Where am I politically?

[Radar]

Iraq never attacked America, never helped anyone else attack America, never planned any attacks against America, and had no connection or collusion with anyone who has done these things.

In 1990 the U.S. launched an unwarranted, unprovoked, unreasonable, and utterly unconstitutional attack and invasion of Iraq. Following this completely unlibertarian, unamerican, and inhuman initiation of force, America bombed them daily for 12 straight years, and kept them from life saving medicines, and put onerous and outrageous restrictions on Iraq demanding that they both disarm, and allow themselves to be inspected without warning at any time for any reason. These actions cost the lives of 300,000 Iraqi people.

Then, after finding none of the weapons that Bush lied about, America invaded Iraq again, and murdered at least 100,000 more innocent Iraqi men, women, and children who were trying to defend themselves against this attack.

America opened the door for murderers from surrounding nations to come in and kill even more Iraqis, in addition to the Iraqi people who were jailed without reason for up to 2 years where they were tortured, beaten (sometimes to death), humiliated, and otherwise had their rights violated despite having never committed a crime.

I don't have an "urge to purge". I have an urge to keep the party strictly in line with libertarian philosophy and to stop America from committing wholesale murder, and interfering in the affairs of other nations and starting unprovoked wars.

I'm not in a hurry for America to lose. It already lost the moment it started this madness. I'm in a hurry to stop the bleeding and for America to stop losing Americans for this fools errand.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

Iraq never attacked America, never helped anyone else attack America, never planned any attacks against America, and had no connection or collusion with anyone who has done these things

Iraq attacked America's interests. That is why we attacked them in both Gulf Wars, we didn't attack them because we were bored or didn't like Saddam.

In 1990 the U.S. launched an unwarranted, unprovoked, unreasonable, and utterly unconstitutional attack and invasion of Iraq.

We attacked them for two, well one, main reasons. To keep Iraq out of Kuwait's oil (our oil) and to make sure Iraq didn't attack Saudi Arabia (our oil). Just because we don't agree with the reason doesn't mean there wasn't one.


America will never attack a country if it doesn't affect our national interests and looking at Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Israel proves this.

[Shawnee123]

We attacked them for two, well one, main reasons.

Two: George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush. Their oil interests.

To keep Iraq out of Kuwait's oil (our oil) and to make sure Iraq didn't attack Saudi Arabia (our oil).

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Iraq attacked America's interests. That is why we attacked them in both Gulf Wars, we didn't attack them because we were bored or didn't like Saddam.


We attacked them for two, well one, main reasons. To keep Iraq out of Kuwait's oil (our oil) and to make sure Iraq didn't attack Saudi Arabia (our oil). Just because we don't agree with the reason doesn't mean there wasn't one.


America will never attack a country if it doesn't affect our national interests and looking at Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Israel proves this.

The U.S. Military isn't here to defend American "interests", oil supplies, or investments abroad, it's here only to defend American soil and people.

Kuwait was practicing slant drilling and were stealing 14 billion dollars of Iraq's oil. Iraq had warned them about this many times, and told them to stop or face a war. They didn't. Saddam Hussein met with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (April Gillespie) and told her they were preparing to invade Kuwait to stop them from stealing Iraqi oil.

April Gillespie told Saddam, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" and "We take no position" which gave a green light for Iraq to invade because it said the U.S. government was not taking sides in the dispute. Then America launched an unprovoked attack against Iraq.

There is no legitimate justifiable or defensible position to support the war in Iraq from a libertarian or Constitutional perspective.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

The U.S. Military isn't here to defend American "interests", oil supplies, or investments abroad, it's here only to defend American soil and people.

Now I'm beginning to see why you have such trouble with foreign policy, Radar. American soil and people can't be separated from American interests, nor disentangled from American investment. Isolationism of the description you imply you prefer here only worked when the fastest speed of communication was a sailing ship and when the Royal Navy so dominated the Atlantic that any other great European power had no hope of meddling in any development in the North American continent -- and after the middle nineteenth century, considerably less hope in South America, too.

Isolationism, I consider, is a nonstarter. It also greatly inhibits the creation of wealth, an idea very popular with Libertarians IIRC.

April Gillespie told Saddam, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" and "We take no position" which gave a green light for Iraq to invade because it said the U.S. government was not taking sides in the dispute. Then America launched an unprovoked attack against Iraq.

