LIB-ertarian Johnson has Lib Meltdown

[quiller]

I can see the arguments starting now over whether Black Lives Matters are vigilantes or just common street thugs. Golly, they'll be SOOOOOOO understanding in white communities, showing respect for white culture...like Democrats insist all whites show to the street thugs. The hyupocrisy is large in this one.

[Billy's bayonet]

Iran?!!  Iran is our biggest threat?  As of 2013, Iran spends 17.7 Billion dollars annually on their military.  If we cut HALF of our national security spending per year, we'd STILL be spending more than 300 Billion dollars annually on our military.  You really think that "our greatest national security threat" would all of a sudden want to start a war with the United States if we only spent 282.3 Billion dollars more than them on our military each year?

I'm basing my opinion on the writings of economists, national security experts and ex-CIA authors and journalists who have done actual research on these subjects.  I mentioned it before, but Robert Pape and former CIA bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer know more about Islamic terrorism that almost anyone else and they support MY argument, not yours.

I find it rather funny that you'd trust the opinion of a Pentagon spokesperson or General, who has a vested interest in ever-expanding budgets and defense contracts for military contractors over independent journalists, economists and authors.  Many or most of the people I rely on have all the requisite military and CIA experience to have informed opinions on these issues without all of the conflicts of interest that current war propagandists have.

Here you go again relating "Money spent on Military" with anything relevant. Thats why I told you about Guerilla who used bamboo stick to fight us....hiw much money you think they spent on sharpening bamboo stick and digging punji stick pits? That's why I keep telling you about "furious Mind" which I know you have no clue of.....

Let me school ya.

IRAN HAS THE INTENT (Furious mind) of becoming the TOP DOG in the region, that means they want to initiate, restore and impose the Calipahte on the rest of the Muslim world. Iran figures they are entitled as most of Islam's holy Shrines except for those in Saudi Arabia (Hold that thought I'll return to it) are in IRAN. Now to make it complete they HAVE to get Mecca and Medina...for he who controls Mecca controls Islam. THEY WILL USE ANY MEANS NECESSARY, funding terrorism, deals with Putin, Fear and intimidation of their PERSIAN Gulf neighbors.....financial ....ANYTHING. Their military budget means little, I doubt they are telling the truth anyhow, teamed up with Russia, they are indeed formidible, and when they actually have the nuke AND THE DELIVERY SYSTEM...watch out.

I dont pay much attention to Media "experts" or Authors....I pay attention to experts in the field...that means people who have been in the field and have the experience necessary to establish reliability and CREDIBILITY.

Such persons provide the intell that desk bound schumcks like some of the people you are referencing depend on to do their analysis  I can find half a dozen different people who will refute your references and sources until it becomes nothing but dueling "experts"  thats why I rely on MY experiences, background and training and those of people I have come to know and trust.

DUring my somewhat breif Tenure in UAE and Kuwait just before the Iraq Invasion you know what? Very few of those people were really concerned about Saddam and his Chemical weapons (Which everyone connected with security and military KNEW) he had. THEY WERE MORE FRIGHTED OF IRAN....because IRAN HAD THE INTENT....THE FURIOUS MIND, to SUBJEGATE ALL OF ISLAM, not just expand their borders.

To conclude, anyone who thinks Iran is NOT a threat to the US, to the region and to world stability is a fool on the greatest order and should be hit in the head with a croquet mallet in an effort to instill some sense.

ANd we can withdraw, disarm, stand down and stick our heads in the dirt or up our asses, it doesn't matter BECAUSE THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE. Those people have a different thought process than you and I. We humiliated them by installing the Shah (Palavi dynesty) Now we have to pay....if it takes a thousand years we, America must pay.  THERE IS NOTHING, NOTHING America can do but surrender abjectly to these fanatics and convert to their stupid religion.

Know you enemy, know him as you know yourself.

Wise up.

[Billy's bayonet]

I was actually more speaking to you all collectively with that comment rather than responding to your comment in particular.  Do you agree with me that the United States could easily cut more than 50% of its military spending and still be perfectly capable of defending against any national security threats?  Do you agree with me that you cannot support the sort of foreign policy that most of you seem to support while also believing in limited government and the Constitution?  Those are mutually exclusive positions.

Speaking of private police forces, they are only one way to provide security in a State-less society.  Communities could voluntarily provide a neighborhood watch program.  Non-police security agencies could sell you surveillance equipment and technology to deter crime.  A free society would likely be an armed society, so people will have access to legal firearms which is the last and best line of defense against crime.

As I'm sure you know, communities without gun control laws that have more law-abiding gun owners have far less crime since criminals don't know who is armed or unarmed.

I'm sure there will be volunteer security groups that come together to protect the neighborhood of poorer people.  There are so many potential avenues for effective crime deterrence if we don't place our trust in a State monopoly.

Do conservatives believe in the free market or don't they?  How can you argue for free market healthcare and criticize socialist healthcare one moment and the next criticize free market defense and police while endorsing socialist police?

Can you not see the contradiction in your thinking?

Now who Pray tale would License, monitor and CONTROL these "Volunteer Police" groups or "Private security forces" hired to maintain "order"?  Some GOVT ENTITY would HAVE TO...same with DMV, you have to have some standards and guidelines to grant individual "guards" or "Police" a permit or  license and to license the agencies that they work for making sure they have a bond or insurance. Much the same as licencing standards to get a drivers permit or register a vehicle. SO looks like we are back to square one with a Govt or regulatory body.

Most states currently have such rules regulations and licencing bodies, otherwise you;d have lunatics, felons, and completely unqualified persons with no training or education running around armed and enforcing regulations, violating the hell out of everyone's rights and possibly dangerous to innocent parties. You have to have training standards in basic law, the constitution and don;t forget qualifications with a firearm.

As far as "Volunteer forces coming together to protect poorer neighborhoods" Boy are you ever right about that....They are called Gangs....thats is what would happen ala Al Capone and his conquest of Cicereo Illinois or organized crime building their money laundering operation in Las Vegas. Crooks, gang bangers and the rest of the underworld would and could form their own "Volunteer Police forces" and keep out any real law enforcement intended to to thwart their ongoing criminal activities or of course rival criminals.

You really haven't thought this concept out in practical means have you?

