Iraq will fall into civil war one way or another. It's the legacy of Western European colonialism. Why do you think Africa has so many problems?

Nonsense. If Western European colonialism were the cause of civil war, there would be no end to the incidence of civil war, and no former colony would be ever be free of civil war. Yet, most former colonies (including the U.S.) are not fighting civil wars.

No, such wars are not caused by colonialism. However, the impetuses behind such wars is similar to the impetus behind colonialism in that both result from philosophies and beliefs-in-practice that justify the use of force in order to achieve social, political, cultural, economic, and religious objectives.

The belief in the rightness of initiated force by governmental and religious leaders is the cause of civil wars...and colonialism...and many other historical horrors.

Africa's problems were not so much caused by colonialism per se, but by the artificial boundaries created by the colonial powers that split native tribes and forced other tribes together. For example, Hutu's and Tutsi's were forced together and we can see the horrors that resulted from that. Unfortunately, it is impossible to fix the mess the Europeans left in Africa.

In North America, the native populations were dealt with a lot more...efficiently...(note the dark sarcasm) and the general homegenity of the population tended to prevent civil wars in the early colonies.

As for the topic at hand. My personal view is that there is a low to moderate possibility that the government of Iraq could survive a U.S. withdrawal. If the government does fall, you will see a three way civil war, between the Kurds, Sunni's and Shiite's, most likely resulting in a three way partition of the country into a Kurdistan in the north, a Baathist dominated Iraq in the region around Baghdad and a Shiite Islamic Republic in the south.

None of the three factions has enough power to overcome the other two, so I think stalemate is the order of the day. But then again, MAYBE, the government can hold it together.

Before I begin what I was about to write, let me just say that in the past four years I have grown to love and respect the Libertarian Party and its belief in limited government, economic and civil liberties for all Americans. I am happy to be a member of this party, and help this party in any way I can. Just as I dissent on the Libertarian Party's position regarding the abortion issue, I dissent with the party with regards to the war on Iraq. I am in agreement with those voices that say that to pull out now would give terrorists like Zarqawi and Bin Laden a victory. Despite the questions of intelliegnce or how this war began or how it is being prosecuted, I believe now is not the time to talk about getting U.S. troops out. I believe that before that is accomplished, certain things like the following have to be met:

1. Iraq must have its December 15, elections for the Assembly and other offices. This is crucial. The Iraqi people have already passed a constitution, now let them have a functioning legislature, executive and judiciary.

2.Let Iraqi forces and police continue to receieve training from the coalition forces and others for the purposes of defending their nation and their new found freedom.

3. Once the two is established, the U.S. should bring home some troops and other personnel.

4.With all objectives achieved, the U.S. can bring the remaining of U.S. forces home

Let me say this as well: there are some anti-war activists that have said that these U.S. soldiers have been fighting and dying for nothing. I cannot disagree with them more. These soldier's fight and die for freedom. Ours and for those in Iraq. To say otherwise is nothing more than vile ignorance.

Alex Pugliese is a refreshing voice of reason and common sense. Kudos!

So was the Iraq Exit Strategy. I agree with Alex that pulling out now would be a bad thing.

However, I dont believe those troops are fighting for our freedom. Our freedom is being usurped by institutional rot and corruption far more than they ever are or were by terrorists.

The theft of trillions of dollars from the various trust funds and replacement with unbacked IOU's is a level of theft unmatched in modern times, yet noone declares a war on those responsible. The government has grown faster after 9/11 than at any point since WW2, we have seen most of the Bill of Rights be marginalized by our own Supreme Court, and yet no one declares a war on them.

The terrorists are a ruse. They indeed are after us, but the threat they represent in actuality is
very small compared to the economic meltdown that will happen becuase of this corruption and thievery. People that do not have the real interests of the people at heart are using fear and loathing of other cultures to get rich off of war and misery.

I may be ignorant, but I think you've been a victim of a flim flam artist known as BIG DICK CHENEY.

The interesting thing about folks who argue that we shouldn't leave Iraq because it's the wrong time to do so is that these same folks also can't tell us when the RIGHT time to leave would be. This is the great, big, gigantic hole in both Cheney's argument and in the "stay in Iraq" argument of self-described libertarians who have expressed themselves on this blog.

The net result is that we won't ever leave Iraq as long as their standard is maintained.

"Yet, most former colonies (including the U.S.) are not fighting civil wars." Our country fought a civil war once. Remember the Confederate States of America?

Cheney's favorite movie must be "Chicken Little" given his continuous drumbeat of gloom and doom.
"Osama's going to get us! Saddam's Third cousin is here!! Watch out for the Bird Flu, it'll kill us all!!...We need to declare Martial Law!!!" Perhaps the neo-cons will propose "Chicken Little" to replace the Bald Eagle as our national symbol. I'm sick of the whole bunch of them personally.

Bush, Cheney and the rest of these ethically and intellectually challenged thugs should be impeached and removed from office. We should be out of Iraq, because we should have never gone in - even Bush, Sr. knew that. Every last member of congress should be voted out and replaced by those who will actually have the best interests of the US at heart, not trying to have it both ways like these spineless fools. Exception perhaps to Senator Russ Feingold, he at least has been consistant.

I feel we must stay in Iraq for now, but let it be a grave lesson as to hastily entering wars. If the criteria we based this war on were used every time, we would be at war with Iran, Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and many others.

Hopefully, the war can end positively for the people of Iraq, and I think if America stays the course over there, a positive end can happen. I couldn't condone just leading these lambs to the slaughter. It was a war that probably shouldn't have been fought but it can at least have positive results in the end.

And though many blame the Bush administration(correctly), I would blame the U.N as well. If not for their policies of who is and isn't allowed certain weapons and means of defending themselves, Bush never would have had an excuse for this.

"For example, Hutu's and Tutsi's were forced together and we can see the horrors that resulted from that."

Mark, I just want to clarify. Hutu and Tutsi were not original tribes. I believe the Dutch (this is where I might be wrong) divided the people by color, the light skinned became one "tribe" and the dark skinned became the other. The light skinned were given preferencial jobs and treatment because they were "more white", the darker ones became laborers. This went on for years and resentment formed between the two 'sects'. Similar to the "house negro" that was used in our own plantation system.

I am in favor of a withdrawal as quickly as logistically and safely as possible. The original mission to topple Saddam and to remove the alleged threat he posed to the US has been completed. This accomplishment cost the US, 2000+ dead, 15,000+ wounded and $200billion+. Without clear goals/milestones, an honest estimate of future casualties to be incurred and an estimate of the monetary expenses required, staying the course is an unacceptable strategy.

We have turned Iraq into the 21st Century version of the Coliseum pitting the American gladiators against the Arab/Muslim horde. Our soldiers enlisted to defend America and protect its citizens. They did not sign up to engage in a cage match to the death with an apparently inexhaustible opponent. They did not sign up to patrol Iraqi streets where on a good day they all return to base. On a bad day, they get ambushed and someone is killed.

Given the frequency of car bombings, beheadings, assassinations and kidnapping that is occurring among the general Iraqi population, how much worse can the situation become without our presence?

As a footnote, I recommend watching ?Off to War?, shown on the Discovery-Times channel. It is an excellent documentary of the Arkansas National Guard on deployment in Iraq. People on both sides of this debate should watch it to form a more informed opinion.

