One problem and on this one point I concede to Urbane. Since Washington had the Navy attack the Barbary pirates off what's now Libya, just about every US president unilaterally engaged its troops in international conflicts, some that are virtually undeclared wars. Radar, you will have to condemn the whole lot of US presidents who had to contend with a usually indecisive Congress.

What is McCain going to attack Russia with? His false teeth? The only other way is nuke, but you don't think that Mr. 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran' would do it, would he?

Jefferson

Radar, is it not crashingly obvious that libertarianism will not occur in the places that need it most until the human obstacles to it that will present themselves are removed? I do not expect all the human obstacles to survive the removal process, nor am I worried at the prospect. Conversions from bad ways to good ways are all the stronger if the stubbornest adherents to the bad ways have gotten killed. Provides motivation for the more pragmatic-minded, don't you know. Once they discover it works, then the conversion really sticks.

The writers you evoke clearly haven't the solution. It's time for new ideas. If, that is, one actually wants libertarianism to go forward. Pacifism, radar, fits someone of your aggressive, autocratic disposition like pants on a cow. You're not being true to your nature.

If you think you have Constitutional proof for your contention, you will quote the relevant passage. If you have not the proof, you will bluster loudly to cover up your fault.

Foreign policy is the common defense of Americans, as sensible people understand -- and you will deny, not from intellectual clarity but from pigheadedness. Your contorted reading of the Constitution convinces you, perhaps -- you alone; and really, it shouldn't. Your notions of how the nation should interact with other nations work only in the complete absence of other nations. The Constitution, after all, says nothing about how foreign policy shall be conducted... well, I'm not going to go down so silly a road. I'm righter than you are, but you haven't the character to admit it, being crippled and sickened and blocked, aye constipated, by your narcissism. It prevents you from learning, whereas I learn all the time, particularly on foreign policy. You misuse your ego, valuing it too much. You cannot cope with a knowledgeable challenger. Me, I am not so struck by my own intellectual significance, and can thus exercise better character, more honesty, and clearer, more real thinking.

The Constitution has never forbid ordering the troops into action: the precedent of 150 shooting wars, and five declarations of war, say Radar is stone wrong and always will be stone wrong so long as he insists on his way. Phooey! The Executive Branch has the responsibility to conduct the nation's foreign policy, and from time to time that means dealing with nasty trouble. Barbary pirates. Injuns. Allies getting invaded by other powers.

Nor do our foes deserve the win here: look at their nature -- Non-Integrating Gap types, undemocracies, poverty-makers through trying to cut off globalization (for reasons never anything but specious), dictators and would-be dictators, illiberal abusers of women... the list could get longer, but these should do. All that crap should be wiped away, and those resisting that change should be denied the further power of resistance, and permanently -- of course. This is liberationism, down at the nitty gritty. Radar chokes on it -- he doesn't want the liberation, nor logically enough the libertarianism (or a nearer approach to it) that naturally follows on, and which even more naturally allows a people to prosper. Radar doesn't get it, and clearly doesn't want to get it. I certainly don't want anything to do with his approach in consequence, for it doesn't work and it does nothing at all.

Mentioning the Barbary Pirates does nothing to bolster your position. The Constitution allows the use of the military to protect American ships from pirates. It does not allow the federal government to use the military to carry out regime change, or nation building, or humanitarian aid, or starting unprovoked, non-defensive, unwarranted wars.

I do condemn every president who has made war without a declaration of war. Presidents have zero authority to make war; only Congress may do that, and then only when it is in America's defense, and then only when a formal declaration of war has been made.

UG graces us with another laughably stupid and non-libertarian rant.

My reading of the Constitution is exactly as it was written by our founders and my positions are the same as theirs. Stop using "foreign policy" as a euphemism for "starting unprovoked and unconstitutional wars". War is not foreign policy. War is what happens when foreign policy fails. I've already given irrefutable proof that this war is unconstitutional, you're just too dim witted and thickheaded to admit that this is what they Constitution says.

Libertarian is spread by example, not by force. The initiation of force (especially for political gain) is the exact opposite of libertarianism.


The Constitution PROHIBITS the federal government from taking part in or legislating anything that isn't within the Constitution. It grants ONLY congress the power to make war. It says the president BECOMES the commander in chief WHEN CALLED UPON by a declaration of war. It defines and limits the role of our military as being solely for the common DEFENSE of America.

I've got more character, intelligence, and backbone than UG will ever have. He refers to himself as a "knowledgeable challenger". He is neither knowledgeable, nor a challenger. He's a stupid, gutless, filthy, little weasel who keeps trying to rewrite history and re-define the English language to his own liking.