[walkstall]

Now who Pray tale would License, monitor and CONTROL these "Volunteer Police" groups or "Private security forces" hired to maintain "order"?  Some GOVT ENTITY would HAVE TO...same with DMV, you have to have some standards and guidelines to grant individual "guards" or "Police" a permit or  license and to license the agencies that they work for making sure they have a bond or insurance. Much the same as licencing standards to get a drivers permit or register a vehicle. SO looks like we are back to square one with a Govt or regulatory body.

Most states currently have such rules regulations and licencing bodies, otherwise you;d have lunatics, felons, and completely unqualified persons with no training or education running around armed and enforcing regulations, violating the hell out of everyone's rights and possibly dangerous to innocent parties. You have to have training standards in basic law, the constitution and don;t forget qualifications with a firearm.

As far as "Volunteer forces coming together to protect poorer neighborhoods" Boy are you ever right about that....They are called Gangs....thats is what would happen ala Al Capone and his conquest of Cicereo Illinois or organized crime building their money laundering operation in Las Vegas. Crooks, gang bangers and the rest of the underworld would and could form their own "Volunteer Police forces" and keep out any real law enforcement intended to to thwart their ongoing criminal activities or of course rival criminals.

You really haven't thought this concept out in practical means have you?

Young people think, there for it will automatically happen on it own.  This fool need about 80 years under his belt.   

[jrodefeld]

Here you go again relating "Money spent on Military" with anything relevant. Thats why I told you about Guerilla who used bamboo stick to fight us....hiw much money you think they spent on sharpening bamboo stick and digging punji stick pits? That's why I keep telling you about "furious Mind" which I know you have no clue of.....

Let me school ya.

IRAN HAS THE INTENT (Furious mind) of becoming the TOP DOG in the region, that means they want to initiate, restore and impose the Calipahte on the rest of the Muslim world. Iran figures they are entitled as most of Islam's holy Shrines except for those in Saudi Arabia (Hold that thought I'll return to it) are in IRAN. Now to make it complete they HAVE to get Mecca and Medina...for he who controls Mecca controls Islam. THEY WILL USE ANY MEANS NECESSARY, funding terrorism, deals with Putin, Fear and intimidation of their PERSIAN Gulf neighbors.....financial ....ANYTHING. Their military budget means little, I doubt they are telling the truth anyhow, teamed up with Russia, they are indeed formidible, and when they actually have the nuke AND THE DELIVERY SYSTEM...watch out.

I dont pay much attention to Media "experts" or Authors....I pay attention to experts in the field...that means people who have been in the field and have the experience necessary to establish reliability and CREDIBILITY.

Such persons provide the intell that desk bound schumcks like some of the people you are referencing depend on to do their analysis  I can find half a dozen different people who will refute your references and sources until it becomes nothing but dueling "experts"  thats why I rely on MY experiences, background and training and those of people I have come to know and trust.

DUring my somewhat breif Tenure in UAE and Kuwait just before the Iraq Invasion you know what? Very few of those people were really concerned about Saddam and his Chemical weapons (Which everyone connected with security and military KNEW) he had. THEY WERE MORE FRIGHTED OF IRAN....because IRAN HAD THE INTENT....THE FURIOUS MIND, to SUBJEGATE ALL OF ISLAM, not just expand their borders.

To conclude, anyone who thinks Iran is NOT a threat to the US, to the region and to world stability is a fool on the greatest order and should be hit in the head with a croquet mallet in an effort to instill some sense.

ANd we can withdraw, disarm, stand down and stick our heads in the dirt or up our asses, it doesn't matter BECAUSE THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE. Those people have a different thought process than you and I. We humiliated them by installing the Shah (Palavi dynesty) Now we have to pay....if it takes a thousand years we, America must pay.  THERE IS NOTHING, NOTHING America can do but surrender abjectly to these fanatics and convert to their stupid religion.

Know you enemy, know him as you know yourself.

Wise up.

I'd like to know which experts you are relying on regarding Iran and the danger they pose to the United States.  I'm not trying to make this a "duel of experts" because my arguments rely on more than just citing studies, charts and quotes from others.  But I am genuinely interested in where you are getting your information.  I just hope it's more than just Mark Levin and right wing talk radio.

You say that speaking about military spending is irrelevant, but I beg to differ.  I am a non-interventionist libertarian who wants to drastically shrink the size and scope of government.  Our government is already insolvent, with a 20 Trillion dollar national debt and more than 200 Trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.  If we want to create a soft landing rather than wait for a very painful calamity, we should want to cut spending as much as possible as soon as possible.

It will be difficult to immediately slash entitlements.  The best we can hope for there is a decades-long transition period where we can wean Americans off of dependency slowly.  And even that will be politically difficult since beneficiaries of government largess are unlikely to want to give up their benefits.

The easiest place to make significant cuts immediately is in our military spending.  Military spending is often claimed to be around 650 Million dollars per year, but experts have estimated that the entire cost of maintaining our world empire is closer to 1 Trillion dollars annually.

I am proposing that we start immediately closing down all military bases around the world and bringing the troops home.  We should allow the Germans to defend themselves and the Japanese to defend themselves without our interference.  We should end all foreign aid and stop bombing, occupying and intervening into the middle east in particular.

If we did these steps, we could easily cut our military spending in half and still be more than capable to defending ourselves against any real or potential threat.

You didn't address this point, but I wish you would.

I think you are turning Iran into an entirely fictitious boogeyman.  But it is nice to see that you, at least for a moment, seem to recognize the important principle of "blowback" when you conceded that some Iranians are angry at the United States for the overthrow of their elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh and the installing of the Shah.  This anger is not unjustified but this does NOT mean that Iran will launch any sort of attack against the United States militarily, least of all a Nuclear strike.

Do you really think that the Iranian people and their government are suicidal?  If they were to ever get a nuclear weapon and they were to even think about launching it at Israel or the United States, we'd retaliate and wipe their entire country off the map in a matter of hours.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki will seem like child's play in comparison.

And this is under the very dubious assumption that they either want to, or have the ability to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon under the tremendous international scrutiny they've been subject to.

More importantly, Iran has not waged an aggressive war in modern history.  It's leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike". 

Here is a great blog post clearly up some of these misconceptions about Iran:

http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/top-things-you-think-you-know-about.html


Now, with the signing of Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal in exchange for sanctions relief, it makes it FAR more difficult for them to even consider developing a Nuclear weapon.  Regardless of your opinion of Obama or of this deal in particular, it make it very difficult for Iran to start to build a nuclear weapon under the increase surveillance and with the knowledge that sanctions will snap back immediately if they are found to not be following the deal to the letter.