I am impressed by the quality of comments on this topic. It is refreshing to see libertarians who are reasoned, well read and pragmatic.

While I support graduated withdrawal from Iraq, I agree that we cannot leave a power vacuum. At the same time, you should put yourselves in the shoes of the Iraqi government.

The infastructure is destroyed, the economy is a mess and the institutions have been gutted by the "de-baathification" of the technocrats within the various ministries. Public money is thin and has to go to many ends. It is therefore perfectly rational for them to rely on the US military and spend on domestic fronts rather then putting all the money needed into developing their own military capacity.

This is the long term risk of remaining in Iraq and not setting a responsible time table for withdrawing our troops. Without such a set date, the Iraqi government has no incentive to develop the military force to fight the insurgency. They, therefore, prefer to let the Americans stamp out the insurgents while they spend domestic capital to strengthen domestic institutions and secure their own power bases.

Remember, the new Iraqi constitution calls for universal healthcare. No small task for a government that hasn't even developed the institutions needed to effectively collect taxes.

The reason Cheney spews that crap isnt because HE believes and swollows it., it's because he knows that the massive flocks of brainwashed reptile brain sheep that follow and empower he and his kind will buy and swollow IT, and everything else that they spew. The same is a fact on the Socialist/Liberal side. Work. Reform. Unite. Prevail.

9.17.1787

Tim West, son, you gotta hold on it!

$8,005,789,984,725 National Debt. (2005) (Cant pay it's bills)
$617,583,000,000 Trade Deficit (2004) Cant do business)
$19,935,800,000 Foreign Aid (2003) (Gives away money it doesnt't have)...
$6,628,000,000 FOREIGN AID MIDDLE EAST)...to our own self created enemies!)
$2,018,501,000,000 (2005) Extorted from our paychecks in Tax revenue.

Jason Stumpner wrote: "'Yet, most former colonies (including the U.S.) are not fighting civil wars.' Our country fought a civil war once. Remember the Confederate States of America?

Uh, Jason, that war occured 87 years after the U.S. broke away from Englad and became an ex-colony. Are you really claiming that war was fought because of colonialism, and not because of tarriff and slavery issues?

Whence shall we expect the approach of danger?
Shall some transatlantic giant step the earth and crush us at a blow?

Never.

All the armies of Europe and Asia could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a tramp on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years.

If destruction be our lott., we must ourselves be it's author and finisher.

As a nation of free men we will live forever., or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln, 1837

What is it about entities that seem to have everything going for them, then suddenly they put a gun to their own head and pull the trigger?

Let me first off say that I have always thought that the war in Iraq was fought for the wrong reasons, and is a disgracefull use of force by the US government. I have always been of the belief that the war in Iraq would have happened even if 9/11 hadn't occurred. The administration merely used that and WMDs as an excuse.

Having said all that, I also live in the real world. I realize that we have started a job in Iraq, and we owe it to the people of Iraqi and the brave soldiers who have died there to finish the job we started. Hopefully Iraq can become a beacon of democracy in the region, although unless the country is split into 3 I can't see that happening any time soon.

Mr. Pugliese,

Seems you have done the work necessary to inform yourself and have arrived at a calm, reasoned and logical position based on the facts available. That is an intellectually honest approach to a contencious subject that should be respected with any counter arguments comming from those that are at least as well informed.

Thank you for beinging some reason and logic to this tread.

Anonymous writes, "the massive flocks of brainwashed reptile brain sheep"

If that is your opinion of the American people and that IS the opinion of some libertarians, then don't be surprised when that "massive flocks of brainwashed reptile brain sheep" don't vote for us.

Grow up, either you belief that man is rational and self-interested, even if you don't like where that self-interest leads him, or you belief this tripe. You can't have it both ways.

Thank you for your comments F.T.S.

Homo Sapiens have a brain stem evolved from the Reptilian brain whose primary instinct is to blindly follow leaders.

It's an instinct, not an opinion. I'm expressing myself (based on experience)in this post, as a former systematic supporter of half of the soon to be defunct two party system.

No. I dont believe that the American voting public is beyond my own personal ability and Affective Intelligence to stop., evaluate and vote Libertarian.

You took my post the wrong way but that's still good because it helped me illustrate and hopefully clarify a major facilitator to future Libertarian electoral victory.

Thanx,

Jim L. Roberts
Trinity M.P.M. Org.

Matthew Dailey

Thank you Matthew. Actually I heard that men "like" Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would try to fill the power vacuum in a premature pullout.

I suggest you read the commentary on this tread, most are not motivated to mirror your assertion. They sound like clear thinking independent minded and logical people. I don't mean political party LPI's, I mean free minded ideological libertarians.

Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are soldiers of a virulent ideology with followers that refuse to co-exist. One choice is to try to drain the medieval religious view from the swamp that spawned and supports it. While their kill or capture would be a psychological victory they would be replaced by other individuals, maybe more effective.

If one wants to solve a problem it necessary to correctly identify the problem. So how the heck does one defend against an ideology, if not with another?

9.17.1787

Ok lets see - If people don't agree with your analysis of events they are blind and are just stupidly following the herd.

OK we got it, you refuse to follow the leader unless you personally selected them.

Relax, likely you won't be elected to lead anyone anywhere.

When are Americans, including many libertarians, going to realize that Osama Bin Laden et al must be treated as common criminals and dealt with as such, rather than reacting in fear to what has happened in Iraq?

For over 1,000 days our military has been seriously distracted from going after Bin Laden where he lives in Afghanistan, devoting instead only a tiny fraction of its available resources there. If we had devoted the lion's share of our resources to finding Bin Laden rather than seriously reducing those resources in favor of the Iraqi adventure, it is likely that he would be in custody by now.

The job can't be done in Iraq, because that's not where Bin Laden is. Remove Bin Laden and you decapitate Al Qaedda, cutting off its most powerful financial and influential asset.

"Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are soldiers of a virulent ideology..." Who do you think it was it that set up, equip and trained Bin Laden to fight the "godless Commies" back in the 80's? Give you a hint; first name Uncle last name Sam, another colossal governmental clustermess that has turned around to bite us in the backside. Their ideology didn't seem to matter much back then, did it? Of course not, we needed him to help defeat the greatest enemy to freedom in the history of all mankind, the ---(drumroll please, maybe even Darth Vader theme)-- Soviet Union!!!(anyone remember them?) Why would we want to CAPTURE OUR OWN AGENT? He starts singing and some of these neocon nitwits in Washington may dislike the tune and absolutely loathe the lyrics. If he comes in at all, it will be in a body bag.

When will EVERYONE realize that 9/11 is just a sideshow, designed to keep us in perpetual fear and distracted from the real agenda, the decimation of our Republic, the loss of our civil liberties. Hasn't flying become real fun? We sheepishly have allowed the government that we are supposed to be the masters of, to turn a right (the right to travel freely) into a privilege. Classic PSYOPS on a massive scale. Osama and his ilk are now "the greatest enemy to freedom in the history of all mankind..." (when we get rid of them, we'll find another, don't you worry). A pandemic of government created and media supported FEAR. Our real enemies are internal, not external.

