combat missions for the time being. The take away from this ordeal is trillions of dollars (US) have been used and 2,356 American soldiers have died.  This is not to mention other nations service members that that died in combat. And it does not include the thousands of service members that commit suicide every year, an average of 22 per month in the US. These numbers do not include the medical costs to injured troops and the care they receive after injury. This does not include the pensions and retirements received by service members either. 

In September of this year (2014) a Bilateral Security Agreement was signed by the US and Afghan Governments allowing the US to continue funding, arming and training the Afghan Security Forces for another 10 years. 

"The deal stipulates long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and access to numerous bases and installations in the country, including facilities located in Bagram, home to the notorious U.S. military prison. The pact does not detail the exact number of U.S. troops to remain, but Obama has previously stated he plans to cut U.S. troops down to 9,800 by the beginning of 2015, then cut that number by half at the end of next year, with further cuts slated for the end of 2016. As of earlier this year, there were approximately 50,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, 34,000 of which were American." Writes Sarah Lazare, staff writer for CommonDreams.org

Also from that article.

According to Peter Lems, Program Officer at the American Friends Service Committee, "That's one of the biggest problems with the War on Terror since September 11: these wars don't end," said Lems. "We have this crazy situation where we have undeclared wars and, perhaps because of the nature of undeclared conflicts, it's easy to look at them as dissipating but never-ending."

The deal also allows the U.S. to pursue "counter-terrorism" missions as long as they "complement" those of the Afghan military and "authorizes United States government aircraft and civil aircraft that are operated by or exclusively for United States forces to enter, exit, overfly, land, take off, conduct aerial refueling, and move within the territory of Afghanistan." Critics warn that the stipulation is likely to allow the U.S. to continue its covert drone wars against the region, including neighboring Pakistan.

Under the agreement, the U.S. is to play a critical role in "advising, training, equipping, supporting, and sustaining" the Afghan military, as well as "developing intelligence sharing capabilities; strengthening Afghanistan’s Air Force capabilities; conducting combined military exercises." Many warn that "training" is in fact cover for holding onto bases and other geopolitical footholds.

According to Lems, this provision sets the conditions for long-term U.S. domination. "To have the U.S. fully fund that apparatus will lead to dependence, but also encourage Afghan officials to use force and violence the way the U.S. has," he said."

So while the US has decided to pull out a large proportion of the troops in the country, this deal allows more to stay and the continuation of the funding and arming of this foreign army. It also allows immunity to US forces still in the country. This is a hotly contested aspect of the US presence in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of Afghan campaigns US service personnel were granted a certain immunity to crimes against Afghan civilians, including murder. With an estimated 21,000 civilians killed since operations began it seems immunity is getting it's use. Sadly.

So the take away on Afghanistan is this.

The US has put it's citizens into deeper debt with it's central bankers. It has made millionaires of designers and builders of machines that maim and kill. It has subjected it's citizens to death in the name of war. And it will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. 

US launches airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria.

From The Guardian. The United States has started airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria. This should end well....

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2014/sep/23/us-launches-air-strikes-against-isis-targets-in-syria

Obama's Pre 9/11/14 speech

On 9-10-2014 US President Barack Obama delivered a speech outlining the government's interpretation of threats to National Security and the targeting of the group ISIS. The call for a plan on this issue has been circulating since two videos surfaced, each showing the apparent beheading of American Journalists. Those who identify as Republicans have called for a clear and decisive plan of action for dealing with this group, identified Democrats have been calling for the same, a true bipartisan issue has been agreed upon. There are fundamental flaws in his, and many others logic, and the amount of doublespeak here would make even George Orwell cringe. Obama, like many others, hold onto a belief that they can bring peace by bringing war. It is a myth, a costly mistake of realism, and a dangerous notion to any world inhabited by living beings.

"My fellow Americans — tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.

As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people. Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda's leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We've targeted al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. We've done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer." 

Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. That's why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL — which calls itself the "Islamic State."

Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic." No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria's civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. In acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists — Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East — including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region — including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans — have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.

I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight, I want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve. Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then, we have conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq. These strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. These strikes have helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region. That's why I've insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have now done in recent days. So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat.

Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we're hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. In June, I deployed several hundred American service members to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi Security Forces. Now that those teams have completed their work — and Iraq has formed a government — we will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. We will also support Iraq's efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from ISIL control.

Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria's crisis once and for all.

Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks. Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding; improve our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology; and stem the flow of foreign fighters into — and out of — the Middle East. And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the UN Security Council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.

Fourth, we will continue providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this terrorist organization. This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities. We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands.

This is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq; sending arms and assistance to Iraqi Security Forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity, and in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria to drive these terrorists from their lands. This is American leadership at its best: we stand with people who fight for their own freedom; and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity.

My Administration has also secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home. I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL. But I believe we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.

Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL. And any time we take military action, there are risks involved — especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America's core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.

My fellow Americans, we live in a time of great change. Tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked. Next week marks 6 years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the Great Depression. Yet despite these shocks; through the pain we have felt and the grueling work required to bounce back — America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth.

Our technology companies and universities are unmatched; our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it's been in decades. For all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. Despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, I see the grit and determination and common goodness of the American people every single day — and that makes me more confident than ever about our country's future.

Abroad, American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples' right to determine their own destiny. It is America — our scientists, our doctors, our know-how — that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola. It is America that helped remove and destroy Syria's declared chemical weapons so they cannot pose a threat to the Syrian people — or the world — again. And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, tolerance, and a more hopeful future.

America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia — from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East — we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. These are values that have guided our nation since its founding. Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. I do so as a Commander-in-Chief who could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform — pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger above the Middle East, and service-members who support our partners on the ground.

When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here's what one of them said. "We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people."

That is the difference we make in the world. And our own safety — our own security — depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation, and uphold the values that we stand for — timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth.

May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.

Note that the announcement of bombing Iraq and other nation's land that are in control or occupation of the Islamic State group comes on the eve of September 11th, marking 13 years since an attack was made on American soil by still debated perpetrators and a bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern nations was being planned and carried out in response.

Chelsea Manning raises her voice on the ISIS issue.

ISIS seems to be the hottest topic the past few weeks and now a new voice has risen to give a point of view. Chelsea Manning who served in the US army as an intelligence analyst as Bradley Manning has penned an article first appearing on The Guardian website yesterday. As with all opinions this should be taken as just her point of view and agreement or disagreement is not what this post is about, it is to forward the message and thought of Manning to the readers.

An artist's rendering of how Chelsea Manning sees herself.

A few different publishers have picked up this story and a bit of confusion or willful misinterpretation has taken place by some. In his article Manning lays out her experience and knowledge of the group and their aims. Manning explains what he sees as a legitimate course that can be taken to limit, degrade and ultimately try to destroy the group with as little intervention as possible. As she puts it, " Bullets and Bombs won't stop ISIS."

You can read the RT article here or the original letter to The Guardian here.

Also be sure to read the Breitbart article misinterpreting Mannings intentions here.

Bombs over Baghdad... Again.

President Obama has authorised the bombing of targets in Iraq. This makes the fourth consecutive president to do so, and to what end? The almost continuous bombing in this country has not led to a peaceful situation. It has not led to those Iraqi people respecting the US government, it's military, and by extension the citizens of the country. It has not led to the amicable end that is being touted as the reason for all the strife.

In response to the threat of Islamic State(IS, ISIS, ISIL) members multiple countries are coming together to figure out a way to combat those they consider terrorists and threats to their national security, at least that is what is being told to those paying for the actions.

In a Newsweek article Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary reported a daily cost of 7.5 Million dollars, and the total cost reaching somewhere near $500 Million beginning just on June 16th. All of this again adds to the totals of wartime spending which the CBO reports at costing after inflation and interest in the range of $6 Trillion overall.

