Andrew Ducker wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: 14 December 1998 20:21
> Subject: Re: The Education Function
> >Samael wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael Lorrey <email@example.com>
> >> >Libertarians are not pacifistic. They just view force as a normally
> >> >inefficient option which is not cost effective under most circumstances.
> >> Now,
> >> >if we were a libertarian society, then once somebody like Saddam, who is
> >> >located outside an ungoverned area, bombed a building insured by a PPA,
> >> then
> >> >that PPA would contract a mercenary organization to respond in kind to
> >> >eliminate the threat.
> >> So your PPA would have how much resources? How many fighter planes? How
> >> many tanks?
> >Why such primitive concepts? My PPA has no motivation to occupy Iraq, just
> >eliminate its leadership and terrorist apparatus. It also has no
> >Order against asassination of foreign leaders. Massive war machines are a
> >vestige of the centralized nation state. Guerrilla insurgencies, covert
> >espionage, surgical smart weapons, and other surreptitious inexpensive
> >options are the libertarian solution.
> $250,000 for a smart missile? That figure was quoted on this newsgroup the
> other day.
> How many guerrilla units could you hire that could sneak into Baghdad and
> get that close to Hussein? And his successor? While they flatten your City
> block(s) from bombers.
Actually, I happen to know a guy who has the capability to do it, and would do it given the right price, and probably for less than $50,000.00, just because it would appeal to his sense of aesthetics....asassins can be cheap if they have the right motivation.