In short, the initiation of force against an innocent person or persons. (violation of the Non-aggression axiom)

who is innocent?

You have a strange defintion of fascism. Moussolini aptly defined it as "the perfect union of the State and corporations". I have to wonder why you prattle on so much about things you clearly don't understand (such as the WOT, econ, etc), and then have the audacity to insult others who clearly understand issues better than you.

You also clearly don't understand the difference between "war" and "invasion". What the government is doing now in the mideast is clearly an illegal invasion by both US and international standards. The only reason it has gone on so long is the same reason the Germans were able to fight so long-the warfare/welfare system (initiated in the modern era by Woodrow Wilson).

My definition of evil is Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

A person who has not violated the non-aggression axiom (a principle closely related to Natural Law, practiced by Thomas Jefferson, John Lock, etc).

This axiom can be explained thusly:

The Non-Aggression Principle

To paraphrase, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is usually stated as "do not initiate force or fraud", or "if it harms none, do what you will", or "treat others as you'd like to be treated", or "live and let live". In more detail, “Do not initiate force or fraud against anyone else’s person or property." In other words, except for self-defense, don’t harm others, don’t harm or steal their property, don’t break your word, don’t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don’t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things.

The Equal Rights Principle (ERP) states that everyone has equal inherent rights, there should be no special privileged class, no "divine right of kings". This also implies that a group of people, no matter how many, can't have more rights than any individual. You cannot delegate a right to another individual or group if you do not have that right in the first place.

The Individual Sovereignty Principle (ISP) is that we, as individual sentient human beings with free will, each have the right to do anything we want as long as we do not violate NAP or ERP; and that we create organizations (including governments) and we grant specific, limited, enumerated privileges to them, not the other way around; they have no inherent rights of their own (this latter point is further discussed here). These 3 principles (ISP/NAP/ERP) form the tripod upon which any viable and just civilization must be founded, but for simplicity, we shall hereinafter refer to them collectively as NAP.

Liberty is the state of freedom achieved when everyone abides by NAP. It's a fundamental right of all individual persons, not something granted by a government or constitution. Liberty is inherently ours by birthright, regardless of whether one believes it comes from God, Nature, the Universe, or the simple fact that we're sentient beings with free will. Logic and necessity demand that we respect each other's rights, or else we revert to the law of the jungle.

you think it's justified to coercively (through taxation and infation) risk my current and future capital on a fool's errand like the phony "war on terror". Beyond the criminal act itself, it is also deleterious to international trade and domestic production. This is made clear in the writings of the Austrian free market economists and historians as well as classical American Anti-Federalists and war historians (like Rothbard and DiLorenzo).

fundamental rights? soo, lets see here...we are over there trying to give their people "fundamental rights", like being able to drink clean water, not having your head chopped off when they disagree with someone, being able to walk in public without covering your face becuase a man told you had to, even to make statements against the government like you love to do so much.. in iran, you would have already been executed for the things you wrote in here. but they don't have internet there, government won't let them. these are just a few of the "fundamental rights" they don't deserve over there.

Why would you think I "love" Iran? I loathe all governments. You are mistaken if you think "we are over there trying to give their people "fundamental rights", like being able to drink clean water, not having your head chopped off when they disagree with someone, being able to walk in public without covering your face becuase a man told you had to, even to make statements against the government like you love to do so much". You again resort to logical fallacy because you cannot justify your position.

The "war" in the mideast is a mercantilist war(more aptly called an invasion), and has absolutely nothing to do with what you claim. This is why the Bush regime bypassed the legal process required for war and created a legacy of tactics (such as hiring agencies like Blackwater and using UN resolutions based on lies and fear mongering) to bypass the rules of war.

The legal process for war is outlined in Article I, section 8 and 10, and clarified in the Federalist papers. None of these documents provide backing for the mideast invasion.

The US government can't even defend itself or pay its bills-it sure as hell has no business trying to prop up foreign regimes.

(Did you know, dear warmonger, that the FBI factsheet/wanted list for Bin Laden doesn't even list the 9/11 attacks as one of his crimes? http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm)

i didn't say you loved iran, i said they would have executed you for the statements against our government that you love so much to do, if you were in iran. i'm not sure what you love or don't love, but it is obvious that you don't like our government.

Not only our government, I dislike ALL governments. At least you got that correct enough.