The "adventure" has only just begun.

I believe that anyone that supports the war is missing one VERY important point: It is an unconstitutional, illegal war and I cannot support it in any shape or form, for any reason! We are no less than invaders and if a foreign country invaded the US I would fight them to the death!

Stockman...

First, Take a deep breath.

Second, Read the text.

Third. Think.

I agree. I concur.

Do you have a specific point?

Stockman...

First, Take a deep breath.

Second, Read the text.

Third. Think.

I agree. I concur.

Do you have a specific point or is your only input to this forum limited to the self absorbed critique of the posts of others?

Quite honestly, I don’t give a damn what happens over there anymore.

I don’t care who takes over the country. I don’t care how the citizens are treated by their leaders. I don’t care if they have free health insurance and I don’t care if their kids go to school. The citizens of Iraq have themselves and only themselves to blame for these things. Its their country, if they don’t like the way they are being treated, its their job to fix/overthrow their own government.

What I do care about is our tax dollars and our kids' lives. The 2,000+ US Citizens who have died in Iraq have had their lives wasted by their president. And how many billions of taxpayer dollars have been burned up so Bush can play army?

Lets bring our kids home, dead or alive. The sooner we bring them home, the more of them that will come back alive instead of dead. And let's stop spending our taxpayer dollars on an ignorant, stupid, pointless war that has accomplished nothing.

And after we have accomplished this, lets put Bush where he belongs: in prison.

Libertarian TV -

Thw War Between The States was fought over the following three reasons:

First in importance was the import tariff. Lincoln wanted to increase the tariff from 15% to 47%. This tariff imposed on foreign goods would have forced the other countries to impose similar tariffs on southern U.S.-made goods, thereby making it impossible for the southern states to sell their goods overseas (particularly to Great Britain and France). The south bought finished goods from these two countries, but the tariff would have forcedthem to buy lower-quality finished goods from the northern states.

Second in importance was states rights. Lincoln was trying to use every dirty tactic possible to keep the southern states from seceding. In fact, he even forcefully shut down many newspapers that dared to support the southern states right to secede. He even had many states rights activists from the north arrested and imprisoned without giving them the chance to defend themselves. He took the U.S. Constitution and used it as a welcome mat on which he wiped his feet.

Slavery was of tertiary importance at best. Lincoln needed a political issue to stand on in order to win re-election in 1864. One year earlier, the Emancipation Proclamation was passed which stated that all slaves in the south would be freed. How can you free any slaves in a ny territory that's outside your jurisdiction? You can't.

Believe it or not, Lincoln one offered the southern states the possibility of keeping their slaves as long as they stayed in the union. The south refused. Also, the south offered Lincoln the possibility of freeing their slaves in exchange for independence. Lincoln refused, and the south seceded.

Mark B. -

You're right about the following:

1) The northern provinces of Iraq will secede and form a Republic of Kurdistan. I also think that they'll try to encourage the Kurdish provinces of Syria, Turkey, Iran, and other countries to secede and join with them to create a larger Kurdistan.

2) The southern provinces of Iraq will secede and either become an Islamic Republic supported by Iran or they'll be annexed by Iran.

3) As for the Sunni provinces in central Iraq:

(a) They will be all that's left of Iraq when it's all said and done.

(b) They will be right back where they started: with a Baathist regime at the controls.

If by some miracle that Iraq remains united, the following will occur:

The Kurds and Shi'ites will unite and make a case that they deserve all of the Iraqi oil revenue since all of the country's oil fields are in the Kurdish north and the Shi'ite south.

Believe it or not the Iraqis and the rest of the Muslim world were quite content with Saddam Hussein. If they weren't he would have been dead back in the 70's. Why is it that fatwas can be issued on a harmless thinker and writer, like S. Rushdie, and not on a tyrannical torturer or murderer, like S. Hussein. A suicide bomber could have easily blown up Saddam. But it didn't happen.

It is my opinion that there will be no end to the conflict in Iraq whether US troops stay or not.

The country of Iraq is surrounded by nation states and Muslims that are hostile to the ideas of liberty, freedom, constitutional republic, and liberal democracy. It would be in their best interest that Iraq stays in chaos. The instability in Iraq can be used by the dictatorial/tyrannical powers as another excuse in not making democratic reform. If Iraq was to succeed in being a somewhat successful democratic state, what excuse would they have left? The Israeli-Zionist card is pretty much played out.

Anyway, it is my observation that most Muslims in the Islamic world don't want liberty. If they did, they would be living free right now.

They wish to live in a Theocracy, let them.

Tommy, I agree, but you're missing the point. I was responding to Nigel's claims that the U.S. Civil War was fought because of colonialism. I suggest you read comments in context.

Thompson, your post is interesting, does that go to say we are satisfied with Bush.

Libertarian TV -

The War Between The States wasn't fought over colonialism.

What does Osama Bin Laden have to do with Iraq? Last I checked there was never any real connection between him and Saddam. Actually we should change his name to Osama Bin Forgotten, because we seem to be pre-occupied solely with Iraq and, as W even said, he "isn't really worried about osama anymore" (paraphrasing, but close).

If we're really concerned with "freedom" as we say we are, why not start by allowing me to ride my motorcycle without a helmet, or drive my car without a seatbelt? Or smoke a joint without worrying about being thrown in prison. Then, maybe from there, we could move on to solving all the rest of the world's problems.

After we've figured out the meaning of the word freedom here, we could move on to liberating a country like Saudi Arabia, since they have a very poor human rights record, and are probably funding the modrassas and other terroist training camps on top of that. Yet, for some strange reason, we remain in bed with them, happy as can be, never wanting to draw attention to the fact that they are nowhere near "free"... in fact, I believe they're just the opposite, a monoarchy?

No, we should not be satisfied with Bush. G.W. blew it with Iraq. Before the Iraq invasion, I believed Bush had an opportunity to knock out left wing economic socialism that is hampering free-market policies. Now, with the war in Iraq, there is no chance.

What happened to the so-called peace dividend which was supposed to come with the collapse of the Soviet Union? Part of the answer is Ike's military-industrial complex and the "lessons" of Keynesian economics which has the Federal government be the guarantor of aggregate demand. We don't really think we can get along without massive government expenditures and there are a bunch of corporations who, along with their employees, benefit mightily from DOD expenditures. Yes, we usually think we are doing something noble when flex our military muscles, but economic motive and ideology lurk in the background. These are powerful incentives to bulk up the military and keep it busy.

Dick cheney, donald rumsfeld and king george are desperately throwing out any scare tactic that they are hoping might stick. These three stooges are not only war criminals, they have broken many international laws and treaty's dealing with the proper treatment of prisoners of war. These three clowns need to be tried in an international court room for the world to see and let them be judged just as saddamn hussein will be judged. (As war criminals and mass murderers). Iraq is the product of what our government has made it to be because of our continual interference into the internal workings of sovereign nations. Let dick run his mouth, because bush's ratings just keep falling. Lets just hope that the american people wake up to the fact that the democrats are no better and many more voters make the shift to a third party.

Reply to: 9.17.1787 November 22, 2005 06:54 PM

BTDT - see:

Posted: Stockman at November 22, 2005 03:32 PM

Posted: Stockman at November 22, 2005 04:32 PM

Honorable debate about specific issues and policies are justified and welcome.