All of this, taxation, wasteful spending and creating enemies has an effect that ripples through time and will again come back to haunt future generations.

A response to "Want to Destroy ISIS? Congress Should Implement the Draft and Raise Taxes Immediately."

This is the headline from a recent Huffington Post blog post, authored by H. A. Goodman. In this post he gives a case for implementing the re emergence of a national draft and raising taxes to afford another war. In the face of another boogy-man in the sand box of the Middle East some will actually endorse these ideas and promote their full and swift introduction. Thrusting the US into another war inside Iraq, Syria, and other Middle Eastern and African nations will amount to what could be considered World War 3. And just as those two previous World Wars saw the forced conscription of citizens into the military forces, it seems some would still use this to obtain their wartime ends.

"It's time to get off the couch, America, and collectively sacrifice for national security, both through taxes to fund the next conflict and a draft, like previous generations in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. ISIS wants to bankrupt this country and drag us into another quagmire, so if you believe these maniacs need to be destroyed by bullets fired from American guns, it's time for you too to start firing these bullets and paying for the next war. Once we defeat ISIS, we can then begin to destroy the next terrorist group that pops up (like Al-Qaeda Iraq morphed into ISIS) with money from higher taxes and from the additional troop levels from a national draft."

This idea, to force people to fight in a war they did not start, or to give their lives for another person's sake and even worse the ends of their own government is arguably the worst form of absolute slavery in the US.  Those that choose to volunteer are admirable in their selflessness and sacrifice, but our military isn't a 100% voluntary idea. Since the US military is funded by the US Government and the US government is funded by yearly budgets. Those budgets are approved with the knowledge that every dime will be borrowed from the US central bank The Federal Reserve. What most Americans are unaware of is the added interest that is then owed back to the Federal Reserve for loaning that money. Also unaware to most is the fact that the "debt" that is now owed to the bank is then sold to foreign nations by the central bank.

So how then does this debt get paid back? Since the US Government does not produce anything, they rely on the citizens through taxation. Increased Taxation is the second point of this article. The author states, "To my fellow Tea Party Americans who care about debt and who, like me, want these terrorists gone, I ask you to remember the cost of war. According to Harvard University, "The US has already borrowed some $2 trillion to finance the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and the associated defense build-up -- a major component of the $9 trillion US debt accrued since 2001." The total cost will reach $6 trillion when healthcare costs from both wars are taken into account and the interest from borrowing could reach trillions."  

He adds, " Taxes and military service is what America owes its veterans, future generations, and any terrorist who gets in the way of freedom and democracy. Open up your pocket books, pick up a gun, and say goodbye to your family, because America needs everyone to chip in and protect liberty."

This gives great alarm to me as well as millions who see the costs of wars as unnecessarily burdensome to our generation as well as those that will follow. Anyone who calls himself a Conservative or recognizes the insanity and exploitation of taxation should be completely against any such increase of the great draining of personal wealth for the idea of war. Now some will say that we do not pick these fights and that we, meaning the US as a whole, should be ready to defend our culture and our country at all personal cost. This is the great collectiveness of Nationalism. To assume that one would and should hold all personal sacrifice for a geographical area they were cosmically dropped upon birth assumes that all such persons should be ready to volunteer their lives and fortunes to defend the areas government in whatever troubles they may find themselves. That is a dangerous place to find oneself, a slave upon birth to the nation one was born. Just a teat to be suckled until no longer needed or producing.



But the author gives us a glimpse of his true intention of the article in the comments section.

