Who the hell is this punk Matt Dailey? Why is he commenting on issues like our troops being stretched too thin? I want to hear about how we are not on the gold standard anymore or why Liberty Dollars aren't used in more places.

Everybody knows the New York Times is part of the Global Liberal-Pinko-Socialist Conspiracy.

WTF?

I'm guessing puppet.

At any rate, good article, makes a lot of sense but Washington still won't be paying attention.

Who the hell is this punk Carlos Sanchez? Obviously Carlos needs to go back to grammar school so that he could finally finish an article and read the short bio of the author.

Gold Standard and Liberty Dollars? Please, is that a current topic that people are actually interested in? Sorry, no. Americans are dying in Iraq but Carlos Sanchez wants to talk about "Liberty Dollars."

If you keep acting like a bunch of nuts then that's how you'll be treated. Address real, current issues and when we finally win we can start moving forward on the others. Also, how about showing some common ... courtesy instead of calling someone you don't even know a punk!

[This response edited slightly. Please, no uncouth language -- even if I happen to agree with you. "Hell" I can let slide, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Thanks. -- Daniel Cloud, LP News Editor]

I like what Matthew Dailey wrote, except when he called America a "democracy". The Founders loathe democracy. Article IV, Section 4 in our Constitution tells us what government our Founders want for us. Look up Alexander Tyler and his Cycle of Democracy, and ask yourself if America has followed the script laid out by Tyler, and what future America will have if we continue...

Actually, I am much more interested in the gold standard and liberty dollars than the fake war in Iraq.

Well goody goody gumdrops there, champ... tell that to the families of the 100,000 soldiers we have over there, families that happen to vote. I'm sure they'll be THRILLED to vote for the LP then.

Absolutists...

If we can please get back on topic...the one thing that the author of the article overlooked is that there's a more likely option that the government will probably try to implement. Rather than cutting our number of troops in Iraq (a move in the right direction, although we ought to be moving toward an orderly withdrawal of all troops in a time and manner that doesn't put them in undue jeopardy), the government is likely to try to reinstate the draft, so they can keep adding to the numbers of troops deployed in Iraq and around the world. President Bush isn't done yet. He's still going to try to find a way to justify going after either Iraq or North Korea, the other two members of his infamous "Axis of Evil."

Libertarian TV obviously means Iran or North Korea. I personally believe we'll be at war with Iran before the end of the year. I'd be very surprised if Bush attacks North Korea, because they actaully have the limited capability to defend themselves.

I somehow doubt the Koreans would be able to defend themselves. Sure they have millions of troops and massed artillery - but their technology is decades old, equipment and spareparts shortage and unlike the 50s, there won't be regiments of PRC Army troops backing them up.

And the DPRKs Navy and Airforce are virtually incomparable to the formidable force fielded by the US.

I'm not saying Korea will be a walkover but it's certainly achievable.

You're right, Patrick. I accidentally hit my "q" key instead of my "n" key.

"Well goody goody gumdrops there, champ... tell that to the families of the 100,000 soldiers we have over there, families that happen to vote. I'm sure they'll be THRILLED to vote for the LP then."

I'm sure those families don't want the war. I don't want the war, that's what I'll tell those families. Then directly after that i'll tell them how interested I am in the liberty dollar. I don't care about the Iraqi war because I don't believe in it.

Dailey is a voice of sanity. If we really want to spread our values, free trade is indeed more effective than dropping JDAMs.

Wouldn't it be amazing if our armed forces actually defended our country, instead of being used to build and support a global empire?

"Wouldn't it be amazing if our armed forces actually defended our country, instead of being used to build and support a global empire?"

It would not only be amazing, but the resulting prosperity would be phenomenal.