Shortchange Kuwait, an ally of ours, just like that, eh? Day-um. I'd say invading what was likely our best friend in the region would be sufficiently provocative, especially in view of American people and investment effort being inextricably united and in essence one. And of course there is the abuse the Kuwaiti population took -- typical of what happens when a non-democracy turns internationally coercive. More libertarian (democratic) societies discourage this; nondemocracies actively promote abuses, outrages, and mass robberies of one description or another.

Unprovoked, my Libertarian ass, Radar! The Iraqi Army under Saddam Hussein violated the principle of self-ownership and the principle of non-aggression.

Have you ever been outside the borders of the United States?!

There is no legitimate justifiable or defensible position to support the war in Iraq from a libertarian or Constitutional perspective.

If you want libertarianism to happen anywhere, in any time before the sun goes into red giant phase and melts our Earth away, you'll drop this idea. To get libertarianism, antilibertarian regimes will have to be removed. It is not in the nature of such regimes to go quietly.

Remember, Paul: you're not the only man in the room. In politics, unlike in math, there is often more than one answer.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Now I'm beginning to see why you have such trouble with foreign policy, Radar. American soil and people can't be separated from American interests, nor disentangled from American investment. Isolationism of the description you imply you prefer here only worked when the fastest speed of communication was a sailing ship and when the Royal Navy so dominated the Atlantic that any other great European power had no hope of meddling in any development in the North American continent -- and after the middle nineteenth century, considerably less hope in South America, too.

Isolationism, I consider, is a nonstarter. It also greatly inhibits the creation of wealth, an idea very popular with Libertarians IIRC.



Shortchange Kuwait, an ally of ours, just like that, eh? Day-um. I'd say invading what was likely our best friend in the region would be sufficiently provocative, especially in view of American people and investment effort being inextricably united and in essence one. And of course there is the abuse the Kuwaiti population took -- typical of what happens when a non-democracy turns internationally coercive. More libertarian (democratic) societies discourage this; nondemocracies actively promote abuses, outrages, and mass robberies of one description or another.

Unprovoked, my Libertarian ass, Radar! The Iraqi Army under Saddam Hussein violated the principle of self-ownership and the principle of non-aggression.

Have you ever been outside the borders of the United States?!



If you want libertarianism to happen anywhere, in any time before the sun goes into red giant phase and melts our Earth away, you'll drop this idea. To get libertarianism, antilibertarian regimes will have to be removed. It is not in the nature of such regimes to go quietly.

Remember, Paul: you're not the only man in the room. In politics, unlike in math, there is often more than one answer.

I don't support isolationism. I support free trade and good will with all nations. When American companies invest abroad, they accept the risks associated with that investment, and the U.S. military is NOT here to protect those investments, or other nations.

The trouble with unlibertarian ilk like you is you can't separate military non-interventionism from isolationism. I'd be willing to bet you I've been outside the U.S. far more than you.

Whether or not Saddam and Iraq were violating libertarianism or initiating force (which they weren't because they were using force in the defense of their property), is completely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether or not they were using force against US!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Radar

Iraq never attacked America, never helped anyone else attack America, never planned any attacks against America, and had no connection or collusion with anyone who has done these things.

Basic history. Saddam was doing everything possible to remain a close American ally. He simply made one mistake. Saddam completely misread what Americans told him as permission to attack Kuwait.

Remember the real reason why Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, Feith, etc needed to attack Iraq. Their legacy. Goes right back to the purpose of war - settlement at the peace table. When responsible men are leaders, then terms and conditions for surrender are defined up front. Military victories are thrown away when 'plans for the peace' are not made. Instead of making those plans, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were busy drinking champagne. Swartzkopf had to make up those terms 'on the fly' because Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc did not do their jobs.

Well, Saddam would have been gone AND without a Baghdad invasion. 'Big dic' types too often misunderstand how diplomacy can accomplish so much more without excessive warfare. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, etc did not do their jobs. Saddam remained because these 'big dic' types did not do their jobs.

Why must Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc get a hard-on about Saddam? If they did not take out Saddam, then history will blame Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, etc. Neo-con legacy is at stake.

Now here is the part that totally mystifies me. Having not learned basic military doctrine, then, well, ... 'Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice...' And yet Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfovich, etc again made the same stupid mistake. Instead of planning for the peace, they again thought everything is won only using military conquest. These fools actually thought that democracy and prosperity would spring up as soon as the 3rd ID took Baghdad. They did nothing - zero - for seven months to plan for the peace. These idiots - Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc - even created the Iraq insurgency. They probably even financed it.