"Yes, a great deal of it is indeed satire aimed at showing that if Americans in aggregate had to pay for and fight wars themselves, instead of letting the 2.5 million veterans of the recent Iraq and Afghanistan Wars fight for a nation over 300 million, we'd think twice about war. We'd also think twice about fighting a third Iraq War if we had to pay for it appropriately, through a war tax. My article is meant to ask the question, what if the average American had to pay and fight for the constant wars we engage in, and would Americans be as quick to send our troops everywhere and anywhere in the name of security? Also, we still have a VA crisis so what will happen to that when a third Iraq war starts? These are all issues I've presented in the article.The answers I believe can be found in these comments, both liberals and conservatives have their own view of this article, and I thank you and everyone on here who took the time to read my thoughts. "

 Taken at face value this article is full of the worst ideology and the worst policy that can come to my mind. I believe the author sets about this article in the most facetious way, and it worked, I was dismayed at the prospect that this man would push this idea forward with such a large audience. It does not bestow any confidence in the author that he kept his intention to the comments, but gives great caution that those who read his words and took them at face value would hold any such views. I do realize that there are many, many people who do hold these views and that do propagate these ideals, and that is a very prospect as to what may come in a short while.

Note: As of 9/16/14 the author has placed a editors note preceding the article. It seems more than just I were having trouble picking up on hints of satire.  Here is his note.

Dear Reader,

This article is satire. Its goal is to highlight that Americans would never engage in decade-long wars and put war on a credit card if a draft and taxes correlated to military engagements.

I am against a draft and please read my article prior to this one, or after this one, to see where I stand. My writing is also very much against perpetual war and I've had numerous posts on this subject, as illustrated within my bio page.

Also, I'm all for constructive criticism, but please remember that threats of death take place in fascist and totalitarian regimes against writers, so if you claim to be for freedom and democracy, try to simply argue a point through words like normal people.

In addition, one website claimed that my viewpoint is "we're a nation of selfish sloths"and tried to psychoanalyze my motives. I do not feel this way and if I adhered to conspiracy theories, I'd wager that such analysis was meant to create hatred of satire, or create something that isn't presented within my thoughts or this article. I absolutely do not think we'e a slothful nation, I just think we vote on emotional issues like taxes or a draft, or a beheading video, and not on things like the VA crisis still ongoing, or the repercussions of counterinsurgency wars on our veterans and nation, or other relevant issues to our security. Therefore, to conspiracy theorists who enjoy putting words in other people's mouths, please simply disparage my writing, or lack of knowledge, or the fact that my arguments might be flawed, not your cookie cutter view of vast conspiracies that coincidentally coincide with arguments, issues, or satire you disagree with or fail to accurately interpret. My body of work speaks for itself and I am against perpetual wars and if I engage in future satirical articles, please understand that satire works to illustrate the insanity of war and bloodshed, sometimes better than preaching. Sometimes connecting the dots means simply reading another's thoughts without the agenda of correlating them to a grandiose narrative and evaluating their work in aggregate. Don't worry, there aren't any codes or secret agendas in my satirical articles, simply addressing human fallibility and propensity for never-ending wars through an apparently flawed method.

Finally, anyone using this article to foment controversy or the belief that a draft is imminent, or that a conspiracy is taking place, or that their ideology is validated in this writing must remember the thoughts below are satire, and a satirical take on why our country continually engages in never-ending war.

I might write more satire in the near future and will specify within the article that it is indeed a satirical piece. I apologize to anyone I've offended, this was certainly not my intent.

Have a wonderful day,

Introducing the Mises Curriculum!

The Mises Institute has always promoted scholarship and education in the pursuit of liberty. Ideas have always been at the heart of our mission.

That’s why we decided in 2010 to make world-class instruction in the ideas of liberty only a mouse-click away for people around the world. So we started Mises Academy, the first — and best — Austrian economics online learning platform in the world. Next we added a broader range of liberty-focused courses to the Academy. Since then we’ve delivered dozens of in-depth, high-caliber live courses to thousands of students around the world.

The 50+ courses in the Mises Curriculum at the Mises Institute will guide you through Austrian economics, from the action axiom to advanced monetary theory, and through libertarian political philosophy, from the non-aggression principle to advanced libertarian legal theory. Also included are courses on history, philosophy, and even logic.