The comments at the beginning of this tread were refreshing, well informed, though out and welcome only to see the tread degenerate into hi-school level name calling. It may be that my annoyance should have been directed toward the originator so if you are not responsible you read a misdirected comment. My fault I apologize! OK

Question? (9.17.1787)?

Tommy

To set the stage - The run up to the civil war was preceded by rulings by the Supreme Court against the state of Georgia. Georgia refused to accept those rulings claiming states rights. This was an extension of the long running fight about the supremacy of the court over the individual state legislatures. Georgia refused to comply with a ruling and South Carolina followed. Relations degenerated from there and finally resulting in withdrawal from the union of several states. Republicans and Federalists remained at odds. President Lincoln apparently believed the Union could not survive without the southern states and war resulted to reassemble the U.S.

Come on... let's be realistic here. This war is only just starting. If a strong presence isn't in Iraq for 15-20 years, there will be civil war. It will not easily be divided into three regions as suggested above. The kurds have been wanting independence for a long time and the turks will not stand by and watch it happen. There are too many kurds in Turkey. So if, or more likely, when this civil war starts, the turks will push eastward. With that the Iranians will want their piece. It only gets ugly from here. TRADOC had a scenario built around just this case, strangely enough in 2002 called the Caspian Sea Scenario. Perform a google search and educate yourselves. dubya has created a terrible mess that his father had the sense to avoid.

Stockman -

Lincoln cared most about raising the import tariff to outrageous levels and destroying states rights.

The reason why Lincoln called for the occupation of Fort Sumter was because it was an important tariff-collecting facility.

Ralph Peters of the New York Post wrote an aritcle, "How to Lose a War", on Monday, I recommend that people on this blog read if they want a see a thought out annalysis of what an immediate pull out of Iraq would do.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/57943.htm

steve

The Middle East was not at peace before we stirred the pot. Political stress has been simmering beneath the surface for decades and destined to erupt in one direction or another.

HMMMMM, Osama bin laden controlling iraq or king george bush controlling iraq? Innocent people will be slaughtered either way.

Tommy,

When it comes to an endevor as costly in blood and treasure, cause and political divisions are larger and more deaply rooted than tariffs on shipping, Ft. Sumter, or even slavery. It was about the survival of the Union of states. The near 100 year long debate by Republicans and Wig-Federalists over constitutional division of power between the central government and the individial states remained unresolved until the civil war forced closure of the dispute.

The taxes you mentioned were the subject of a 1832 Supreme Court case on regulating maritime commerce. Republican supported Georgia levied maritime taxes on shipping so Wig-Federalists held the position, the people had delegated that power to the Federal government. When the court ruled in favor of the Central government, a tit for tat continued through the following decade finally excalating into the secession of several states and the formation of the Confederacy.

In his capacity of President, as chief executive burdened with responsibility to execute the laws of the federal government, when Ft. Sumer was attacked, the President Lincon accepted that a state of war existed, and responded as required by in his official capacity.

Goal: Reconstruct the Union.
Opponent: Confederacy.
Stratagy: Destroy ability to wage war
Justification: Slavery, etc.
Tactic: Armed force - War
Schedule: Unknown - as long as it takes as much as it costs
Result: Relations between the Central Government the several states about interstate and maritime commerce resolved.
Cost: Imeasurable

The debate over authority and size of federal government, remains dynamic and ongoing.

9.17.1787 -

I was actually listening to the Alan Colmes radio show recently and I was dumbfounded to hear one caller actually say that we should annex Iraq as the 51st state. The comment made by that caller was assinine beyond belief.

The U.S. already has 50 states, a federal district, a commonwealth, and a few other possessions. We shouldn't expand any further. In fact, we should start contracting and continue until we have only 50 states and D.C.

Keith

Well Sir, seems you subordinated intellectual engagement about the global security challenges of the 21st century for well placed empathy for those in harms way and the hard earned dollars of the American people.

The people hired leaders to engage global and domestic challenges and would be unhappy if they were not doing so.

Understand, executing the policy voted for by Congress to change the regime of Iraq, and enforcement of UN Resolution over inspections was not your priority and the call for prison for Bush is a metaphor for:I disagree energetically.

While there are are many that agree with you, a more diplomatically worded objection would help elevate the dialog.

The U.S. already has 50 states, a federal district, a commonwealth, and a few other possessions. We shouldn't expand any further. In fact, we should start contracting and continue until we have only 50 states and D.C.

Posted by: Tommy at November 24, 2005 01:43 PM

Some credible futurists suggest that by the twenty-second century these United States will include three of the western provinces of Canada and the northern states of Mexico, due to economic and cultural pressures and joined by elections, not force of arms.

Stockman -

Can you tell me the names of these futurists?

Tommy:

RE: The caller...

Have you ever listened to (CSPAN) the things that the elected legislators in our federal congress say on the open floor?

Stockman -

The southern states were the ones forced to pay 75% of the federal revenue. Any region who is forced to pay that much of the federal revenue have every right to secede. Plus, the southern states were deeply worried (and rightfully so) that the federal government was going to run roughshod over the states, their laws, and constitutions.

9.17.1787 -

Why would the Western Canadian provinces and Northern Mexican states want to join and become part of the U.S.? Also, what would the U.S. have to gain (other than oil, natural gas, and rich minerals from Alberta) by annexing them? What else would the U.S. have to gain?

I've watched C-Span, but I don't understand what you're trying to say in regards to comments made by Congressmen.

Tommy:

It wasnt my post:
Why would the Western Canadian provinces and Northern Mexican states want to join and become part of the U.S.? Also, what would the U.S. have to gain (other than oil, natural gas, and rich minerals from Alberta) by annexing them? What else would the U.S. have to gain?

As for the comments of legislators...I've heard them say things that would make John Jay roll over in his grave..

9.17.1787 -

My apologies, then.

Stockman -

Other than oil, natural gas, and rich minerals from Alberta, what would the U.S. have to gain by annexing Western Canadian provinces and Northern Mexican states? Also, why would the Western Canadian provinces and Northern Mexican states want to become apart of the U.S.?

Tommy,

How is the tariff situation more important than the issue of Lincoln depriving people of liberty? I am just curious as to the reasoning there. And I am glad to see that someone else understands that the whole "slavery" BS was the excuse and not the reason. We have a lot of little boys and girls being told by their government schools that the reason Lincoln destroyed so much liberty was to save the blacks from slavery.

And on a side note, look how little we have left of state's rights. I honestly believe the South was right and had they won the war we'd have two countries that are much more free than the fledging police state we have now.

Stockman,

You're probably right. As far as I am concerned, there is no more dialog to be had on this issue. The issues have been discussed again and again. There is nothing left for discussion. The only thing needed now is action. Americans love to talk, they don’t like to do. And herein lies the problem.

Everyone,

The prospect of annexing Iraq as a 51st state is absolutely ludicrous. I thought colonization ended a while ago? Bush just isn’t going to be happy until he starts WW3.

Tommy: I know the war between the states was not fought because of colonialism. That was my point, which you would have realized if you had read my original point in context.