One disturbing factoid, I read this week. Estimates are that within 12 months US military spending will be greater than expenditures by the entire rest of the world combined. Yet we are still over extended in occupying a small country of 29 million. If the war party has its way, it might bankrupt the nation in the quest for empire.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml

Hello, I am a US-Soldier, Army Infantryman both active and reserve for over 7 years. I support all efforts in the war on Terrorism, though I do agree the military is streached to thin. I was forcfully extended due to the stop loss law while I was deployed. As a Libertarian, where do I fit in? I am very much against Islamic Terrorism, and I support a policy that hunts and kills terrorists world wide. Are all Libertarians against the Iraq war, would you still consider me a Libertarian if I support President Bush in all of his efforts? Thank you - Alex Novak- SPC US-Army

If America were to have decided to invent itself out of the path of terrorism by spending dollars to convert our energy infrastructure away from middle eastern natural resources toward renewable resources such as solar, hydrogen, etc, we would have effectively cut off the flow of US dollars to this region which would subsequentially cut the terrorist's budget and force thier regimes to operate at a deficit as opposed to financing empire expansion and natural resource protection via military efforts and forcing the US into prolonged budget deficits......

My best friend is a Captain in the Nat'l Guard, chemical corps, WMD Team. He is active duty, not reserve. He is under orders to assemble a battalion for deployment to Iraq 3 YEARS FROM NOW to provide relief the the chemical corps already overseas. He does not believe this could happen, without a draft. People aren't enlisting at a rate to sustain deployment plans, and those that are enlisted are not extending thier commitments to the Army as they feel abused for the backdoor draft that has already occurred. The purpose for the Nat'l Guard in Iraq in the first place was to allow the Active Army adequate time to reapportion its troops globally to move active Army in for, hopefully, no longer than a year. The Army has been pulling some dirty tricks to keep reservists acitve, and they still haven't reapportioned thier troops - because they can't. US armed forces are trully spread too thin, and they are thinning. Such is the attrition rate for any unpopular conflict.

Hi Alex,

First of all, I thank you for being willing to put your life on the line to defend America. Not all libertarians oppose the War in Iraq, although I am one of them. Even so, I still appreciate your efforts, even if I don't agree with the way Bush is putting your efforts to use. So you are not alone.

I am also sympathetic for you in that your right to choose the manner, time and degree to which you will defend your country has been unjustly taken from you by Bush's stop loss policy. Surely this must be working against your best interests on some level. Surely this is a wrongful violation of your rights by Mr. Bush.

I also am against Islamic terrorism, and I think in many instances it is necessary to kill terrorists. But a policy that advocates merely hunting and killing terrorists leaves no room for peaceful solutions. If we're Libertarians, shouldn't we also believe in due process whenever possible? I can't say that George Bush believes in due process. In fact, he does his damn silly best to overrule it whenever it doesn't fit his goals.

Not all terrorists go down fighting. Some are captured. Some simply surrender. Do you believe they should automatically be killed as well? If so, I have to ask you...where does the killing end? As many have observed, an eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

The other question I have for you is this. You're an American. If George Bush believes that it is justifiable for him to violate American individual rights and force Americans to stay in the military under stop-loss, what is to prevent George Bush from violating the rights of non-Americans? The answer is that he doesn't care about individual rights like you and I do. He thinks that individual rights must be sacrificed in order to fight terror. That is anti-libertarian, and it is anti-American. As libertarians, we believe that individual rights are sacred, and we have good reason to believe it, as you well know.

Let me pose an alternative scenario. What if, instead of declaring war on terror, Bush had called on the world to treat terrorists as criminals rather than as warriors? What if instead of beating war drums, he had faced up to the fact that war doesn't work against terror? We shall never know what would have happened because it didn't happen.

My belief is that if Bush had first won over the hearts and minds of the world rather than antagonizing everyone, America would be in a far stronger position by now. Bin Laden would already be in custody or dead. Even without invading Iraq, Saddam's tyranny would have been seriously weakened by world events. The Islamic world would have been actively and visibly working for our mutual benefit rather than standing silently against us in anger. Al Qaeda recruiting would be waning rather than waxing.