Course design and lectures are by the soundest thinkers and the top scholars in the Misesian/Rothbardian tradition: Joseph Salerno, Peter Klein, David Gordon, Robert Murphy, Thomas DiLorenzo, and others. You’ll get the real deal: thoroughly praxeological and completely free-market economics, as well as principled, radical, and uncompromising libertarian theory.

For a mere $99/year, you can get full access to all of these courses, including hours of lectures recorded in both video and audio, hyperlinked syllabi of online readings, professor-written quizzes, certificates of completion, and more. Work through whole courses from start to finish, or fill in gaps in your understanding by zeroing in on particular lectures and lessons from multiple courses.

Ideas Have Consequences

Ludwig von Mises demonstrated that all governments, and the social order itself, depend onideology, which he defined as “the totality of our doctrines concerning individual conduct and social relations,” and which includes both doctrines that concern ends, like political philosophies, and doctrines that concern means, like economic theories. Therefore, it is ultimately ideology that is what gives a state the widespread influence, or “might,” as Mises called it, that it needs to rule.

Thus, contrary to Mao’s famous dictum, political power flows not from the barrel of a gun but from ideas. In fact, Mao’s own rise to power, and that of many like him, was ultimately due in large part to the fact that the idea of a planned society, including its purest form, socialism, had captured the hearts, minds, and imaginations of entire generations, from the mid-nineteenth century onward. Its time had come, however fleetingly, and many regimes that tried to stop the march of socialist ideas with force utterly failed. It was only widespread disenchantment with socialism that halted the march.

Moreover, freedom from political power is also ultimately based on ideas. When the time does come for the ideas of liberty — libertarian political philosophy and sound economics — it won’t be, as The New York Times recently put it, a “libertarian moment.” It will be, as Ron Paul clarified, a “libertarian transition.” And the state, for all its weapons and cages, will be powerless to stop it, because the ideas of liberty are the negation of the ideas upon which the state’s power rests.

It was the ideas of the political philosophers of liberalism and of the laissez-faire economists that were ultimately responsible for the limited flowering of liberty that occurred prior to the rise of the modern managerial state.

And it is the ideas of thinkers like Mises and Murray Rothbard, propagated by institutions like the Mises Institute and individuals like you, which can give moral leaders like Ron Paul the “might” to sway the public to choose liberty. That is the battle of ideas before us.

We have always developed courses with systematic, long-term study in mind, intent on building an archive of courses that constitutes a thorough Austro-libertarian curriculum. And we are now making that treasury of truth-teaching available as one amazing resource: The Mises Curriculum.

If you would like to thoroughly prepare yourself to help us make liberty become the idea whose time has come, I can think of no better way to do it. For more information, and to register, go to Mises.org/Curriculum.

Note: The views expressed in Daily Articles on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Comment on this article. When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Comment Policy.

The Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing state intervention. See Mises Institute's article archives.

You can subscribe to future articles by Mises Institute via this RSS feed.

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Arms exports from United States to Iraq 2000-2013

Arms exports from United States to Iraq 2000-2013

This is a list of all the arms trades made in contracts from the US government to the Iraqi Government.


#Ordered/Designation/Weapon description/Year of order/Year(s) of deliverie/ #delivered/Comments