Much of this comes down to a simple question (and one which Libertarians should resnate with): If Bin Laden and Al Zarkawi DID take over, so what? Not to be harsh, but it is up to the Iraqi people to defend their own country, just as it is up to us to defend our own, within our own borders. There is nothing in Libertarian political thought which justified our actions in Iraqto begin with, and CERTAINLY noting that justifies our continuing actions!

I think the problem is Glen, (and others who want to pull out now) is the fact that we caused the mess in Iraq in the first place.

Sure, in my opinion we were wrong to start the war (although the world is much better off without Sadam). However as I said, we in effect broke Iraq, and we owe it to them to stay the course and fix it. Libertarians have a sensible philosophy of personal responsibility and liability. What we have done to Iraq is no different to a bad neighbor driving his truck over your garden. You would expect your neighbor to fix the mess. The people of Iraq should expect the US to do the same.

Of course if in a referendum the Iraqi's told us to go home, we should.

Keith -

I know that states rights was a crucial reason why the southern states seceded from the union. Lincoln sought to destroy the voluntary nature of the union and succeded. He wanted to destroy states rights and consolidate control within the U.S. government.

I also know that Lincoln was a dictator since he arrested political opponents. These opponents included the mayor and city council of Baltimore, the entire Maryland state legislature, a number of U.S. Congressmen, and many newspapers that supported the right of the southern states to secede.

Lincoln's actions toward the south were so appalling that even New York City (my hometown) sought to secede from the U.S. and become a free city-state. New York was as dependent on free trade as the southern states and also conducted alot of domestic trade with the southern states.

That's why I stated that tariffs and trade (along with states rights) was a huge factor in the War for Southern Independence. I hope I cleared this up. And I apologize for not being clear earlier.

If I'm not being clear now, then I'll try to truly clarify it as soon as possible.

I have a comment and a couple of questions.

Comment:

The only powers that the federal government should have would consist of what was originally outlined in the U.S. Constitution. All powers not specifically delegated to the federal government should be reserved to the states and the people respectively. Although, I am also open to further reducing the powers of the federal government from what is stated in the U.S. Constitution.

Question(s):

Why would the U.S. want to annex the provinces of Western Canada and the states of Northern Mexico?

I read somewhere two years ago that an East Carolina University professor (who was a Lincoln apologist) actually say that Lincoln tried to have Confederate States President Jefferson Davis assassinated. The plan was discovered and foiled.

Afterwards, President Davis decided to retaliate. Enter John Wilkes Booth. Davis told Booth to carry out the assassination of Lincoln and obviously succeeded. The professor said that Lincoln brought his own death upon himself.

I forgot to ask another question above.

Why would the provinces of Western Canada and the states of Northern Mexico want to become apart of the United States?

I really love the Libertarian Party, but really disagree with the whole theme of Bush-bashing. I really feel that it only reinforces the Socialist-Democrats and strengthens their cause. I voted for Bush and would again. I also think that the troops are doing exactly what they should be, training the Iraqi security forces and allowing the government to form so that they will be able to protect themselves. I stronly disagree with any dated timetable for the removal of the troops. That is just plain stupid, a conflict or war haw never been won by proclaiming a timetable for removing troops before the objective was met. The objective in this case is the development of the security forces and the government through with it's elections and functioning. I also think it would be a good idea to purge the terrorist excrement from the country side.

First, I want to commend all of you. This discussion has been civil, thoughtful and enlightening.

I agree with Mr. Hawkes. We should not "bash" President Bush in this forum. I am not an apologist for Bush: I find some of his decisions wise; others seem unfathomable. However, if I dissent, I do so respectfully.

As libertarians, when we discuss foreign policy, we tend to argue for/endorse the principle of isolation. In so doing, we embrace a paradigm formulated years ago--in an era of different circumstances. Keep this in mind.

Our world now is one of global terror. Can we really afford to follow a strict doctrine of isolation? I tend to think not. As such, I supported--and support--the War in Iraq. My reasons follow.

ONE: Hussein supported terrorism unapologetically. He provided aid and sanctuary to Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for 9-11. It even maintained training camps in Iraq!

TWO: Hussein—clearly, consistently, repeatedly—violated the terms of peace ending the Gulf War. In particular, he did not allow unfettered access to the UN inspectors. This is historic fact.

THREE: Hussein, quite simply, was a vile man. This too is a fact.

Please note: I did not support the war because I thought Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, that we have found no such weapons does not negate the validity of stated reasons.

I must say, further, that I do not support an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq; it would only strengthen the insurgents' resolve. Instead, we need to send these cowards/killers a clear message: We will aid and support Iraqi forces in battle against you... until they (the Iraqi forces) are able to win on their own. We will not cut and run!

That is enough on matters foreign; now for matters domestic.

Several years ago, I would have endorsed this Party's position on immigration. That no longer is true. Quite simply, we need to secure our borders! A policy of open immigration will prove disastrous in the end. (Consider: France.) Let us remember also that securing borders is a power delegated by the states to the federal government.

Finally, I too trace the origins of "big government" in this country to the Civil War. Lincoln won his war on states' rights. As a result, the federal government became dominant: It no longer was a slave to the states, it was their master. And now, here we are...

That is why I support the cause of liberty. I hope we can reclaim our liberties lost; I pray that we can stem the tide.

Thank you.

C. Snider wrote: "ONE: Hussein supported terrorism unapologetically. He provided aid and sanctuary to Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for 9-11. It even maintained training camps in Iraq!"

This is false. There is no evidence that prior to 9/11 Hussein provided aid and sanctuary in Al Qaeda. In fact, the intelligence community could find no connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda at all. The most that was ever found was in a couple of reports that there were a small numbers of Al Qaeda fugitives hiding in Iraq, but the reports gave no indication that Hussein was aware of their presence.

C. Snider wrote: TWO: Hussein—clearly, consistently, repeatedly—violated the terms of peace ending the Gulf War. In particular, he did not allow unfettered access to the UN inspectors. This is historic fact.

It is also irrelevant. There have been many, many political leaders who have violated terms of historical peace treaties in various minor ways who were not subsequently militarily attacked for those violations. These other historical violators of peacy treaties were eventually forced to comply in most cases without military attacks. Besides, C. Snider wrote that he didn't think that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Yet, WMDs were the primary basis for Bush's claim that Hussein had violated the terms of the treaty, and the other minor violations were not considered to be problems by themselves but rather were felt by Bush and his advisors to be evidence of WMDs.

1. Hussen had a full size boeing jet airline mock-up at one of his remote desert training camp. I guess that is for a amusment park, right? You bet your life it was.

2. Hussen did not document the destruction of his WMD as required by the term of his surrender of Gulf War I. Therefore he was in violation of the armistace agreement.
This is entirely sufficient justification to go to war in and of itself.

3. Prior failure to enforce the law, is not a good reason to continue to fail to enforce the law. For example: the fact that we have murders and rapes is not justification for tolerating, or permitting them. Just because we had a President (Clinton) who was more concerned with receiveing sexual satisfaction from his intern then with handling domestic and international terrorism, we do not have to continue his ruinous and dangerous failures. Indeed we shouldn't.

I do not "hire" leaders to "...engage global and domestic challenges..." I want them simply to mind the best interests of America. Not global adventuring and conquest.