Ask yourself where 65 tons of American money disappeared into Iraq - with no accounting. $12 billion in American currency has probably financed the insurgency ... just like in Vietnam.

UG said he was reading Thomas P.M. Barnett's Blueprint For Action: A Future Worth Creating in this post on 9 Nov 2006. Why is UG so silent? These concepts of 'planning for the peace' are more complex than Animal Farm. Concept contrary to his political agenda. So UG only comprehends what agrees with his political agenda? Surprise UG. Thomas Barnett was brought into the White House when they thought he was talking about their political agenda. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, etc had but another chance to learn how not to make the same mistake again. And like Urbane Guerrilla, their political agenda is more important than reality. Neo-cons failed to understand what Barnett was talking about - because extremists only know things defined by a poltical agenda.

Saddam was never a threat. Saddam was doing everything possible to remain a close American ally. So close that we gave him access to the most secret satellite photographs. How did America end up at war with Saddam? Well, how did America end up at war with another American ally - Ho Chi Minh? It is called learning the lessons of history - as even defined in military doctrine 2500 years ago. And yet still the 'big dic' types such as UG refuse to learn from facts. 'Big dics' instead 'know' using a political agenda.

“Mission Accomplished” is about the legacy of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, and those other neo-cons who failed to 'plan for the peace'. Failed in Desert Storm because they used political agendas rather than logic from history to make decisions. Just another reason why intelligent people are centrists. Richard Reed (another extremist) demonstrated same intelligence when he could not give himself a hot foot.

“Mission Accomplished” is about the legacy of extremists AND now about protecting George Jr's legacy. American soldiers are as expendable as 65 tons of American cash. And yet Urbane Guerrilla calls Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, Feith, etc good men? Good extremists maybe. Good men. No. They have a political agenda and a legacy to protect. We are nothing more than cannon fodder for their political agendas. Protecting their legacy is the reason for "Mission Accomplished". Protecting George Jr's legacy is why they ignore the Iraq Study Group and other intelligent solutions.

Meanwhile, Urbane Guerrilla suddenly went very quiet about reading Thomas Barnett. Barnett was not promoting UG's political agenda. Thomas Barnett, instead, demonstrated by UG's favorite extremists had to attack Saddam again (to protect their legacy) - and made the same mistake again (did not plan for the peace).

Iraq was no threat the second time, we attacked them with no provocation and with no reason other than to steal from them.

What does someone's spouse have to do with their vote? Makes no sense to me... just don't discuss it with them if they don't agree with your politics if they won't be an adult about it. If if is a real problem, tell them what they want to hear and vote for who you like, problem solved.

Personally, I vote for the individual, not by party.

[piercehawkeye45]

I agree with you Radar, it isn't justified, but America did attack to protect its "interests".

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw, shut your yap. I checked Barnett back out of the library to continue my reading. When I'm ready, we'll speak on it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw, shut your yap. I checked Barnett back out of the library to continue my reading. When I'm ready, we'll speak on it.

Urbane Guerilla has been so humiliated that he will now read Thomas Barnett's book. It's tough reading - too complex for UG. No wonder he put it down.

Well at least we now know UG is human. He just cried ouch. UG - I am just like the wife you will never have. I remember.

[Undertoad]

Mr. Michael Lind talks about this topic in a current edition of bloggingheads.tv (don't click unless you enjoy watching an hour of nothing but political discussion)

I was so impressed by Lind's thoughts on this that I transcribed a bit:

LIND: I wrote The American Way of Strategy to defend what I think is the mainstream tradition of American internationalism that coalesed in the first half of the 20th Century and, underpins a lot of our strategy up until the end of the cold war.

This is not my theory; this is not M.L.'s theory of the world, this is not some kind of academic theory I'm promoting, I'm trying to excavate an existing tradition that you can trace back to Theodore Roosevelt, to Franklin Roosevelt, to Woodrow Wilson and his advisors, Secy of State Robert Lansing, journalists like Walter Lippman. To sum up, the book explains what Woodrow Wilson meant when he said that the US and its allies must "make the world safe for Democracy". Wilson did not say the US and its allies must make the world Democratic, but safe for Democracy. And I explain what that means.

PINKERTON: That's an interesting point, because in Wilson's 14 Points, the word Democracy doesn't appear. He talks about national self-determination, but not Democracy. So when you say this, what did President Wilson have in mind as you articulate?

