Bush and his backers want a wider war in the region. So this announcement is simply laying the groundwork for Gulf of Tomkin incident to give the USA it's excuse for - now let's be honest with ourselves here- engaging in ANOTHER War Crime.

It points to the arrogance of the Bush administration and government in general that they and only they are permitted to influence Iraq. Iranian operatives are different from American operatives in what way? Ideologically perhaps, but both are there to influence the Iraqis and in doing so, they all make the situation worse. As much as I don't wish any harm to our soldiers, I cannot blame any Iraqi for taking up arms against any foreign forces. I would if they were in my back yard.

The Neo-conservative and Zionist elements of the government and there supporters are eager for war. They are taking every possible step to antagonize Iran and to try to manuever them into an incident which will justify a full scale war on Iran. Prime example is a number of U.S. Carrier Battle Groups have been moved to the Persian Gulf and deliberately placed within range of Iran's short range missiles. The sinking of a U.S. Carrier would be all the pretense King George needs to start his all out war on Iran. The steps being taken in Iraq are just one part of the overall escalation.

And do not forget that Israel has all but promised a nuclear strike on Iran to take out their nuclear facilities.

Unfortunately, this is all likely to come down long before Bush is schedule to leave office on January 20th, 2009.

Man. Jan 20, 2009. Seems so far away. A lot can and will happen until then. How many stupid decisions can there be for the People to wake up and realize neither the Dems nor Reps should be making them.

The Iranian government has no right to rule because it doesn't respect its people's rights to life, liberty, and property. However, it really isn't a good idea to go after Iran. The best course of action in the middle east is to let the Shias and Sunnis kill each other, as they want to do. If the Islamists fight each other, they won't fight us during that time.

Brad -

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

King George wants a real war, he is going to get it with Iran. KB&R, Halliburton, Blackwater & others will make more billions on the blood of the US military and civilans. Then we will have the draft,but his childern will not be in harms way, they will be in South America, safe and sound.

-- my opinion --

A war with Iran will happen, precisely as Mark B. said. We will enrage them until they attack us, like a missle at a ship. The public will be outraged and the war will be escallated. We may get the draft then, citing that our military is already spread too thin (it is).

We will also provoke someone into another terrorist attack. This time it will hit the White House (of course no "important" people will be there at the time). This will give King George cause to impose MARTIAL LAW. He will then find a way to eliminate the next election.

I am very afraid.

If we hadn't interfered in Iran in 1953 and kept an unpopular Shah in power, it is quite possible that we wouldn't be dealing with an islamic republic in Iran today.

It would be a huge mistake for the U.S. to go to war with Iran. Iran is four times Iraq's size, and nearly three times Iraq's population. If the U.S. military can't handle the mess in Iraq, then how can they handle a war with Iran?

WWIII will end with someone being nuked.

Or maybe it doesn't end there at all.

A dictatorship like Iran's will always need an enemy. It will use the slightest foreign policy initiative by any country (e.g. the US) as a provocation, and use that to incite its people and unite them against this common enemy. Dictatorships do this to ameliorate dissent within their country and thus avoid being overthrown by people who most certainly (I should know) prefer a democratic government. This is the boring, non-emotionally-charged truth. A democratic Iraq would not start civil wars, would not steal money from the UN and use it to fund terrorism, and would allow its free citizens to enjoy the wealth associated with being an oil-producing nation.

A democratic Iraq is in our best interest, and I wish this war had been waged more efficiently.

The Libertarian Party has, to my dismay, adopted the view that doing trade with oppressive governments does not harm our interests as a free people. It does. Look at Hugo Chavez and his moves toward communism, supported financially in large part by free countries (ever heard of Citgo?). Venezuela's official enemy is now the US. Why? Because every dictatorship needs an enemy. In the case of socialist dictatorships, they also need funding. It's almost funny, because now in Venezuela, as was the case with the USSR, their largest funder is also their "worst enemy".

Food for thought. I hope you're hungy.

JJ -

First. If you believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with any Islamic fundamentalists (including al-Qaeda), then I own a bridge that I'm willing to sell to you for pennies on the dollar.

Second. There is no way that Iraq will be a truly representative democracy/republic. In fact, I doubt that Iraq will remain united for long. I can easily see the Kurdish provinces in the north secede and form their own country. I can also see the Shia provinces in the south secede and become an ally of Iran (or become part of Iran). Meanwhile, I can see the Sunni provinces in the center be the only thing that remains of Iraq. The only democracy that will exist in the aftermath will be in the Kurdish north. The Shia south will have an Islamic fundamentalist regime. And, the Sunni center will be back to having a secular, Arab dictatorship.