He mentions that the Constitution hasn't forbid these illegal actions as though that proves them to be legitimate. That's like a murderer saying, "Of course murder is legal. I got away with it."

He accuses me of being a pacifist when I am not. I am a military non-interventionist. But I am not a pacifist. I am all for using our military to defend America. That is its intended purpose and the only valid use of it.


I've cited the Constitution and given dozens and dozens of quotes from our founders and prominent libertarians proving that UGs positions are not Constitutional, not libertarian, and certainly not correct. Here's another quote you might like...

Isn't this a thread about the Russian/Georgian conflict now underway in the Caucuses? Perhaps we could not derail another thread with arguments that have been put forth on numerous other threads.

I for one am not happy with the the western press and our governments portrayal of Russia in this mess. Georgia is not the good guy when it comes to South Ossetia. In fact if you called a South Ossetian a "Georgian" in a bar you might have to defend yourself.

Headlines on PRAVDA.Ru
 

Victims of the Georgian aggression.

Russia urges Georgia to pledge not to use force.

Russia mourns victims of Georgian aggression.

War in South Ossetia may trigger new outburst of US-Russian rivalry.

War in South Ossetia reflects profound deficits in US policy.

Western media blatantly misinterpret conflict in South Ossetia.

Stratfor acknowledges Russia defeated US, not Georgian army in South Ossetia.

Russia becomes officially involved in war against Georgia.

Bruce, you freakin' commie traitor! you've been reading Pravda???:eek:

Nah, just lookin' at the pictures. :headshake

playboy is for pictures bruce.

Oh noes, I wouldn't cheat on SG. :headshake

Correction: what you want the Constitution to say. Good luck with getting those Amendments passed. It appears I have a wider view of foreign policy than you do -- for is it not so that diplomacy is the pleasanter end of foreign policy, and that war is the nasty end? I'll go with Bismarck's remark that war is politics by other means. He could just as well have said foreign policy.

No, no irrefutable proof is visible, not to anyone. You have neglected that important point. I might point out that no one here seems to remember your doing it and I certainly don't see any links.

I'm dithering here between "good luck with that," or simply remarking "IOW, it is not being spread at all." They're just both such good responses. You've still got to outthink and outpunch the tyrants who are guaranteed to raise some objection or other, and we all know what tyrants' objections look like. If you try it radar's way in these environments, all the libertarians die.

Funny, isn't it, that you aren't showing that with the relevant Constitutional text, isn't it? Got any proof, or not? We shall see, won't we? Every single historical precedent is against you, you know. The Supreme Court would not be alone in telling you to take your case, fold it, spindle it, and insert it. The Executive and Legislative Branches would no doubt join the chorus, along with those of us who can't exactly find a downside to removing fascist Ba'athists and replacing them with practicing democrats. What's wrong with your approach is it amounts to "Leave Tyrants Alone." Nonlibertarian in the extreme, I should think.

As a practical matter, defense of America has never been distinguishable from defense of American interests, wherever they may be. In the era of globalization, these are even more inextricably intertwined.

And this rantlet shows superior intellect and character how?

The guy who confuses Republicans with Nazis, or tries to get others so confused, hasn't persuaded me as to the excellence of his understanding. Radar, I very much doubt you understand that last sentence, for I know your mind. You're starting to sound like a sockpuppet for tw, of all people to have the hand of pushed all the way up yours.

What is demonstrated by the behavior of all parties concerned here (Georgia, Russia, United States, South Ossetia, Ukraine, etc) with respect to the question:

What does it mean to be an ally of the United States?

Would Russia have invaded if Georgia had been admitted to NATO, as they desired?

Paul Krugman, who admittedly is usually wrong anytime economics are being discussed, says it means nationalism is becoming ascendent once more. What he doesn't say is that W's aggressive foreign policy helped get us back to this point.

No one wanted Georgia to be admitted to NATO precisely because we are not blind. We knew exactly what would have happened. Georgia would have gone after their break away provinces of South Ossetia, and Abkazia, and expected all their new allies to back them up. We are not that dumb diplomatically. It's been going on since Stalin gave these provinces to Georgia in the early 1900's, intensified in 1991 and carries on today.

The west is big on making Russia out to be the big bad guy in this. They are by no means innocent, neither is Georgia, neither are the South Ossetians. The very nature and way that people think who are born and raised in this part of the world, the way they think about ethnicity is foreign to us in the melting pot of America. Again we are judging the actions of a foreign nation by our own measures and we will come up short, and fail to fully engage out of ignorance.

In my opinion Georgia fucked this one up. We would do the same thing if in Russia's shoes.

The truth is between Pravda and CNN somewhere.