Thus far, they have been following the agreement according to the most knowledgeable sources.


The terrorism problem that we face will not come in the form of an attack by any State military, it will come from lone-wolf Muslims who live all over the world.  They will be able to do a little damage, but they will remain rather ineffective.  Their primary motivations for radicalizing and joining ISIS and other extremist groups will be US military intervention into their home country, the murder of their family by drone bombings and things of that nature.

I know you don't like to trust journalists and experts who study these things, but facts actually do matter in this discussion.  Iran is demonstrably NOT the threat you think they are, and the primary motivation for terrorist attacks against the United States is US occupation and not the Muslim religion.

These are just facts.  They are virtually undisputed among experts who know the first thing about the issue.


What you need to know is that for over twenty years Israel, the Likud party led by Netanyahu, the neo-conservatives and the Christian Right have promoted a concerted campaign of propaganda against Iran and various other middle eastern nations.  The Militarists are always in need of an existential threat to justify their agenda of military intervention, world empire, military industrial complex war profiteering and the passing of legislation that tramples on our liberties.

This is the reason why I recommended Gareth Porter's book to you, since he eloquently and systematically documents the origins of this propaganda and it's promulgation over the years.

I don't want to assume anything, but if you are primarily getting your news from right wing talk radio and a few conservative websites, you really owe it to yourself to learn about the anti-war side of the argument.  And as demonstrated by the libertarians, not all the antiwar voices are liberals.

[jrodefeld]

Now who Pray tale would License, monitor and CONTROL these "Volunteer Police" groups or "Private security forces" hired to maintain "order"?  Some GOVT ENTITY would HAVE TO...same with DMV, you have to have some standards and guidelines to grant individual "guards" or "Police" a permit or  license and to license the agencies that they work for making sure they have a bond or insurance. Much the same as licencing standards to get a drivers permit or register a vehicle. SO looks like we are back to square one with a Govt or regulatory body.

Most states currently have such rules regulations and licencing bodies, otherwise you;d have lunatics, felons, and completely unqualified persons with no training or education running around armed and enforcing regulations, violating the hell out of everyone's rights and possibly dangerous to innocent parties. You have to have training standards in basic law, the constitution and don;t forget qualifications with a firearm.

As far as "Volunteer forces coming together to protect poorer neighborhoods" Boy are you ever right about that....They are called Gangs....thats is what would happen ala Al Capone and his conquest of Cicereo Illinois or organized crime building their money laundering operation in Las Vegas. Crooks, gang bangers and the rest of the underworld would and could form their own "Volunteer Police forces" and keep out any real law enforcement intended to to thwart their ongoing criminal activities or of course rival criminals.

You really haven't thought this concept out in practical means have you?

Actually, I've thought about this concept a lot.  I've read a number of books by economists, political theorists and historians on this subject and I've become convinced that, like all other goods and services, security and dispute resolution can be provided on the market.

I understand this is a hard sell for you.  It is for most people, but the reason for this is that they've never considered it before.  The school of libertarianism to which I subscribe is called "anarcho-capitalism".

Here are a few books that have convinced me of this position:

"The Production of Security" by Gustave de Molinari.

You can read it online for free:

https://mises.org/library/production-security-0


"The Private Production of Defense" by Hans Hermann-Hoppe:

https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense


I'm not honestly expected you to read through these two books, but I just want you to understand that I didn't just come up with this idea without having thought it through.  There are quite a few serious economists and political theorists who subscribe to this view and have dealt with literally every counter-argument you could raise.

Think about this for a moment.  Suppose that Texas seceded from the United States of America.  Who would defend Texans?  Obviously, the people of Texas would assemble their own army and their own means of defense.  They suppose different towns in Texas seceded from the State of Texas.  Who would defend these towns?  The townspeople would come together and work out a means of communal defense.  This doesn't automatically mean that all the towns in Texas would suddenly wage war against each other because they are separate and not controlled by a large, centralized political authority.  Each jurisdiction would have an incentive to work with other jurisdictions rather than fight with them.

It is extremely costly to wage war.  People don't want to wage war if they have to pay for it directly.  What people want is basic security so they can be free from robbers, murderers and rapist while they go about their business, earning a living and trying to improve their lives.

The reasons large, centralized States are able to wage large scale wars over and over is because they can hide the direct cost of the war.  If they can inflate the currency through a central bank, the cost of military spending is obscured.  If you have a progressive income tax, the more wealthy pay a higher rate which means the less wealthy, who make up much more of the population, are not as motivated to change a policy that they don't seem to be paying for.

None of this exists in a Stateless society.  Do you think voluntarily paying customers to a security agency would want to pay their hard-earned dollars so their community could wage war against another community twenty miles away?  For what purpose?

There will be problems in any society made up of human beings.  Some will be criminally inclined and society will have to find a way to deal with them.

But the anarchist insight is that States don't make this problem better, but they make it far worse.  States do NOT, in fact, do a very good job to preventing murders, rapes, and robberies.  Look at the murder rate in Chicago right now.  The incentive structure of government does not lend itself to public service.

Not only do States do a poor job of preventing private crime, they do a tremendous amount of officially-sanctioned crime.  All the criminally-inclined people that would otherwise be engaged in petty small-scale crimes in the private sector are drawn towards government where they can act out their crimes in a legally-sanctioned way and on a MUCH larger scale.

A very important distinction between private crime and State crime is that the general public is opposed to private crime.  They are opposed to private robbery, private murder and private rape.  They see individuals who act in this manner as evil people that ought to be locked up.  But they don't see government robbery and government murder the same way.  They see it as somehow legitimate.

If we suddenly start to see government aggression as being just as illegitimate as private aggression, then we'd want to treat government officials as the criminals they are.  This revelation leads towards anarchy, whereby society by and large is opposed to all forms of aggression.

Then the overwhelming majority of reasonably decent people can discover ways to deal with the small number of violent people that unfortunately make up a percentage of any society.

[Possum]

Actually, I've thought about this concept a lot.  I've read a number of books by economists, political theorists and historians on this subject and I've become convinced that, like all other goods and services, security and dispute resolution can be provided on the market.

I understand this is a hard sell for you.  It is for most people, but the reason for this is that they've never considered it before.  The school of libertarianism to which I subscribe is called "anarcho-capitalism".

