Where am I politically?

[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!