LIND: What is a world safe for Democracy? It's one in which the security costs imposed on the United States by the outside world are sufficiently low that the US can afford to have a liberal, Democratic/Republican system with separation of powers, with a civilian economy and so on.

It was the fear, both in WW1 and in WW2 and the years preceding, and also in the late 1940s/50s, that if Germany or the Soviet Union were allowed to become the dominant superpower in the world and to encircle us in the oceans, and in the Western hemisphere, we Americans would give up much of our Liberty and much of our Democracy... voluntarily.

That is, we were in no danger of being conquered by the Germans, and the Russians weren't going to occupy Minnesota or Kansas. What the Wilson administration and the interventionists in WW1, and Franklin Roosevelt and the cold war interventionists feared was -- and they said this explicitly, I quote it in my book -- it's seldom quoted nowadays, but this was the major argument for intervention in the world wars and the cold war. The fear was that the US would have to become a garrison state -- voluntarily.

That is, we would voluntarily cede a lot of our liberty to the government to be secure, we would voluntarily have enormous levels of defense spending in a world in which the dominant superpower were Germany or the Soviet Union.

So when politicians say that we intervened in the World Wars and the Cold War to defend our Liberty at home, I argue they're quite right, but what they need to say is, to defend our Liberty from our own government, which we would reluctantly but voluntarily turn into something of a militariized police state if we had to create a fortress America. And it was in order to avoid creating a fortress America that we nipped this trouble in the bud.

We never allowed Germany to consolidate its would-be Euro empire and its two atempts to conquer Europe. And we never allowed the Soviet Union to intimidate Western Europe and Japan into submission and to divide them from the US.

I think that's something that needs to be explained, because otherwise if you say, "American soldiers have fought and died abroad defending our Liberty", that just seems like cheap rhetoric if you think well, come on, the Kaiser wasn't going to conquer the United States, and the Soviets weren't going to invade California.

And THAT, Mr. Radar, is how WW1, WW2 and the Cold War threatened Liberty, and the real reason they had to be fought.

Similarly, some level of War on Terror has to be fought -- whether it's military, or police/intelligence -- partly because losing a WTC every five years (or whatever) is not an acceptable loss in our economy, but mostly because the country can't stand an ever-increasingly potent Patriot Act every five years.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Mr. Michael Lind talks about this topic in a current edition of bloggingheads.tv (don't click unless you enjoy watching an hour of nothing but political discussion)

I was so impressed by Lind's thoughts on this that I transcribed a bit:

And THAT, Mr. Radar, is how WW1, WW2 and the Cold War threatened Liberty, and the real reason they had to be fought.

Similarly, some level of War on Terror has to be fought -- whether it's military, or police/intelligence -- partly because losing a WTC every five years (or whatever) is not an acceptable loss in our economy, but mostly because the country can't stand an ever-increasingly potent Patriot Act every five years.

That Mr. Undertoad, this is less than a poor excuse to be involved in those wars, but topic at hand isn't those wars, it's America's unwarranted, unjustified, unprovoked, and unconstitutional involvement in Iraq that is both unAmerican, and unlibertarian.

The author's laughable premise is that if we didn't practice tyranny and military interventionism abroad, we'd have to do it at home. That's utterly ridiculous and the exact opposite is true. If we weren't going around the world making enemies, we wouldn't have to worry about attacks at home.

America's unwarranted military interventionism always has unpredictable, and unwanted consequences. It was America's involvement in WWI, that created the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power and make WWII. It was because of WWII, that we had to develop nukes, and this led to the cold war. It was because of the cold war that we had the Korean war, and we armed and trained Osama Bin Laden, and put him on the CIA payroll. America put Noriega, Khadafi, Hussein, and Khomeni in power due to our meddling in the affairs of other nations.

If we mind our own damn business, we don't have to have a bloated, military creating empires and certainly wouldn't have to infringe on the liberties of Americans at home. Our freedoms are not up for grabs, and aren't for the government to take or even to decide upon.

UG, not only was what UT posted not "well said", it bordered on being retarded.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Very well said, UT.

Tw, I'm man enough, if you're woman enough. But jayzus, you're the man with the smallest set of interpersonal skills and smarts I've ever known, and I've a fairly wide circle of acquaintances. Marrying two simultaneously would be pretty big'a'me, but there are legal hurdles to overcome...