Here are a few books that have convinced me of this position:

"The Production of Security" by Gustave de Molinari.

You can read it online for free:

https://mises.org/library/production-security-0


"The Private Production of Defense" by Hans Hermann-Hoppe:

https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense


I'm not honestly expected you to read through these two books, but I just want you to understand that I didn't just come up with this idea without having thought it through.  There are quite a few serious economists and political theorists who subscribe to this view and have dealt with literally every counter-argument you could raise.

Think about this for a moment.  Suppose that Texas seceded from the United States of America.  Who would defend Texans?  Obviously, the people of Texas would assemble their own army and their own means of defense.  They suppose different towns in Texas seceded from the State of Texas.  Who would defend these towns?  The townspeople would come together and work out a means of communal defense.  This doesn't automatically mean that all the towns in Texas would suddenly wage war against each other because they are separate and not controlled by a large, centralized political authority.  Each jurisdiction would have an incentive to work with other jurisdictions rather than fight with them.

It is extremely costly to wage war.  People don't want to wage war if they have to pay for it directly.  What people want is basic security so they can be free from robbers, murderers and rapist while they go about their business, earning a living and trying to improve their lives.

The reasons large, centralized States are able to wage large scale wars over and over is because they can hide the direct cost of the war.  If they can inflate the currency through a central bank, the cost of military spending is obscured.  If you have a progressive income tax, the more wealthy pay a higher rate which means the less wealthy, who make up much more of the population, are not as motivated to change a policy that they don't seem to be paying for.

None of this exists in a Stateless society.  Do you think voluntarily paying customers to a security agency would want to pay their hard-earned dollars so their community could wage war against another community twenty miles away?  For what purpose?

There will be problems in any society made up of human beings.  Some will be criminally inclined and society will have to find a way to deal with them.

But the anarchist insight is that States don't make this problem better, but they make it far worse.  States do NOT, in fact, do a very good job to preventing murders, rapes, and robberies.  Look at the murder rate in Chicago right now.  The incentive structure of government does not lend itself to public service.

Not only do States do a poor job of preventing private crime, they do a tremendous amount of officially-sanctioned crime.  All the criminally-inclined people that would otherwise be engaged in petty small-scale crimes in the private sector are drawn towards government where they can act out their crimes in a legally-sanctioned way and on a MUCH larger scale.

A very important distinction between private crime and State crime is that the general public is opposed to private crime.  They are opposed to private robbery, private murder and private rape.  They see individuals who act in this manner as evil people that ought to be locked up.  But they don't see government robbery and government murder the same way.  They see it as somehow legitimate.

If we suddenly start to see government aggression as being just as illegitimate as private aggression, then we'd want to treat government officials as the criminals they are.  This revelation leads towards anarchy, whereby society by and large is opposed to all forms of aggression.

Then the overwhelming majority of reasonably decent people can discover ways to deal with the small number of violent people that unfortunately make up a percentage of any society.

And I suppose when the townspeople of Texas would come together they would bring their air force with all the fighter jets they have just collecting dust in the back yards. I suppose all those who have a private navy would bring their battleships too. Would the townspeople be required to supply all of their ammunition? Spare parts for breakdowns?  It can see by all the books you have read you have put alot of reasoning into this, but this is not the 1700's. If we were to stop being the worlds police force, who do you think would fill in that void?  Hate to say it, but you have it assbackwards, govt. give away programs must be cut first, you have to get the people off of govt. support.

[Billy's bayonet]

I think you are turning Iran into an entirely fictitious boogeyman.  But it is nice to see that you, at least for a moment, seem to recognize the important principle of "blowback" when you conceded that some Iranians are angry at the United States for the overthrow of their elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh and the installing of the Shah.  This anger is not unjustified but this does NOT mean that Iran will launch any sort of attack against the United States militarily, least of all a Nuclear strike.

Do you really think that the Iranian people and their government are suicidal?  If they were to ever get a nuclear weapon and they were to even think about launching it at Israel or the United States, we'd retaliate and wipe their entire country off the map in a matter of hours.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki will seem like child's play in comparison.

And this is under the very dubious assumption that they either want to, or have the ability to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon under the tremendous international scrutiny they've been subject to.

More importantly, Iran has not waged an aggressive war in modern history.  It's leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike". 

Here is a great blog post clearly up some of these misconceptions about Iran:

http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/top-things-you-think-you-know-about.html


Now, with the signing of Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal in exchange for sanctions relief, it makes it FAR more difficult for them to even consider developing a Nuclear weapon.  Regardless of your opinion of Obama or of this deal in particular, it make it very difficult for Iran to start to build a nuclear weapon under the increase surveillance and with the knowledge that sanctions will snap back immediately if they are found to not be following the deal to the letter.

Thus far, they have been following the agreement according to the most knowledgeable sources.


The terrorism problem that we face will not come in the form of an attack by any State military, it will come from lone-wolf Muslims who live all over the world.  They will be able to do a little damage, but they will remain rather ineffective.  Their primary motivations for radicalizing and joining ISIS and other extremist groups will be US military intervention into their home country, the murder of their family by drone bombings and things of that nature.

I know you don't like to trust journalists and experts who study these things, but facts actually do matter in this discussion.  Iran is demonstrably NOT the threat you think they are, and the primary motivation for terrorist attacks against the United States is US occupation and not the Muslim religion.

Lets cut through all the BS fencing here and Sum up your entire schpiel

You don't think Iran is a threat to the USA or regional stability/world stability, you didn't address their financial support of terrorism but you apparently dismiss the threat of Islamic terrorism altogether as being a viable threat to the USA.

So in light of this fact the USA should disarm, (You said so in previous posts we have no need for a nuclear arsenal) stand down and scale down our military.

Now you just said that Iran isn't suicidal and would not attack us because they are not stupid/suicidal.....now why is that?....because of our MILITARY CAPABILITY (Nukes) and conventional capabilities (Strong Navy) we could out match them NOW in a such a duel this is what you imply....and you are likely correct. I don't want to digress but they attack us and injure us in other ways without going full bore shooting war on us

SO WOULD NOT DISARMAMENT, A LESSENED MILITARY AND LESS A PRESENCE OF US MILITARY TO CONTAIN SUCH FANATICS ENCOURAGE THEIR AGGRESSION. One of the reasons we NEVER went to war during the cold war with the USSR was MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, I beleive in that concept to this day, it worked before it works now and in the future. Thats why these hostile countries use other forms of warfare against us.