Yes we should be strict isolationists, and should have gone right back to that after WWII. If we went about minding our own business there probably would have never have been a 9/11. Our legal immigration policies should be liberal, but with strict minimum standards (keep your own criminals and lunatics). Trade freely and fairly with all, be partners to all, but not as a global sugar daddy, BOTH sides benefit from the association.

Those who would violate our rights, freedom or territorial integrity - ever hear of the H Bomb?
Turn Bagdad or Terhan into a sheet of glass and these tin dictators will get the message quickly enough. Unlike these wanna be Nuclear powers, we have both the weaponry and means of deployment. One or two practical demonstrations of our resolve over the last half century or so would have kept yip dog dictators such as Saddam Hussain in their own playpen. The thousands who lost their lives in such pointless conflicts as Korea and Vietnam, not to mention the Gulf War and the current Iraq adventure would not have died so tragically. Osama bin Laden would have never been and so many other mistakes this country made in the middle east and other areas of the world may have never happened. Our founding fathers warned against foreign entanglements for a reason. The globalists want us to be global for the ultimate sacrifice of our national soverenty and individual liberty.

Yes, Saddam Hussein is a vile man, so is Dick Cheney - the world is chock full of vile people, you can't take them all down. If you feel the urge to do so, grab your rifle, hire out as a mercenary and go too it. Don't volunteer me or mine to fight your battles and then clean up your mess.

If S. Hussein had WMDs, why didn't he launched them to save his country form the US Invasion? The build up for the Iraq invasion would have been the best time for him to use them.The whole purpose of having nuclear weapons is to deter an invasion by a superior force.

Pakistan is a greater WMD threat than Iraq ever was. Extreme elements in Pakistan are just a palace coup away in seizing nuclear weapons. If any terrorist organization were or are able to possess WMDs, I'll say they have a far much more better chance to do so in Pakistan than anywhere else.

More pointless conflicts include the following:

1) The Mexican-American War: We simply should have bought that land. Both sides would have benefitted with the U.S. expanding further west and Mexico getting the money they needed to pay their debt. And best of all, nobody would have been killed.

2) The War Between The States: We should have just let the southern states secede peacefully and be an independent, decentralized, constitutional, representative republic (the Confederate States of America). They would have had local control, states rights, and would have been a valuable trading partner to the U.S.

3) The Spanish-American War: There was no need to invade the Spanish possession of Cuba and we surely weren't liberating it. We wanted access to their raw materials. The U.S. could have had them by simply trading with Cuba. Again, both the U.S. and Cuba would have benefitted and no lives would have been lost.

3) The Filipino-American War: See Spanish-American War.

4) World War I: This was the war that put us into deeper trouble. This war would have ended in a stalemate if the U.S. didn't get involved. All countries involved were seeking to end it peacefully. But, our involvement led to more deaths and casualties. It also led to the Allies imposing harsh terms on Germany that paved the way for the Nazis and Adolf Hitler to gain control of that country and unleash a reign of terror on Europe. Of course, this led to...

5) World War II: If FDR hadn't meddled in the affairs of Japan, Pearl Harbor wouldn't have been attacked. The schemes he used included ordering the Japanese government to pull its troops out of Manchuria, imposing a trade embargo on Japan, freezing Japan's assets in the U.S., and moving the Pacific Fleet from California to Hawaii (causing the Japanese to think that they would be invaded). Japan warned FDR to pull the fleet out of Hawaii or they would be attacked. FDR refused to do so and the fleet was demolished. After the war, Japan's possessions became a major source of concern. And this led to...

6) Chinese Civil War: Alright, I acknowledge that American troops weren't used. However, we still sent aid to the Nationalist army of Chiang Kai-shek to fight the communist forces of Mao Tse-tung. Mao was backed by the Soviets. The war waged on for a few years and ended with a communist takeover of Beijing in 1949, the nationalists fleeing to Taiwan, and China becoming an enemy of the U.S. One year later, another possession in Japan would erupt into civil war. This brings us to...

7) The Korean War: And much like the war in China, it involved the nationalists from the south and the communists from the north. This time, we sent aid and troops. Despite this, the war ended in a stalemate in 1953. More troops and civilians needlessly died. Shortly thereafter, another Japanese possession wound up in a civil war that we should have stayed away from. And here comes...

8) The Vietnam War: Once again, it was the nationalists from the south vs. the communists from the north. And much like the other wars mentioned earlier, ... (To be continued later. Gotta go).

...continuing.

The Vietnam War was another case of the U.S. needlessly getting involved. The only difference between this war and the other aforementioned wars in Asia was that this war was long, more brutal, and involved a truly committed enemy of ours.

Correction from earlier, South Vietnam was U.S.-backed and North Vietnam was Soviet-supported.

Also, the enemy we fought was mostly nationalistic with a few communist elements. They were committed to their cause of driving foreign forces out of their country and did just that. We lost the war.

Any other war after this has essentially been unnecessary. We would have been better off economically, politically, diplomatically, and militarily if the U.S. didn't get involved in the affairs of other countries. We would have been the Switzerland of the Americas if we followed my logical steps instead of getting involved.

...And the most important aspect of minding our own business is that many lives would have been saved.

We desperately need to go back to a foreign policy of isolationism (or armed neutrality as Switzerland calls it). I would also suggest that we quit sending foreign aid to all countries, especially the group of nations that calls us stingy for "not sending enough aid". Let them survive on their own. We need to derail the gravy train of foreign aid, especially to the aforementioned axis of ingrates.

To continue on the point Tommy made:

The only two conflicts that the U.S. fought that were justified:

1. The undeclared naval war with France of 1797 to 1800. The French were openly attacking our shipping and destroying our commerce and had insultingly rejected our diplomatic overtures. The war ultimately led to France backing down and signing a treaty in 1801.

2. The War of 1812. The war was caused by much the same reasons as the previous conflict with France, just that the British were the offenders this time. There was of course a desire to bring Canada under U.S. control but this was not the cause of the war, although of course attempts were made to invade Canada during the war.

I agree with Tommy the rest of the wars, including WWI and WWII were pointless for the reasons Tommy mentioned.

I try to avoid the term isolationism as it has overly negative conotations. I prefer the term non engagement. I believe the U.S. should maintain a strong DEFENSIVE military, but at levels well below what we currently maintain. I believe that President Washington's policy of "no entangling alliances" should be resumed. Abolish foreign economic and military aid and return all forces worldwide back to U.S. mainland. The U.S. should totally avoid any involvement or comment on the internal affairs of any other nation. We should remain engaged on the level of commerce and trade, but the sole goal of such engagement should be the removal of all barriers to free trade.

Mark B. -

1) Don't forget about defending Alaska and Hawaii.

2) I think that we do need tariffs. However, the tariffs should only be high enough to raise the necessary revenue for the constitutionally legitimate functions of the federal government. However, I do agree that all other trade barriers should be completely removed.

3) If you don't like the term: isolationism,
how about you use the term: armed neutrality?

I have one more thing to say, and it is about the neocons:

They believe in the credo: "The best defense is a strong offense."

I believe in this credo: "Those who believe that the best defense is a strong offense... are the ones who don't believe in a strong defense."

