House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout

[Ibby]

Am I the only one who remembers India/Pakistan - and wasnt even alive for it?

Partition, especially imposed partition, will leave us with even worse than that disaster.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Am I the only one who remembers India/Pakistan - and wasnt even alive for it?

Partition, especially imposed partition, will leave us with even worse than that disaster.

The biggest problem with it is the wholescale movements of peoples. This is something the UN is completely against. But of course this is the same UN that sat on it's hands (including the US) while 800,000 were murdered in 4 months in Rawanda. It would be quite upsetting but it may avoid another Rawanda or similar genocide. Put like peoples together. What is the other option if we do what most on here and in the US are chanting, "US Out!"?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The one remark I have to make here is that the national leadership of the Dem Party is behaving as I said it would: either treasonably or stupidly. And Nancy Pelosi says she's proud of this? Dumb.

Since they are so incapable of serving the Republic's interest and that of humanity at large, the Dumbs should go the way of the Whig Party.

Meanwhile, I need to go yank the chains of a couple of Senators, and bitch out at least one Representative. The other one's a Republican, and has not been caught trying to lose the war.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Since they are so incapable of serving the Republic's interest and that of humanity at large, the Dumbs should go the way of the Whig Party.

Foreign wars don't serve the Republic.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Griff, if you believe that one, you don't believe in libertarianism at all.

Allow me to explain.

Just as a Republic prospers best in a world full of other Republics, and a libertarian republic ditto -- this is a neocon idea no one can refute -- a democratic republic is best served by actively making other democratic republics. There is also history to consider: democratic republics make far less trouble for other republics and the world at large than un-republican un-democracies do. This game, I think, is well worth the candle. And does anybody really care what the fascists think, or whether their feelings might be hurt as we deprive them of power and of bloodshed on a whim? Exempli gratia, Uday and Qusay. Does anyone really want what such as these want, aside from the remarkably submissive?

We've got the better idea. We should propagate it. And we should wipe out all resistance, either by conversion (best) or the sword (second best, but tolerable). Foreign peace, I agree, serves the Republic best, but since when was the world ever that perfect? Note that we do not start wars, not within living memory. That takes it out of our political tradition. We let those other guys do the war starting.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And does anybody really care what the fascists think, or whether their feelings might be hurt as we deprive them of power and of bloodshed on a whim?

You are the only one arguing for the fascists on this one.

Originally Posted by UG

We've got the better idea. We should propagate it. And we should wipe out all resistance, either by conversion (best) or the sword (second best, but tolerable). Foreign peace, I agree, serves the Republic best, but since when was the world ever that perfect? Note that we do not start wars, not within living memory. That takes it out of our political tradition. We let those other guys do the war starting.

I must have been out the day that the small potatoes, local nutter, Hussein attacked the USA. Quit pretending to have libertarian beliefs. Bottom line, NEO-CON = NAZI, the Republic cannot survive much more of this nonsense.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

the Republic cannot survive much more of this nonsense.

I would agree. But don't you think we need to cautious about the swing of the pendulum?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would agree. But don't you think we need to cautious about the swing of the pendulum?

Sadly, all we have right now for organized opposition is the Democrats.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

Sadly, all we have right now for organized opposition is the Democrats.

And they do not merit the least support. I'm not sad at all, though. I am annoyed.

Really, I just can't see doing anything to oppose the democratization of the entire globe. If you oppose democratization, look at what you end up supporting: fascism/communism and objectionable-isms of every stripe. Who'd be that inhuman?

It's rather like the example of "You have only to look at what some women marry to know how much some women hate working for a living."

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Griff

I must have been out the day that the small potatoes, local nutter, Hussein attacked the USA.

You were out on February 26, 1993?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

You are the only one arguing for the fascists on this one.

You left out two very important words from this sentence: "removal of" between "the" and "fascists."

That I advocate a tougher sort of libertarianism than you and Radar do doesn't make me wrong. There is something lacking in Libertarian Party philosophy that has largely prevented Libertarian candidates from acceding to office. I mean to find that lack and fill it. We need a libertarianism that will stand any environment whatsoever, and not a mere debating society that can only flourish in the benign environs of the USA. If anyone wants libertarianism to start happening, one of the things they have to do is win more offices.

Is there any overall evidence of such desire?

Quit pretending to have libertarian beliefs.

For the time being, I'll pretend I didn't read that. There are three things you refuse to understand: I am not pretending; you do not define my libertarian beliefs; and you can't stop me from being a libertarian no matter what you try. Nor do I concern myself in the slightest with who is "more libertarian" than whom. I have not taken Radar's advice on these points, and I'm still not taking Radar's advice on these points, nor yours.

Bottom line, NEO-CON = NAZI, the Republic cannot survive much more of this nonsense.

Damn, Griff, you really need to deepen your education. No one who's read the source writings of the neocons or the Nazis would ever mistake the one for the other. You mistake the one for the other. You can correct the mistake with just one read-through of The Neocon Reader. See also how their ideas could be done with a libertarian twist. I conceive that they can be; find out why.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

There are three things you refuse to understand: I am not pretending.

Yeah, you are, and I don't think there is a single person on this forum that buys it. You can brand yourself with whatever label you desire, but that doesn't mean you subscribe to the accepted ideals of that organization.

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

You are a neocon, plain and simple, and you subscribe to an interventionist policy that aligns directly with the ideals and goals of PNAC. No genuine libertarian supports that, period. You're doing nothing more than wrapping yourself in the banner of another organization that receives more support than the one with ideals you subscribe to.

[elSicomoro]

Wow...

[Happy Monkey]

We started the Iraq war, in every sense of the word. Moving backward in time: We obviously started it when Bush invaded. We started it when Bush 1 attacked. We started it when Bush 1's ambassador gave Saddam the go-ahead to invade Kuwait. We started it when we supported Saddam's ascent to power.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

We started it when Bush 1's ambassador gave Saddam the go-ahead to invade Kuwait.

WOW! Got something to back that up? I haven't heard that one before. Enlighten me...

So we told them to invade so we could then go kick thier asses? Oh, ok, I think I get it. But I don't really believe it.