So we disarm and they grow their nuclear arsenal.  You really want to take that chance that these Theories by these experts of yours would work....I DON'T and neither do most Americans. I don't need to listen to to Lavine Savage, Rush or any of the others (I don't anyhow) for that conclusion.

Now here is what I DO agree on. We could of course cut military spending WASTE AND FRAUD.....some weapon systems are obsolete or ineffective, lets do away with them...as long as the money is reinvested in better more technological weapons.

Second lets slash the Military aid money going to such countries as Pakistan (who isn't our friend) Indonesia and a few other Islamic countries. Right now I'd cut off Turkey in a heart beat.

I do believe we should disentangle ourselves from the middle east, particularly this mess in Syria and Libya, we don't belong there, we can;t trust those assholes we are giving money to and THEY AREN'T Worth it anyhow.  However we do need to continue to fight Radical Islamic terrorism, for that we need bases, we need intell from cooperating countries and
the joint operation of their military which have proven effective.

I also go with fewer personnell, more geared toward special operations like US Army Rangers Navy seals etc, supported by the best in technology, logistics and intelligence gathering. Gone are the days when armies lined up, shoulder to shoulder and fought each other with cannon, musket or tank and machine gun. Our military must adapt with the times.
We need small counter terror forces backed up by the best in technology. Wars of the future will be fought with the latest technology, long range drones, electromagnetic pulse weapons, Satelitte guided weapons etc.

Last, if you really want to save money lets start by cutting off aide money to many countries like those in South America, Mexico, and of course The Palestinians.

But lets NOT sacrifice our military in the name of creating some sort of isolationist La la land where no one has it in for us whether it is "blowback" or a world conquest agenda.

[Billy's bayonet]

Actually, I've thought about this concept a lot.  I've read a number of books by economists, political theorists and historians on this subject and I've become convinced that, like all other goods and services, security and dispute resolution can be provided on the market.

I understand this is a hard sell for you.

Yeah that's the problem you Thought about it a lot and you have read a lot of books written by people who have done nothing than write a book. You don;t listen to people like me who have a vast amount of experience in these matters.

Thats why what they (you) are selling doesn't sale with me.

You didn't address licensing and regulation of these private forces so they don;t grow into nothing more than armed gangs protecting the territorial imperative and turning on the very people they are hired to protect.

You didn't address the criminal element which would have their own security forces to do whatever they want. Once again my issue that in such cases the strongest and most violent people would end up in control of neighborhoods, cities etc left to their own devices. I keep telling you, Human nature trumps whatever theory these authors come up with, and if you want evidence of that just go to your history book, or better yet take a good hard look at what has become of some inner city neighborhoods....the cops Ain't in charge.  THATS WHY CHICAGO HAS SO MANY MURDERS.

Now here is something I'd would like to see, IE private forces that augment Law enforcement given letters of Marque from State or Federal Govt to address the problems of criminal gangs etc.

These would be licensed organizations working hand in hand with existing Law Enforcment agencies, made up of experienced qualified persons who would be paid based soley on the amount of assets they seize from criminal gangs, smugglers and drug dealers.  I'd turn them loose on the borders on the high seas around our nation and I'd wager that within a year you'd see less illegal immigration, less drug smuggling and less terrorist infiltration.

[jrodefeld]

And I suppose when the townspeople of Texas would come together they would bring their air force with all the fighter jets they have just collecting dust in the back yards. I suppose all those who have a private navy would bring their battleships too. Would the townspeople be required to supply all of their ammunition? Spare parts for breakdowns?  It can see by all the books you have read you have put alot of reasoning into this, but this is not the 1700's. If we were to stop being the worlds police force, who do you think would fill in that void?  Hate to say it, but you have it assbackwards, govt. give away programs must be cut first, you have to get the people off of govt. support.

Private entrepreneurs will provide the service of communal defense against foreign Nation States if it is warranted.  The market is not a central plan, it is a discovery process. 

You should remember that there are a great number of nations around the world that have successfully defended themselves from foreign invaders for centuries while spending a very small fraction of what the United States spends.  Given the greater productivity and efficiency of the private market, we can expect reasonable and sufficient defense services to be cheaper to produce than any State's military budget.

Being "the world's policemen" does not project strength and add to the national defense.  It financially drains a country and weakens their defense in the long run.  If you have a free economy and you grow very wealthy, this is the best defense there is.  Poorer economies with a military stretched too thin cannot maintain a long and protracted military conflict, while countries that are extremely wealthy could if they needed to. 

Regardless of what sort of private armies or security forces would exist in peacetime in a Stateless society, if our collective security was severely threatened by a foreign power, the market would nimbly adjust and produce the quantity and quality of planes, submarines, missiles and so forth to come out ahead in a prolonged war if it came to that.

If Russia or China were foolish enough to maintain military bases around the world and occupy foreign lands, provided they aren't OUR lands, then they would only be weakening their own economies with such needless adventurism. 

The reality is that the world is not as dangerous as you seem to think it is.  The United States military is a danger to OTHER countries far more than they are a danger to us. 


Honestly, I'm not really adamant about converting you all to anarchism.  This is a hard sell for most people and you'd need to read quite a bit about the arguments to understand how and why it would work.  Frankly, if you could be consistent small-government Constitutionalist libertarians, I'd consider that a great start and we can be tremendous allies against Leviathan. 

Yes I agree we should cut Welfare spending.  But do you really think that cutting poor folks off of food stamps is a more important priority than closing down military bases in at least some of the 170 countries where we have them?  This seems like a very strange set of priorities.

But what about Crony Capitalist Welfare in the Military Industrial Complex?  Not all of this military spending actually goes to bolstering our defense.  So much of this money goes to absolutely unnecessary airplanes and tanks that even the military generals say they don't want.  Lockheed Martin, Boeing and the rest of these companies are hooked on the government dole and rational decisions are NOT being made about what is in our best interests for our national defense.

Just to give you a helpful tip, supporting this kind of crony capitalism and military spending while saying we need to cut welfare for the poor and middle class is one reason why people are distrustful of people who say they support smaller government.

It is good politics, aside from simply being the right thing to do, to start with slashing military spending and corporate welfare first, then cutting entitlement programs and welfare for the poor. 