Bush is all aglow about the Iraqi elections he has imposed. But put the propaganda aside for a moment. You're there. You see what happens. You're learning to understand the Iraqi people to a greater degree than when you first arrived. How certain are you that they truly understand liberty as well as we do? I'm not certain at all.

(1) They advocate theocracy. We know from our own experence the importance of separating church and state. Can you say the same for the Iraqi people? Yes, I know they're grateful that they've been liberated from Saddam, but does their culture currently have the mindset necessary to embrace liberty in all its forms? I have strong doubts about that.

(2) Bush advocates imposed Democracy as the solution in Iraq. But as libertarians, we know that it's individual rights that count, that democracy can as easily tyrannize as it can liberate. Democracy is not what made America great. Respect for individual rights is what made America great. Can you honestly say that Bush has respected the individual rights of the Iraqi people? I can't.

(3) It's been three years since Bush declared that we would wipe out Al Qaeda and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Yet, it appears that we are no closer to capturing him or bringing him to justice than we were after 9/11. Is that effective policy in action? I don't think so.

(4) Bush lied to the American people in order to get us into war with Iraq. Now, he claims that he was duped by the CIA, when in fact it was his own people who gutted the CIA of its most experienced officers, the ones who repeatedly told him that there was insufficient evidence to believe that Iraq had WMDs. How can you support that effort of Bush to fight terrorism? How does lying, cheating, and deceiving fight terrorism? I don't think it does. I think it undermines the struggle against terrorism.

I could go on and on, but that's enough for now. I'd like to know your views on the above points.

Alex,

What is stll unclear to me is what the unprovoked invasion of Iraq has to do with the "War on Terror".

Rather than pursue Al Queda, who did attack us, Bush pulled out our best troops to invade Iraq which did not attack us and had nothing to with the attacks of 9/11. Bush lied about WMDs and shaped the intel to fit his desire to attack Iraq. (This has all been well documented by now.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/11574258.htm

Bush has used the War on Terror as an excuse to launch a frontal assault on our basic constitutional rights as well as promoting torture. I am all for defending the nation which is why I am so angry that Bush virtually abandonded going after Al Queda at a key juncture so that he could launch a needless war against Iraq. By invading Iraq we have provided a rallying point for Islamist terrorists and allowed ourseselves to become boggged down in a guerilla war that we have no business fighting.

Good article Matt, despite what the crazies are saying... I will have to agree that the US Constitution did not set up a democracy though, it was intended to be a republic. I am kind of worried that someone working for the LP does not realize this.

http://www.outrightusa.org/Article12.htm

I think there is danger of using language so narrowly that those outside one's immediate group have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course, the US is a republic, but then again, within the common meaning of the word, the US is also a democracy. The Constitution attempts to limit the inherent excesses of a pure democracy, but even in the early days of the Republic, Tocqueville and other worried about the tyranny of the majority.

To return to the thread at hand, the Congress demonstrated far more loyalty to the democracy than the republic when they effectively delegated the power to wage war to the President, in a complete violation of their Constitutional responsibilities.

Is our armed forces stretched to thin??? Well for a standing army that our Constitution is not to support, yeah we can be stretched thin. We station troops in countries around the world, but we do have reserves and military men and women here in the US. Yes, we should be after the terrorists who declared war on us by bringing their war to US soil. I ahev been strongly opposed to the Iraq war ever since it's first thought in the Bush administration, going back to 1990. The fact remains, iraq never brought a war onto us by invading our soil. it just invaded our "economic foreign soil"....an oil producing region. Now that we have 100,000 troops in Iraq, we leave ourselves just as open to another attack on our own soil as we ever did. How's about we bring ALL the US troops home from every country that we have dared to help, and let's see if those countries can defend themselves on thir own for once, since the threat of Hitler has long been gone. The only real threat we have are the ones that are crazy to attack us here, but why should they get the balls when our foundation of the military and militia is too strong on our soil. That way, nobody can say our troops are stretched to thin.