Third. Trade embargoes don't solve anything. If you don't believe me, then look at the embargo we imposed on Iraq. Iraq couldn't even receive medical supplies for their own people. In fact, Madeleine Albright said that the imposition of an embargo on Iraq was worth the deaths of 500,000 Iraqis. In fact, embargoes empower dictators. Just look at Fidel Castro, Kim Jung-Il, and Saddam Hussein.

JJ -

Going to war for reasons that have nothing to do with defense and retaliation has always come back to bite us. And, this is not any different.

JJ:

I can very well turn your first assertion on its head. Thusly:

"A Dictatorship like King George will always need an enemy." In this case, the next enemy is likely to be Iran. The more enemies he can generate and engage, the more power he can grab.

Nick:

King George and his Zionist buddies in Israel may just succeed in setting off World War III. If either the U.S. or Israel engages Iran with tactical nuclear weapons it is very likely that Russia will retaliate by wiping Israel off the map with nuclear missiles. At the same time, Iran will use its dispersed short range missile capacity to sink every U.S. Carrier and warship in the Middle East area and attack U.S. forces in Iraq. If the U.S. retaliates on Russia in turn, World War III and likely the utter distruction of the entire human race.

Yep, January 20th, 2009 is looking one hell of a long way away to me.

Mark, why Russia? I know they have interests in Iran, but what would nuking Israel do for them? I'm ignorant on Russia's present day affiliations and reasons behind them.

Russia has a lot of heavy ties to the Middle East, mostly related to energy issues. Russia could not sit idly by if Iran was attacked as Russia's interests would be very adversely effected.

Sadly, I know some people who think that the war in Iraq has something to do with defense and retaliation since Hussein tried to kill former President George H.W. Bush. They admit that they don't even care if Saddam Hussein was never involved with Osama bin Laden.

Hey folks

It's good to see people here making a lot of sense.

I wish this was the concensus of the Libertarian Party five years ago.

Had that been the case, and had LP members and candidates sounded like this ever since Dubai-ya brought down the towers, I believe we would have been a lot further along as a political movement and party right now.

And don't forget the video

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/the-us-war-crime-family-commission/

Let me see.

List of U.S. biggest enemies according to region:

In Asia - North Korea, maybe China.

In the Middle East - just about everybody.

In Africa - Libya.

In Latin America - Cuba, Venezuela, and several other countries.

In Eurasia, Russia.

In North America, ourselves.

Ok, most seem to agree Iraq stratagy is a mess and success is more to our national interest than failure. Serious people want to succeed so we debate about what is a winning stratagy. Am I wrong?

Jake -

Success does not come in the form of more U.S. troops being killed by insurgents in Iraq where our troops are forced to fight for reasons that have nothing to do with defense and retaliation.

Instead, we should let the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq kill each other, pull our troops out of Iraq, and use our special ops forces to focus only on killing al-Qaeda terrorists.

I believe the usa will make the same mistakes it made in veitnam in Iraq. The people of the usa are kind ,but their president is bad for them and dangerous to the whole world.War will not achieve what justice and diplomacy cannot.communication is our greatest problem.lets talk.

until you solve the problem of the MIC like Eisenhower warned us about, we'll keep having these pointless wars.

I agree with most of the enemies by region, except China. Most of their population is employed making products that Americans purchase. They would lose out big if we were against them. There are billions of other poor people in the world to make our stuff. If China were our enemy they would lose out more than us. That, I think, is the only reason they have not attacked Taiwan.

On the Iraq issue, I don't see how it benefits the People of the United States at all to be fighting there any more. It costs too much in lives, money, and relations. Even if the MIC feels they need wars to profit from, we have myriad other countries plus independent terrorists that are hostile and it is only a matter of time before someone in an important position does something stupid, like say move a bunch of carriers to Iran's front door.

Stan,

Very good! You stayed on point with a serious comment! Withdrawal from the hot zones to defensive enclaves would be a change in tatics and maybe critics would even call that a change in stratagy. The indiginous gogernment then deals with the Sunni on Shia violence, criminal element, the anti government insurgents and foreign fighters stiring the pot. Our exposed supply lines require force protection but maybe our forces could attempt to reduce the flow of men, money and arms from Iran. We could open regional talks and offer Iran and Seria something to stop supporting their interests in a theoracratic government in Iraq.