[jrodefeld]

Lets cut through all the BS fencing here and Sum up your entire schpiel

You don't think Iran is a threat to the USA or regional stability/world stability, you didn't address their financial support of terrorism but you apparently dismiss the threat of Islamic terrorism altogether as being a viable threat to the USA.

So in light of this fact the USA should disarm, (You said so in previous posts we have no need for a nuclear arsenal) stand down and scale down our military.

Now you just said that Iran isn't suicidal and would not attack us because they are not stupid/suicidal.....now why is that?....because of our MILITARY CAPABILITY (Nukes) and conventional capabilities (Strong Navy) we could out match them NOW in a such a duel this is what you imply....and you are likely correct. I don't want to digress but they attack us and injure us in other ways without going full bore shooting war on us

SO WOULD NOT DISARMAMENT, A LESSENED MILITARY AND LESS A PRESENCE OF US MILITARY TO CONTAIN SUCH FANATICS ENCOURAGE THEIR AGGRESSION. One of the reasons we NEVER went to war during the cold war with the USSR was MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, I beleive in that concept to this day, it worked before it works now and in the future. Thats why these hostile countries use other forms of warfare against us.

So we disarm and they grow their nuclear arsenal.  You really want to take that chance that these Theories by these experts of yours would work....I DON'T and neither do most Americans. I don't need to listen to to Lavine Savage, Rush or any of the others (I don't anyhow) for that conclusion.

Now here is what I DO agree on. We could of course cut military spending WASTE AND FRAUD.....some weapon systems are obsolete or ineffective, lets do away with them...as long as the money is reinvested in better more technological weapons.

Second lets slash the Military aid money going to such countries as Pakistan (who isn't our friend) Indonesia and a few other Islamic countries. Right now I'd cut off Turkey in a heart beat.

I do believe we should disentangle ourselves from the middle east, particularly this mess in Syria and Libya, we don't belong there, we can;t trust those assholes we are giving money to and THEY AREN'T Worth it anyhow.  However we do need to continue to fight Radical Islamic terrorism, for that we need bases, we need intell from cooperating countries and
the joint operation of their military which have proven effective.

I also go with fewer personnell, more geared toward special operations like US Army Rangers Navy seals etc, supported by the best in technology, logistics and intelligence gathering. Gone are the days when armies lined up, shoulder to shoulder and fought each other with cannon, musket or tank and machine gun. Our military must adapt with the times.
We need small counter terror forces backed up by the best in technology. Wars of the future will be fought with the latest technology, long range drones, electromagnetic pulse weapons, Satelitte guided weapons etc.

Last, if you really want to save money lets start by cutting off aide money to many countries like those in South America, Mexico, and of course The Palestinians.

But lets NOT sacrifice our military in the name of creating some sort of isolationist La la land where no one has it in for us whether it is "blowback" or a world conquest agenda.

Okay, we've got some common ground.  Today's military conflicts and national security threats are far different than in decades past.  Smaller special forces and an increased reliance on technology and pinpoint accuracy defensive weapons technology should be relied upon and the obsolete and outdated tanks, piloted fighter jets, naval vessels and such should be phased out.  We agree on that.

I don't think I ever said that we had no need for a nuclear arsenal.  What I did say was that we can and should be reducing our nuclear arsenal.  The end goal should be the elimination of nuclear weapons, but this has to be done in conjunction with other nations.  If we unilaterally got rid of our entire nuclear arsenal, it would put us at tremendous risk against nations that still have them.  So I'd favor improved diplomatic relations with Russia and mutual efforts to reduce our nuclear stockpile in a coordinated effort.

This is an extremely important issue.  It has been somewhat forgotten since the Cold War but these weapons literally have the capacity to end life on earth.  There is nothing more important than reducing and eventually eliminating them from the face of the earth.

Instead of obsessing on a fictitious nuclear weapon that Iran doesn't have and is not pursuing, we should be focused on our nuclear weapons, Russia's nuclear weapons, Israel's nuclear weapons and working towards scaling them back as quickly as possible.

I agree with you that mutually assured destruction works, but doesn't that undermine your argument that Iran is a grave threat to the United States or Israel?  Even if they DID manage to acquire a nuclear weapon in a hypothetical scenario, why would they launch it against Israel or the US if it certainly would result in their complete destruction?

[Possum]

Private entrepreneurs will provide the service of communal defense against foreign Nation States if it is warranted.  The market is not a central plan, it is a discovery process.

So do these straw men, excuse me these "private entrepreneurs" have a military ready or will they have to buy one?

You should remember that there are a great number of nations around the world that have successfully defended themselves from foreign invaders for centuries while spending a very small fraction of what the United States spends.  Given the greater productivity and efficiency of the private market, we can expect reasonable and sufficient defense services to be cheaper to produce than any State's military budget.

Centuries ago a war could be fought without a modern military, times have changed

Being "the world's policemen" does not project strength and add to the national defense.  It financially drains a country and weakens their defense in the long run.  If you have a free economy and you grow very wealthy, this is the best defense there is.  Poorer economies with a military stretched too thin cannot maintain a long and protracted military conflict, while countries that are extremely wealthy could if they needed to. 

And if we allow russia to police the world, that would strengthen us how? dont you think russia would charge for that protection?

Regardless of what sort of private armies or securi16068 date=1474384785ty forces would exist in peacetime in a Stateless society, if our collective security was severely threatened by a foreign power, the market would nimbly adjust and produce the quantity and quality of planes, submarines, missiles and so forth to come out ahead in a prolonged war if it came to that.

Once again, who would police this private army, in other words who but the man who pays them does a private army answer to?

If Russia or China were foolish enough to maintain military bases around the world and occupy foreign lands, provided they aren't OUR lands, then they would only be weakening their own economies with such needless adventurism.

What makes you think they would occupy them for free???? 

The reality is that the world is not as dangerous as you seem to think it is.  The United States military is a danger to OTHER countries far more than they are a danger to us. 

The world is not as dangerous as YOU think because we have the best military!

Honestly, I'm not really adamant about converting you all to anarchism.  This is a hard sell for most people and you'd need to read quite a bit about the arguments to understand how and why it would work.  Frankly, if you could be consistent small-government Constitutionalist libertarians, I'd consider that a great start and we can be tremendous allies against Leviathan. 

Yes I agree we should cut Welfare spending.  But do you really think that cutting poor folks off of food stamps is a more important priority than closing down military bases in at least some of the 170 countries where we have them?  This seems like a very strange set of priorities.