8 Avenger Mobile SAM system 2012 2013 - 2013 (3) Part of $105 m deal; 'ISFF' aid
5 ISR King Air-350 AGS aircraft 2007 2008 - 2008 (5) Part of $132 m deal
5 ISR King Air-350 AGS aircraft 2008 2010 - 2011 (5)
16 Bell-205/UH-1 Huey-2 Helicopter 2005 2007 - 2007 (16) Iraqi UH-1H rebuilt to Huey-2
7 Comp Air-7SL Light aircraft 2004 2004 - 2004 7 Financed by UAE; assembled from kits in UAE
20 Bell-206/OH-58 Light helicopter 2007 2008 - 2009 20 Incl 10 ex-US OH-58C and 10 second-hand Bell-
206B version; aid
3 Bell-407 Light helicopter 2009 2010 - 2010 3 $6.9 m deal; T-407 trainer version
24 Bell-407 Light helicopter 2009 2012 - 2013 24 $60 m deal; armed version; option on 26 more
3 Bell-407 Light helicopter 2010 2011 - 2011 (3)
(11) Cessna-208 Caravan Light transport ac 2005 2007 - 2009 (11) Including 3 AC-208B armed version
1 King Air Light transport ac 2007 2007 - 2007 1 Part of $160 m deal; King Air-350ER version
1 King Air Light transport ac 2008 2010 - 2010 (1) King Air-350ER version
15 PC-9 Trainer aircraft 2009 2009 - 2010 15 Part of $257 m deal; T-6A version
12 Cessna-172/T-41 Trainer/light ac 2007 2007 - 2009 12 Option on 6 more
3 C-130E Hercules Transport aircraft 2004 2005 - 2005 3 Ex-US; aid
6 C-130J-30 Hercules Transport aircraft 2009 2012 - 2013 6 $293 m deal
43 ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2004 2004 - 2005 (43) $50 m deal; incl 2 CP version
(19) ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2004 2005 - 2005 19
378 Cougar APC 2006 2006 - 2007 (378) $180 m deal; Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle (ILAV) or
Badger version
20 Cougar APC 2006 2007 - 2007 (20) $7.8m deal; Iraqi Light Armoured Vehicle (ILAV)
version
50) M-113 APC 2006 2006 - 2007 (50) Ex-US; aid
27 Cougar APC 2007 2008 - 2008 (27) Iraqi Light Armoured Vehicle (ILAV) version
(122) ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2008 2008 - 2009 (122)
20 M-113 APC 2008 2010 - 2010 (20) Probably ex-US; incl 12 M-577A2 Command Post
version
09 Cougar APC 2009 2010 - 2010 109 $59 m deal; Iraqi Light Armoured Vehicle (ILAV)
version
80 ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2010 2011 - 2013 (80) $85 m deal; incl 8 command post version
(834) M-113 APC 2010 2011 - 2012 (834) Ex-US; M-113A2 version; modernized before
delivery; incl command post, mortar-carrier,
ambulance and other versions

The Humanitarian case and Non-Interventionism

Many people tend to have a hard time recognizing the differences between Non-Intervention and Isolationism; rather using the terms interchangeably and erroneously. The classical argument of refraining from intervention into foreign affairs, entanglements and conflicts comes from the belief that national interests should remain in the nation and that no matter the action, internationally, eyes and opinions would be cast towards whatever nation becomes involved in a situation amongst other nations. Many of the founding members of the government of the United States held beliefs in this idea.

Genocide, Holocaust, War, Invasions, Operations, Missions, and Conflicts all involve at the very base people, human beings, that for whatever their own reasons seek to extend the wishes of the governing body they submit to. Governments, and by extension entire countries and the majority of people who make up the society or population of, commit to end conflicts between themselves by the brutality of War. Sometimes they use this when all other means to peace have been exhausted, sometimes as an initiation of violence and others as a defense. These governments recruit, draft and conscript those citizens of value to them, the young, stronger and the productive, to the ranks of their militaries. For this we will only be addressing military intervention; though economic intervention through blockades, embargoes and sanctions should be addressed the same way.

Non-Interventionism seems a pretty simple and straight forward principle. “Do not intervene in affairs of other countries that do not directly affect the US”. But in this very simple statement lies questions.  And serious questions. These questions have been answered repeatedly by many authors, and their acceptance is up to each individual to decide.

Is there a Humanitarian Case FOR intervention?

Of course this question begs the individual to place a subjective value on a human life and pit that against the value of another life. Because the intention and action to do harm to others is a factor to the value of a life for most, it stands that those persons doing harm or threatening to do harm would be subjected to a lesser value than the so called victims of events. Saving a life by taking a life can be seen as justifiable by some and somewhat undebatable to others. The judgment of those who will do harm or violence to others is a constant in the political world, hence a presidential kill list, drone bombings and secretive missions by highly trained military members in government sanctioned assassinations and murders. Even in everyday life, the citizens of every country place value on the lives of every other nation’s people.