The legal process for war is outlined in Article I, section 8 and 10, and clarified in the Federalist papers. None of these documents provide backing for the mideast invasion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

so i guess your right and the rest of the world is wrong? why haven't there been sanctions against us for an illegal invasion? why is the rest of the world going along with it? i have yet to see any country, other than muslim ruled countries, say we are wrong. fact is, terrorism is a world wide threat, no matter what is the cause of it, it's here and needs to be dealt with.

What makes you think the rest of the world agrees with you? Thus far, it's only a few regimes in the UN that agree with you because they are lap dogs (Blair is known throughout the English-speaking world as "Bush's Poodle).

The reason the rest of the world can't issue sanctions is that they aren't charter members of the UN.

If you actually read what other countries' writers are saying, the overwhelming majority is against the war. In fact, this issue caused the collapse of the party favoring war in the Netherlands. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/20/world/main6226978.shtml) You should try actually reading foreign papers instead of listening to what American propaganda outlets claim they say. (the UK Guardian and Russia Today are a few good ones)

You're right that terrorism needs to be dealt with, but as I've tried to get through your head, there is a legal mechanism for this-Letters of Marque and Reprisal(which the government has conveniently ignored).

i didn't know terrorists used the legal system...and i think you know as well as i do using the legal system doesn't always work, because time is an important factor when dealing with terrorist and legal systems can take years to get anything done. and i don't think there are very many people do want war, but sometimes it is a necessity, and no one ever said war was pretty. here is another example of why it is a time sensitive thing...

KAMPALA, Uganda – East Africa saw the emergence of a new international terrorist group Monday, as Somalia's most dangerous al-Qaida-linked militia claimed responsibility for the twin bombings in Uganda that killed 74 people during the World Cup.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100712/ap_on_re_af/af_uganda_explosions

No, no, no. This is not a matter of "using the legal system". The situation is almost identical to the Barbary wars, which was one of the only just wars in American History. (Do some reading on Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary pirates-it's very enlightening and relevant) It's a matter of following the law to prevent the feds from behaving like Hitler (or Napoleon) in his conquest of Europe. War, you see, is the world's oldest "stimulus" program. It destroys wealth and freedom. The reason we must use law to constrain government is to prevent tyranny (Jefferson was exactly right about this, and foresaw our current system of tyranny when he wrote about the subject).

iran 30 years ago is not the crazed militant theocracy it is today.

so you decry our democracy which extolls your right to free speech
and laud the regime which murders it's own people for blasphemy and
disagreeing with irrational clerics, denies the holocaust and is
internationally condemned as the world's leading state sponsor
of terrorism!



you might want to reconsider your priorittes...

You again put words in my mouth. I don't extoll any government-especially "democracy"-which America was never intended to be(there's a difference between representative republic and democracy. The latter is what Mencken rightly called "the worship of jackals by jackasses". Get a US history book and learn what you're talking about, please). Some Iranians have irrational opinions, but so what? That's not an act of war. The Iranian regime doesn't murder its own people. This is just war propaganda. (Ironically, the US regime DOES murder it's own people in the name of absurdly unconstitutional and illogical policies like "the War on Drugs") FYI, Iran was the most Westernized country in the mideast before the US regime began meddling in their politics.

I suggest you actually read my thread about the history of blowback and you'll see why your reasoning and conclusions are entirely wrong. (and you ought to reconsider YOUR priorities, as they are disconnected from reality)

I'll take your lack of response as an admission that I am correct. Thank you for finally admitting this.

Since the declaration of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the government of Iran has been accused by a number of states, including the United States, Israel and some European countries, of funding, providing equipment, weapons, training and giving sanctuary to terrorists.[1]

The United States State Department lists Iran as the “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice elaborated stating, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.” [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism


Members of Iran's government, including Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whose disputed re-election was the source of the unrest in which Neda met her death, have sought to prove the death of Neda Agha-Soltan was staged and have launched multiple claims regarding that on state television, including asserting that Neda was holding a bottle of blood in her right hand when she fell and squirted it on her face for the camera.

The new video clearly shows that is not the case.

Dr. Arash Hejazi, seen attending to Neda in the video, has consistently maintained in press interviews that she was shot by a member of the Basij militia and has positively identified her killer, who was reportedly grabbed by the crowd afterward and his identity papers taken. Ahmadinejad ordered an investigation into the death of Neda Agha-Soltan and promised that those responsible would be brought to justice, but so far, that has not happened.


http://open.salon.com/blog/kathy_riordan/2010/06/13/new_neda_video_surfaces_disproves_iran_conspiracy_theories

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/iran.basij.militia.profile/index.html