There must be a flaw in the stratagy or surely we would be doing that.

Mark,

It is not reasonable to judge a cold war peroid foreign policy, IE: Promote the Shaw of Iran, inorder to block the Soviets expansion south. No one can forecast what, "would have been:, if we had not done so.

The mullas, the power in Iran, are driven by a religious duty to spread their form of Islam by any means necessary. First to replace existing middle east governments with Islamic theocracies with the rest of the world to follow using their oil wealth.

Al Quida's goals differ little, just decided to attack the far enemy first - America -

And no I can't forecast what will happen if we oppose that expansion or if we do not. The decision makers do their best and deals with the unexpected and unintended consequences when they surface.

Actually I have no problum with the spread of Islam, just the force of arms part.

Stan,

It is well known that Saddam provided guns and money to known terrorists. Whether he provided material aid specifically to al Qaida is debatable.

Linkage of our foreign policy to the domestic policy of foreign governments is what helped bring down the Soviet regime. Trade embargoes do not empower dictators. Dissidents within the country will always realize that another country is punishing their oppressive dictator, and will (perhaps surprisingly to most) side with the country imposing the sanctions. I know how difficult that is to understand for someone who doesn't know what life is like in such a country.

Saddam Hussein took plenty of actions to keep Iraqis from receiving medicine, food, and other supplies. Like diverting money from the UN's Oil For Food program. And however much trade we did with Saddam, it would not have affected how much of the profits his people saw. His government was free to decide how much went to the people. Supporting such a madman will never be in our interest.

Dealing with dictatorships is summarily different from dealing with democracies. A dictator will usually bite the hand that feeds him. It is necessary for his survival, because he is always striving to keep the number of dissidents low. This can be done by depriving people of food, medicine, weapons, etc. (to keep them physically unable to fight the government); by uniting them against a common enemy; or both. Saddam did both. Castro does both. Chavez will soon do both.

A country run by a dictator interested only in self-preservation is going to be likely to start wars, fund terrorism, and be a general nuisance to the world. Saddam did all three. So did Castro. So has Chavez. So have countless others. Is this the kind of behavior we want to fuel by doing business with these savages? Everybody benefits from capitalism within a free society. Giving money to a dictator is likely to result in that dictator buying a gun and pointing it directly at us.

JJ,
Your point about dictators is well taken, but you must remember that American politicians supported some of them. Our government supported Saddam in the past. We provided him weapons. (A point was made about the Shah of Iran earlier in the thread so I will not rehash.) We, as a country, should demand that our government stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. The US/ Middle East problems go way back and our country had a hand in creating those problems.

You do not spread freedom from the end of a gun and you certainly don't spread it by cherry picking the rulers of other nations. You spread freedom by being a shining example. You spread freedom through discussion. Sadly, America has forgotten that bit of our founders' wisdom.

JJ -

The Soviet Union collapsed due to the following reasons:

1) The Soviet government was too big to due to its insanely-huge welfare state and military establishment, and the amount of money that they set aside for their allies in the form of foreign aid. Not surprisingly, the amount of money that was used to pay for such an establishment was outrageous.

2) The Soviet economy was over-regulated and nationalized. In addition, the people were overtaxed.

3) The Soviet Union spread themselves too thin through the measures they had taken (listed in reason #1).

4) Political unrest in the Soviet republics due to the aforementioned measures. The unrest had reached a point where the republics began to secede and the Supreme Soviet decided to dissolve itself.

Therefore, the United States really had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. Instead, it was the Soviet Union who set their own death trap for the reasons listed above.

JJ -

I seriously doubt that Saddam Hussein provided any money and weapons to Islamic fundamentalists (especially al-Qaeda) since they had tried to kill him on several occasions. Not surprisingly, he tried to have them killed.

Now if you mean that Saddam Hussein had given money to Hamas or other Arab nationalist terrorist groups, then that's debatable. Even if he did, send money and weapons to Arab nationalist terrorist groups, that still would not matter since it was the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group, al-Qaeda, that attacked us on Septemeber 11, 2001.

In addition, Saddam Hussein was most concerned about Islamic fundamentalists (especially al-Qaeda) trying to kill him. Therefore, it would be moronic for Saddam Hussein to form an alliance with Osama bin Laden.

