Where am I politically?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Religion is when two or more people feel they have the same relationship with the same God(s), ie belief and want to band together for mutual whatever.

And so they form religious organizations to 'assist' or 'consult'. Eventually those organizations become so corrupt as to insist THEY are the conduit to god.

They are organizations. Your priest or rabbi is only a consultant. He is not the religion. He and you may become members of a club - a social organization of people who share a common relationship to their god.

And that social organization does not change the bottom line fact. Religion is only a relationship between the man and his gods.

Too many confuse the Catholic Church with a religion. The religion exists with or without that church. The church is not a religion. It is only a support group - a social organization. And when perverted, the church becomes a political action committee - to impose their beliefs on all others.

And still, religion remains a relationship between the one man and his gods - no matter how often those social (religious) organizations try to pervert that relationship.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, you're using religion for faith and church for religion, whatever, as long as you define the distinction.
But I'm telling you people are going to misinterpret your remarks and position, like when you say Bush "Pearl Harbored" Iraq when 99% (made up internet fact) of the population, attach sneak attack to Pearl Harbor, rather than unjustified attack like you insist.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Onyx, I absolutely never expect any given political party to match my views by more than about eighty percent. The crux, then, is to decide how well, or even whether, I could live with the other twenty percent.

This is why Radar and I differ in our approaches to libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. I accept the eighty percent, he doesn't believe a Libertarian Party member could or should agree less than one hundred percent, and overdoes the rejectionism.

[Tangent to topic] And post #61 is some good work from tw. Seems a bit more from an atheistic philosopher than a religious one, but good nonetheless.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

OK, you're using religion for faith and church for religion, whatever, as long as you define the distinction.

Church is not religion. Church is a social organization - and consults to you and your religious beliefs. Too many confuse churches with the relgion. Church is as much of a religion as the consultant is an employee of your company.

Again, to promote themselves, churches misrepresent themselves as the religion - ie the Pope speaks for god. No he does not. (Actually god only talks to George Jr and Pat Robertson - but we need not discuss those religions.)

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Onyx, I absolutely never expect any given political party to match my views by more than about eighty percent. The crux, then, is to decide how well, or even whether, I could live with the other twenty percent.

This is why Radar and I differ in our approaches to libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. I accept the eighty percent, he doesn't believe a Libertarian Party member could or should agree less than one hundred percent, and overdoes the rejectionism.

[Tangent to topic] And post #61 is some good work from tw. Seems a bit more from an atheistic philosopher than a religious one, but good nonetheless.

Once again, you prove not only your ignorance of libertarianism, but your overbearing attitude, and dishonesty about me.

I don't think one has to agree with the LP 100%. Libertarian was a philosophy for longer than a thousand years before it was a political party.

Libertarianism as a philosophy is based on 2 very simple principles. If you disagree with either of these universal truths, you aren't a libertarian.

1) Self-ownership: We own ourselves and the fruits of our labor (money, property, etc.) and no other person or group of people is entitled to them or has any legitimate authority over them.

2) The Non-Aggression Principle: No person, or group of people has the right to initiate force for political gain or social engineering. The only acceptable use of force is in YOUR OWN defense. For instance starting a war against another country that poses no threat to yours and has not attacked yours, or using the military to attack nations that treat their people in a way that isn't the same as yours.... like Iraq is a perfect example of using unwarranted, unjustified, and unprovoked aggression.

In addition to being a libertarian I am also a Constitutionalist. I believe that the role and scope of the government should be limited to only what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution and the federal government has absolutely zero authority to do anything that is not enumerated.

Any part of the government not mentioned in the Constitution is illegal and immoral. The Constitution was created to limit the role, scope, and powers of the U.S. Government and never to limit the rights of the people.

This is why the 16th and 18th amendment were never legitimate.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Indeed? -- then dammit, Paul, why do you keep acting that way, or in a way that might too easily be understood to signify that?

1) I say "Yes."

2) In the current bloodshed, our foes, selfmade, self-declared, spent fourteen years repeatedly and persistently initiating the violence with us. No violation of libertarian principle is thereby incurred when we do something about this. They're picking on us, who are at least more libertarian than they, and we're called upon to defend our existence, fortunes, and wellbeing. We'll not manage that by withdrawing behind our borders, Paul. We can manage it by defeating them in their backyards.

That and constructive, successful foreign policy, particularly in dealing with conspicuously nonlibertarian states, has a nasty way of kicking the doctrinaire purist to the ditch and doing violence in general to a doctrinaire approach. I quite visibly recognize this; I have trouble seeing that pragmatism in you. Don't be in such a goddamn hurry for us to lose -- if we lose, we can't do libertarianism and spread it around generally like we want it, can we?

On a second glance, the rest of your post lays out why you went into political activity of the Libertarian persuasion. Okay. My motivations for giving Libertarianism a try are clearly rather different from yours.

I counsel you against any urge to purge, as another poster once put it. Do not enfeeble your party and its base merely because some of them make you itch.

[Griff]

Your interventionist foreign policy got us in the mess we are now in. You continue to ignore the back story. We've intervened heavily and stupidly in the mid-east since WWII. The conflict did not begin with the Marine barracks bombing. Right now the pragmatic move would be to come home but that doesn't fit with your apparent agenda crushing individual liberty in favor of unlimited state power.

[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).

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.

[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.

[piercehawkeye45]

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

[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).

[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.