Can there be a Humanitarian cause for military intervention. In this question lies an impasse of logic. Can the killing of some be considered “humanitarian” if it is the case to help others to live? If a country’s government were to threaten another with nuclear annihilation, would it not be in the humanitarian sense a point for justifiable intervention?  To ensure the loss of life is kept at a minimum and the worldwide effects of such an act be avoided? One could argue in the defense of the intervener as the wholly humanitarian effort and against the aggressor as the initiator of force. But the end result of to take a life to save a life contradicts the compassionate excuse it seeks to eradicate.  In the purely libertarian sense, one can urge intervention so long as those whose mind is made up against said intervention are not forced or coerced into facilitating the action, whether that be through taxation to afford the intervention, conscription to the cause of the intervention or whatever other means to force a person to act against their own belief of non-intervention.

What is the Humanitarian case AGAINST intervention?

Military intervention comes in many forms. From the small arms trades and sales, troop training, asset maintenance and facilitator of large weapons and munitions, and of course the act of entering into a military conflict with supplies of troops and mechanized weaponry. In the present, all of these actions are ultimately coerced from those who may or may not hold value to them, as stated before, increased taxation and conscription are all part of the norm for these types of affairs.

The Humanitarian case comes into effect at the soldier level and at the economic impact level it has on the citizenry of the intervening nation or state.  Each soldier’s life and those that they may take in combat or those that die from indirect conflict related economic hardships are not necessarily counted as such in current times. But each one of these should be considered when trying to make a humanitarian case either for or against intervention of any kind. As stated before the taking of one life by any means declares the end result of any intervention wholly inhumane and against the stated goal of saving humanity from death or harm.

What are the effects of Intervention?

There is a persistent fallacy associated with those that claim Non-Interventionism is Isolationism. Calling someone an isolationist has become the favored insult to Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals to cast towards libertarians. While not every Libertarian completely agrees with the idea of Non-Intervention, the same can be said of the idea of Intervention by Conservatives and Liberals.

The term Isolationist is one that for the most part is used erroneously and in a kind of inaccurate, hypocritical way. If the refraining from foreign affairs isolates any nation or state from any others it is in a belief that the non-intervening state or nation has some Responsibility to Protect (R2P) any others. In this theory any nation’s citizens should come to expect to be saved by all other nations or states if their respected nation or state fails to provide adequate protections. In that aim any nation’s citizens can expect to oblige to pay for any such intervention by their government. But this obligation often comes begrudgingly or not at all voluntarily. Should any state or nation, in their attempt to save another, put their own citizens at risk? Or to force them to give up their wealth on a choice not made by them that they may not find the least bit worthy of their contribution?

Sometimes intervention has other effects; creating enemies and leading to an inclusive war or attack by an offended nation or state. It has the effect of reduced production in consumer markets; due to enlistment, conscription or mandatory transfer of market production to production of intervention bound supplies.

However you view intervention it is imperative to comprehend that no matter what type of intervention is being touted, it ultimately is not in the name of humanitarian efforts. It is, as it is now, a monumental shift of wealth and lives into the domain of public welfare, domestic theft of wealth, imperialism and will have further effects that will affect those who have had no choice to submit their own voice against the will and actions of the government they live under. 

Robert Murphy: Contrasting Views of the Great Depression. Mises University 2014

This year (2014) Mises University has started. This is a short video featuring Economist and Author Robert Murphy. Here he is explaining the Contrasting views of the Great Depression. Going through the differing schools of economic thought and giving examples of typical or "normal"  thoughts on the cause of, effects of and the eventual relief of one of the greatest and longest lasting economic depressions The United States and parts of the World felt.

Robert Murphy is an associated scholar of the Mises Institute, where he teaches at the Mises Academy.He runs the blog Free Advice and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, theStudy Guide to "Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market," the "Human Action" Study Guide,The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, and his newest book,Lessons for the Young Economist.