Who said anything about the "poor" being cut anything? Our entitlement programs are out of control and we should be sending our $ to those who are in need and not in want. Our programs have led to generations being on welfare

But what about Crony Capitalist Welfare in the Military Industrial Complex?  Not all of this military spending actually goes to bolstering our defense.  So much of this money goes to absolutely unnecessary airplanes and tanks that even the military generals say they don't want.  Lockheed Martin, Boeing and the rest of these companies are hooked on the government dole and rational decisions are NOT being made about what is in our best interests for our national defense.

The answer is to hold those accountable who cheat the government not do away with the military.

Just to give you a helpful tip, supporting this kind of crony capitalism and military spending while saying we need to cut welfare for the poor and middle class is one reason why people are distrustful of people who say they support smaller government.

Please refer to above.

It is good politics, aside from simply being the right thing to do, to start with slashing military spending and corporate welfare first, then cutting entitlement programs and welfare for the poor.

Corporate welfare?? why should a business even pay taxes?  Too many of your ideas seem to come right out of the liberal playbook

[Billy's bayonet]

I don't think I ever said that we had no need for a nuclear arsenal.  What I did say was that we can and should be reducing our nuclear arsenal.  The end goal should be the elimination of nuclear weapons, but this has to be done in conjunction with other nations.  If we unilaterally got rid of our entire nuclear arsenal, it would put us at tremendous risk against nations that still have them.  So I'd favor improved diplomatic relations with Russia and mutual efforts to reduce our nuclear stockpile in a coordinated effort.

Instead of obsessing on a fictitious nuclear weapon that Iran doesn't have and is not pursuing, we should be focused on our nuclear weapons, Russia's nuclear weapons, Israel's nuclear weapons and working towards scaling them back as quickly as possible.

I agree with you that mutually assured destruction works, but doesn't that undermine your argument that Iran is a grave threat to the United States or Israel?  Even if they DID manage to acquire a nuclear weapon in a hypothetical scenario, why would they launch it against Israel or the US if it certainly would result in their complete destruction?

It sounds like you want the US, Russia and Israel to disarm.... but not Iran.....OR PAKISTAN.... Iran may (or may not) have a Nuke but you can bet they will get one in the future. But like I told you before Israel (or the US) is not going to be the immediate target ......THE GULF STATES AND SAUDI WILL BE. Once Iran has their nuke (s) they will begin their intended conquest of the Gulf down through Yemen. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE the threat level of IRAN, they will start WW3 given the chance. Their goal is to first control ISLAM and impose their version.... Shi'a destroying Sunni.

But first a few things have to happen. The US and other allied nations has to withdraw or be forced out of the Gulf, the very type of withdrawal you are suggesting would be just what Iran is banking on. Right now Iran is contained they can't get to Israel through the north (Turkey, SYria) Or the West (Gulf states Saudi and Iraq) and if they try it through the south they have to run the gauntlet of US and Allied ships through THREE CHOKE POINTS....Straits of Hormuz, Gulf of Aden and most importantly The Suez....Egypt....and Egypt is on US/Israel side right now. Once they are in control of two of those choke points they are in a better position stratigically control the flow of oil as well as other marine commerce which MUST pass through the Gulf of Arden to reach the Suez.

Like it or not, standing down, withdrawal from the middle east scaling down weapons ESPECIALLY OUR NAVAL CAPABILITIES is the worst thing that can happen.

Personally, I don't want to see Israel disarm at all, once they do...they are all dead. The fact that Israel has and WILL use Nukes if attacked is likely the only thing preventing WW3 right now...don't be too shocked to learn that Russia has provided Israel with at least some of their nukes and other weapons.

The other issue we have is that perhaps with enough technology Nukes might become obsolete or we might develop technology that would make delivery systems null and void, this is why I say we should sink more money into developing electromagnetic pulse weapons rather than spending money on tanks, artillery and other conventional weapons. SO sorry but military spending is vital to remain technologically superior and maintain that all important BALANCE OF POWER.

[jrodefeld]

So do these straw men, excuse me these "private entrepreneurs" have a military ready or will they have to buy one?  Centuries ago a war could be fought without a modern military, times have changed
And if we allow russia to police the world, that would strengthen us how? dont you think russia would charge for that protection?
Once again, who would police this private army, in other words who but the man who pays them does a private army answer to?
What makes you think they would occupy them for free???? 
The world is not as dangerous as YOU think because we have the best military!


Who said anything about the "poor" being cut anything? Our entitlement programs are out of control and we should be sending our $ to those who are in need and not in want. Our programs have led to generations being on welfare

The answer is to hold those accountable who cheat the government not do away with the military.
Please refer to above.
Corporate welfare?? why should a business even pay taxes?  Too many of your ideas seem to come right out of the liberal playbook

I'm an anarchist, remember?  I don't think anyone should be paying taxes.  What I mean by "Corporate welfare" are subsidies, favorable regulations which distort the market in favor of a politically-connected elite and no-bid government contracts.  If the government grants tax breaks to businessmen and corporations, that is all to the good.  Taxes should be lowered for everyone.

Are you aware that Russia has the Gross National Product of Italy?  They have a large stockpile of Nuclear Weapons, and a reasonably large military but they are FAR from the sort of dangerous nation that the Right seem to think they are.

Are you arguing that the United States needs to maintain bases in 170 countries around the world and "project strength" through the maintenance of a world empire because if we didn't, someone else might?  Is that your argument?

Any country or non-State terrorist group might threaten our safety in the future.  Whether we have a State or are living in a State-less society, we'd want to make sure that we have adequate security and adequate intelligence to protect ourselves against potential threats.  It clearly does NOT enhance our national security to maintain bases around the world and intervene into the affairs of other countries.

If we merely pursue peace, commerce and honest friendship with others but have entangling alliances with none, as the Founders advocated, then we would foster more harmony among other nations and ourselves.  By maintaining an empire and "projecting strength", we generate resentment which manifests in the growth of terrorism and the further buildup of the militaries in other nations who see us as a threat to their security.


I proposed that we could immediately cut the military budget by 50% without reducing our ability to defend ourselves one bit.  Do you agree with this or not?

For whatever reason, you seem to think that nearly all of this money is worth it if only to prove that we're tough to the rest of the world by having such a massive and extravagant military.

A majority of this money is spent in ways that weaken us rather than strengthen us.