Whenever I explain why the wars I mentioned above and other military engagements were/are unnecessary, I'm either mocked mercilessly, or dismissed as anti-American, or I drive them so crazy with the facts that they have an emotional meltdown.

Whenever I state why we should cut off all foreign aid to all other countries, I'm branded as cold-hearted.

I say that I'm using logic, whereas they use emotion to state their cases.

Of course, why would they want to let facts get in the way of a good fairy tale?

Tommy,

You and I are treated much the same, it sounds like. You have to bear in mind that most of the people in this country don’t have the guts to say "No" to something that is blatantly unconstitutional if someone shows them the picture of a starving kid and says "If you don’t say Yes, this kid is gonna die." They'll support anyone and anything you tell them to.

I have been accused of being cold-hearted when I advocate cutting off welfare and foodstamps. "But they NEED that aid", they say. Well, that’s nice. Someone else's need doesn’t justify the theft of my assets to satisfy same. There are a lot of people in this country who don’t want to work for their share of the American dream and I am tired of mailing it to them on the first of every month. Sink or swim but no government aid.

In General,

I think the US is getting ready to play the game that cities and towns have played for some time: increase tax base by annexation. I sure hope not, as it will almost surely launch a series of never-ending, ever-expensive armed conflicts as we take over one country after another. Of course, the Romans tried this and look what happened to them. Sure, it worked for a while. And then, well, things got really bad.

As for the people who don’t like the "Bush Bashing" that goes on here, I really don’t care. I don’t mince words when it comes to Bush. The man is a terrorist and a war criminal. He is a liability and a hindrance to freedom in this country. America would be much better off without him. And my lack of support for Bush does not imply support for Kerry, because I think he is just as much of an idiot as Bush.

As for the LPs stance on immigration, I also do not agree with it. I am firmly in the isolationists camp (which has been a bad word since the "United Nations" scam was formed many years ago) on topics of both immigration and military and all other aid. I personally would like to see a wall built across the US/Mexico border with free trade allowed but NO immigration.

History buffs may remember that manifest destiny is the reason America can't mind its own business in world affairs and why it is always at war with some nation.

Manifest destiny was a 19th-century doctrine which stated that America was the new Israel and that Americans were the new Israelites commissioned by God to spread the gospel of Americanism first to the Indian savages out West, and then later to the entire world. The western settlers actually believed God gave them that land. That's why they endured crop failures, pestilence, disease, indian raids, etc. If God be for you, who can be against you? This stupid belief is why westerners to this day remain where they are after a tornado or mudslide. By golly, I'm going to rebuild come hell or high water. Nothing's going to run me off!

At the end of the 19th century with all the land from Maine to California pretty well conquered America set its sight toward conquering the world beginning with Cuba, resulting in the Spanish American War of 1898. Indeed America has been at war and has been meddling in other countries' affairs more throughout the 20th century than in all its previous history! No wonder we are the most hated nation on earth.

Then in 1948 the old Southern Baptist, Harry Truman decided to push prophesy along by helping to found Israel as a nation. He believed in all that Biblical nonsense about God favoring any nation that favored Israel and cursing any nation that cursed Israel. That belief has been our guiding foreign policy to this day. Have you ever noticed that no matter what Israel does the U.S. says little or nothing? And you wonder why we are at war with Iraq.

Whenever I present the facts that I mentioned earlier, I'm immediately disregarded as a conspiracy theorist besides being branded as anti-American, or cold-hearted.

I'm even regarded as anti-Semitic because I think we should cut foreign aid to Israel and shouldn't get involved in Israel's wars.

They still won't listen even after I tell them that we should cut all foreign aid to all other countries. And we shouldn't fight wars that have nothing to do with our self-defense, fighting (real) terrorism, or retaliation.

The ignorance of so many other people is so widespread that it's disturbing.

I have sadly come to the conclusion that our problems and sacrifices in Iraq are necessary for our liberty, but not in the way that the neocons and jingoists assert. Rather, I think the American people forget about the horrors of war every generation or so. We appear to need a good quagmire every twenty or thirty years to remind us of why it is a terrible idea to get involved in foreign military adventures, and to stiffen our collective resolve to resist the fear-mongering of people like Cheney. Older people need to remember, and younger people need to realize for the first time that peace, liberty, and opportunity are THE POINT of the government, and that war and paranoia are the EXACT OPPOSITE of what our government is required to secure for us. Ironically, we seem to need the tragedy of a war, such as the current one, to encourage our own, domestic fight for freedom. I wish it were otherwise.

Iraq is spilled milk (if you prefer). I'd like to see us out of there as soon as possible. But I don't think that will be anytime soon, especially judging from some of the comments in this thread. Between the people who say we "owe" the Iraqis for devastating their country, and those who say we would dishonor the dead if we didn't stay until the job was done, I think we're looking at years in the tarpit.

Frankly, I thought things would turn out this way even when we were still talking about sending troops in. Nobody paid much attention to voices like mine. So here we are. I've moved on. I can't do a thing to help or reverse the present situation. But my question to you all is, have we finally learned the generational lesson? Will we dig in and actively prevent the politicians from stampeding us into another elective war, or will we keep buying their neocon-job? Does anyone really believe that the US can actively, militarily bring freedom to the entire world?

I'd be satisfied -- more than satisfied -- if we would simply concentrate on maximizing the freedom and opportunity of the 300,000,000 already within our borders. That's a huge mission, which is far from accomplished. We get further from the goal line with every new piece of legislation like the PATRIOT Act, or even the McCain-Feingold Campaign "reform" Act. The distractions of unnecessary foreign military adventures only impede our ability to keep our government "of, by, and for" the people in line.

In the message above, I published:

"Iraq is spilled milk (if you prefer)."

It should have said, "Iraq is spilled milk (or blood, if you prefer)."

C. Snider said, "As libertarians, when we discuss foreign policy, we tend to argue for/endorse the principle of isolation."

Gad, I hate that word, "isolation." I don't know any, and have heard of only a few, self-described "libertarians" who want to wall the US off from the world in the way that China once sequestered itself. THAT was TRUE isolationism.

The Libertarian policy of today is better characterised as "non-interventionism," and someone who is friendly to the LP and its view of the world would help the LP to use that word instead of the opponents' pejorative expression. When we use their words, we play (and very likely lose) their game.

Libertarians, fans of the free-market, most certainly do NOT want to wall of the US to trade or cultural exchange. We want to get out and be in the world, and to bring the world here. But we want to interact on the basis of individual citizens and voluntarily-formed companies or groups.

What we DON'T want to do is send our troops all over the globe to enforce Pax Americana, or to lend muscle to one side or the other in regional conflicts.

The US Armed forces do not exist to bring peace to the world, to make it safe for "democracy," or to enable nation-building. They exist to defend the country from attack, and to retaliate for attacks (such as we suffered on 9/11). Our tax dollars are not properly paid to fund foreign aid. They are paid to fund the legitimate functions of our own government, period.

Americans have shown themselves, over and over again, to be generous to a fault, donating BILLIONS in charity, for both domestic and foreign beneficiaries. It is neither necessary nor moral for our government to force citizens to contribute to charity programs. If the government wants to run a charity, disbursing funds and paying for administration entirely from voluntary contributions, fine. Otherwise, Uncle Sam should just exit that particular arena.