Here is a concrete example.  Lockheed Martin has built an aircraft that is completely useless.  It doesn't work, the military doesn't need it and it has cost an estimated 2 Trillion dollars.  That is not a typo.  A single worthless aircraft has cost the US government two trillion dollars.

At an estimated lifetime development, production, operational and maintenance cost of $2 trillion or more (adjusted for inflation), the F-35 perhaps most of all symbolizes notorious Pentagon waste, fraud and abuse – ripping off taxpayers, using the nation's resources irresponsibly, at the expense of vital homeland needs.

Pentagon hype calls the F-35 "a 5th Generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment" – for Army, Navy and Marine Corps use, as well as for selected allies.

After a decade of development and limited production, it still doesn't work as intended. In service since the 1970s, the F-16 outclasses it. In simulated dogfights, an F-35 test pilot called it "at a distinct energy disadvantage."

The Pentagon's fifth-generation warplane performs worse than one of its current mainstays it's designed to replace. It remains a troubled aircraft with unresolved problems, a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle, a colossal waste of national resources.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/lockheed-martins-f-35-lightning-ii-boondoggle-a-2-trillion-pentagon-waste/5504849

This is precisely what the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about produces.  Unimaginable waste and fraud.


As for private armies in the market, the consumers would police the military.  The consumers would pay their salaries voluntarily after all.  I would imagine that an armed, private militia would emerge.  Like in Switzerland, military age males would agree to defend the society in battle if they were ever to be invaded or attacked by a foreign army.  Maybe young men would learn basic skills in owning, operating and maintaining firearms in case of such an event.

Then I'd imagine that private entrepreneurs would maintain small but nimble stockpiles of heavy duty weapons, insured on the private market of course, to be deployed if they were ever truly needed.  Their salaries would be paid by communities who valued the safety and security they would provide.  99% of the time, their existence and maintenance would be an insurance policy and they would not be deployed in combat around the world.

Furthermore, security agencies would have the incentive to work out innovative ways to keep the peace and AVOID international conflicts and military battles.  Different avenues for diplomacy would be pursued since peaceful solutions are better for a society than expensive and deadly military confrontations.

[jrodefeld]

It sounds like you want the US, Russia and Israel to disarm.... but not Iran.....OR PAKISTAN.... Iran may (or may not) have a Nuke but you can bet they will get one in the future. But like I told you before Israel (or the US) is not going to be the immediate target ......THE GULF STATES AND SAUDI WILL BE. Once Iran has their nuke (s) they will begin their intended conquest of the Gulf down through Yemen. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE the threat level of IRAN, they will start WW3 given the chance. Their goal is to first control ISLAM and impose their version.... Shi'a destroying Sunni.

But first a few things have to happen. The US and other allied nations has to withdraw or be forced out of the Gulf, the very type of withdrawal you are suggesting would be just what Iran is banking on. Right now Iran is contained they can't get to Israel through the north (Turkey, SYria) Or the West (Gulf states Saudi and Iraq) and if they try it through the south they have to run the gauntlet of US and Allied ships through THREE CHOKE POINTS....Straits of Hormuz, Gulf of Aden and most importantly The Suez....Egypt....and Egypt is on US/Israel side right now. Once they are in control of two of those choke points they are in a better position stratigically control the flow of oil as well as other marine commerce which MUST pass through the Gulf of Arden to reach the Suez.

Like it or not, standing down, withdrawal from the middle east scaling down weapons ESPECIALLY OUR NAVAL CAPABILITIES is the worst thing that can happen.

Personally, I don't want to see Israel disarm at all, once they do...they are all dead. The fact that Israel has and WILL use Nukes if attacked is likely the only thing preventing WW3 right now...don't be too shocked to learn that Russia has provided Israel with at least some of their nukes and other weapons.

The other issue we have is that perhaps with enough technology Nukes might become obsolete or we might develop technology that would make delivery systems null and void, this is why I say we should sink more money into developing electromagnetic pulse weapons rather than spending money on tanks, artillery and other conventional weapons. SO sorry but military spending is vital to remain technologically superior and maintain that all important BALANCE OF POWER.

How much more money does the United States have to spend on it's military than all other nations around the globe to give you a sense of security?  What is the limit?

I'm not arguing that the money that we do spend on our military should not be spent differently, or that developing some new weapons and technology is not required.  What I am saying is that our foreign policy itself should be changed.

The weapons and technology that we develop should be used for defensive purposes as a deterrent.  We shouldn't just be supplying an endless stream of new toys for military Generals to use when invading, bombing, overthrowing and occupying foreign nations that did not attack us and did not threaten our national security.

Remember that a lot of this military technology trickles down into the hands of our police, who are starting to see the United States as just another occupied battlefield.

Here is a concrete proposal.  We should close down foreign military bases and bring our troops home.  Even if you don't think we should close down ALL of our bases, surely you can agree to closing down most of them.  Then our foreign policy should be re-focused on providing for defense but staying out of interfering in the internal affairs of foreign nations.

If our foreign policy focus was merely changed, we'd not need to spend nearly as much money.  It cost far less to defend a country against all potential threats than it does to militarily dominate the globe.

You keep acting as if I'm suggesting that the United States unilaterally disarm and get rid of ALL it's nuclear weapons while other countries maintain theirs.  I want all nations to drawn down their nuclear weapons and eventually eliminate them completely.  And I don't want any non-nuclear countries to develop them either.

But the United States and Russia have so many more nuclear arms than all other nations on the globe that we could drawn down our nuclear arms drastically while still maintaining far more than any other nuclear power. 

Do you really think it matters to our national defense whether we could blow up the world five times over or ten? 


No I don't fear Iran because they haven't started a war in the modern era.  They have NOT demonstrated that they are seeking to wage the sort of military conquest strategy that you claim they are. 

First of all, there is no ambiguity over whether Iran has a nuclear weapon.  They DON'T have a nuclear weapon, they aren't even close to being able to and, most importantly they have not pursued a nuclear weapon.

That last point is very important.  Despite what you've been told, Iran has not seriously pursued the development of a nuclear weapon in the past quarter of a century, if ever.  Again, I refer you to Gather Porter's book Manufactured Crisis.

Their nuclear program was focused towards peaceful purposes.  Medical isotopes and clean power, mainly.

Iran has been under such tremendous scrutiny over the past twenty years and have been subject to many, many inspections by the UN.  They have never proven that Iran was working on a nuclear weapon in all that time.