As I said before, I also discourage the use of the word isolation. One reason is that it is viewed very negatively by much of the public. The other is that it is not entirely accurate of what I think the U.S.'s posture should be.

Non engagement. Non interventionism. Armed neutrality. All better and more accurate terms for describing libertarian foreign policy.

We do need to stay at the international table for discussion of trade and commerce issues, but such discussions must be held solely for the purpose of freeing up trade.

I am willing to agree to deals to forgive third world debt, but only on the condition that no more economic or military aid is given and that no more loans or loan guarantees are offered.

James -

You're right about foreign aid. It is unnecessary and has done nothing to help other countries. In fact, all you have to do is look at this website's plank on foreign aid.

They will show that even the U.S. Agency for International Development has stated how the aid we give is often used to artificially subsidize the economies of other countries (rich and poor) or winds up in the pockets of foreign dictators of poor countries. These dictators then use the money to either finance their lavish lifestyles or to finance terrorist groups who try to kill us.

Also, the foreign aid we provide takes away the incentive that other countries would normally have to seriously address their own economic, infrastructure, and military problems.

Another problem with foreign aid is that we pay to protect (with our troops) wealthy countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and others who can afford to protect themselves.

I recently spoke to some people who stated their reasons why we should give foreign aid ran the gamut from: "we need allies" to "it's only 2% of the federal budget." I responded by saying that we should stay out of entangling alliances. I also said that the 2% for foreign aid is 2% too much.

Another reason why we should cut foreign aid is that even though we give more foreign aid than any other country in the world (especially during last year's tsunami in Asia), we're still called "stingy."

Due to their lack of gratitude, we should cut off all foreign aid and see how the "axis of ingrates" deal with that. Now, is it understood why I call them "the axis of ingrates"?

The war in Iraq is being funded with stolen money. That's the bottom line. Regardless of how noble the goals might be (and I don't agree that they are), any endeavor that is funded with stolen money is a disgrace to liberty and Libertarians must abhor it. I would have no objection to a voluntarily funded expedition to free a country from tryanny. This war is not about freeing Iraq from tyranny, but rather about imposing a new group of tyrants more friendly to the American government. Aside from that though, even if it were to set Iraqis free, it must be condemned because it is funded by coercive taxation. Anybody who supports the war and calls himself a Libertarian is a liar.

I'm really concerned about the direction this party is headed in. So many people seem to have forgotten Libertarian principles and only want to pursue Libertarian ends. You can't properly pursue free markets and the overthrow of tyrants by supporting involuntary taxation. Free markets are not good of their own right; they are good because they arise naturally when rights are respected. Rights are the highest ideal that should be always be the primary consideration.

I completely agree.

Libertarian TV -

I read what you wrote in the original context of the crazy theory that someone else had abut colonialism causing the War Between The States. I realize that I should have been more careful about reading the context before going on my tangent.

As for WW2, it was unnecessary to drop those two nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, Japan was suing in order to surrender. They were willing to make concessions to the U.S. as long as they got to keep their emperor. The offer was refused and two cities and nearly 200,000 people were incinerated.

We shouldn't have gotten involved in WW2 much less dropped those two bombs.

I disagree with the sentiment that secession is a right of states. Secesssion is by definition treason, which is one of the few crimes actually mentioned in the Constitution.

Nigel -

I have read the U.S. Constitution and nowhere have I seen it state that secession equals treason. In fact, it only states treason as adhereing to the enemies of the U.S., giving the enemies of the U.S. aid and comfort, and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for a conviction.

Congratulations Nigel, you've proven yourself to be full of hot air.

In addition, the Lincoln Administration was truly treasonous because they destroyed the voluntary nature of the union. They blatantly violated the U.S. Constitution. Their violations included the following:

1) Illegally suspending the writ of habeas corpus without Congressional approval.

2) Ordering the arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of political opponents who expressed disapproval of his actions and support of the southern states right to secede. These political opponents included the mayor and city council of Baltimore, the entire Maryland state legislature, the governor of Maryland, a number of U.S. Congressmen and Senators, tens of thousands of northern political dissenters, all without due process. They also used his storm troopers to forcibly shut down hundreds of newspapers that expressed support for the southern states right to secede. They also imprisoned publishers, employees, and editors of the newspapers in question. They also censored telegraph communication. This was all in clear violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They gave no reason for these actions. It says its only allowed in the case of rebellion or invasion. The U.S. wasn't being invaded. And, the southern states had already seceded from the union, and therefore weren't in rebellion against the U.S. government since they were no longer within such jurisdiction.

3) They illegally separated the the counties of West Virginia from the rest of Virginia. In order for one part of a state to secede from the rest of the state, you need 2/3 approval of both houses of the state legislature and 2/3 of both houses of the U.S. Congress. Neither was involved.

4) They confiscated private firearms, in violation of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

5) Increased the size of the Union army without Congressional authorization.

6) Withdrew $2 million for military purposes without Congressional authorization.

7) Imposed martial law on the border states.

8) He passed the Emancipation Proclamation in the southern states when they weren't even in his legal jurisdiction anymore. They were the independent republic of the Confederate States of America. How can you pass a law saying that something isn't allowd in a certain location if that location isn't even within your legal jurisdiction? You can't.

9) He blatantly violated the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution when he tried to forcibly keep the southern states within the union.

The actions committed by the Lincoln Administration were so appalling that the then-mayor of New York City, Fernando Wood, strongly considered having New York secede from the union and become a free city.

Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

All powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people respectively.

If you're interested in the civil war, check out an article from the Mises Institute at www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Internal.pdf. It argues that the war was more about governmental internal improvements (which the south abhorred and the north embraced) than it was about slavery. Very convincing and interesting argument.

Chuck, thanks for your support.

home equity loan http://www.homeequityloan-x.com

http://www.homeequitylineofcreditz.com

The casualties of war:

Human - I wonder if we tally up the dead on both sides and compare that to the death toll of Saddam's regime and 9/11 if we come out any better. Does anyone have any idea?

Infrastructure - I'm sure Iraq has less now than before the war. People need water and roads to stay upbeat - I know, I grew up in Africa.

Financial - We've depleted our purse with this stupid war. To go to war to stop a genocide is noble (sorry Rwanda, you're welcome Europe) but to go to war to stop 'terror' - you're kidding right?

Image - This country was once a beacon of hope for the world's poor. People got up and dreamt of saving enough money to start over in America. I think this war has killed that dream for a lot of people. Without a dream what have you got? For most a failing maize crop.

I've seen a lot of desperate things in my life growing up in Africa. I've read alot of posts on this site comparing Africa to Iraq. I think the comparison fits. A poor majority resents a powerful, wealthy few. Lines get drawn in the dirt that take generations to brush away. Could you forgive your neighbour for killing your father, raping your mother and sisters? probably not.

For us to think that staying the course is going to fix Iraq is naive at best. However, do I think we should? Unfortunately I do. We've destroyed the infrastructure and we should at very least leave the place as we found it if not better (small payment for all the civilian casualties). Just don't be surprised when civil war within a decade of our withdrawal destroys it all over again.

Hopefully next time we think war is the solution we'll look back at history and realise there are a very few instances where it leaves little choice.