JJ -

Anybody who is starving to death or is suffering from any lack of supplies entering their country will not support their own government or the government that imposed an embargo on them. They often blame both governments for allowing this situation to occur.

JJ -

Since dictators like Saddam Hussein are interested in self-preservation (like you said), there is no way that he would align himself with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists (especially Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda).

Stan; There are numerous statements during Saddam's trial, documents which have been recovered and translated, and public records from Iraqi businesses which attest to the fact that Saddam supported Osama. The probability that Saddam would have used his considerable resources to help Osama and other islamic extremist organizations to attack the west, is in my never to be humble opinion, very high. Remember, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Ameirca uses it via the Iraq/Iran war. I use it, when someone whom I might be competing against is supporting something I support, I support my competitor. It is human nature. Take a good look, even you do it.

Can a good Libertarian support President Bush and his use of the military in Iraq? Yes! America is not in a war with Iraq, the world is involved in a war with religious extremists. Several hundred years ago it was people who called themselves "christians" who tried to spread "christianity" through the use of military might (we call it "the crusades"), around the world. Today, it is religious leaders who call themselves "muslims". We cannot allow these extremists to gain control of more financial resources to use to spread their hatred. I believe that by right to search diligently for the truth and to live that truth as it is revealed to me to be the most precious possession I have. I will support every effort to make sure anyone who wants to take that freedom away from me will either kill me or die. That is the greatest gift I can give my great great great grandchildren.

golferhal -

Any who claims to call themselves a libertarian while supporting the war in Iraq is actually violating the principles of libertarianism itself. Besides, an overwhelming percentage of libertarians oppose big government at home AND abroad. By contrast, you oppose big government (only at home), but you support big government abroad (through a meddlesome foreign policy).
--------------------------------------------------
There is no way that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were ever aligned with each other. Even the C.I.A. has stated that they were bitter rivals who have tried to kill each other. Saddam Hussein was a secular Arab nationalist (who only paid lip service to Islam), while Osama bin Laden is a devout Islamic fundamentalist who actually went to the monarchy of Saudi Arabia and offered them the services of his Afghan Arabs in order to repel any possible Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi monarchy turned him down and enlisted the services of the U.S. military.

Even if Saddam Hussein thought about forming an alliance with bin Laden, he would have gone against it simply because he knew that bin Laden hated Hussein for his secular Arab nationalism and bin Laden would have killed him for it if he had the chance. Likewise, Hussein hated bin Laden for his Islamic fundamentalist beliefs and would have killed bin Laden if he had the chance.

Stan,

For one to claim that 40 or so years of superpower competation had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet system would be to ignore history.

One example: When Gorborchef spoke of Reagans' proposed space based ABM shield and offer to share the technology, there was near panic in his voice. No longer could they afford to compete and build it! The political and economic pressures forced system changes but when he attempted major changes, it just fell apart.

Stan; One of the characteristics of a libertarian is tolerance. I have stated the history which brings me to my conclusion, you have resorted to name calling. I WIN!

Marc; you suggest that Bush wants a wider war. The war is world wide, we have islamic extremists fighting in Somalia, England, Spain, Philapines, Indonesia and right here in the United States of America. We do not have a war in Iraq!! We have a world war going on with major military conflicts going on in all of those places. Bush cannot make it wider unless he tries to expand it to Mars.

Stan; The Soviet Union collapsed for exactly the reasons you stated. The question now is how did those conditions arise? Did Pope Johns constant critisism of communism have any effect on the people? Did Reagan's constant military challenge supported vociferously by Margaret Thatcher cause any of their military expenditure. Did any of the economic sanctions imposed by the EEU proposed by Ms Thatcher have any effect. Did the communist leaders just do all of these things you site in a vacumn? You need to make sure when you receive information you ask: who, what, when, and why. Ronald Reagan leading Margaret Thatcher and Pope John brought down the Soviet Union.

Mr Gordon; In my never to be humble opinion we are already engaged in WWIII. We have military conflicts going on in Somalia, The Philipines, Indonesia, England, Spain, Israel and now it appears even in Brazil. Therefore we cannot expand into Iran. We have financial conflicts, political conflicts and environmental conflicts already in Iran. All of these efforts are part of the WAR. If we have to add military into that country I don't see that as expanding the war. The war is already going on.

If our government could, in any way, tie Hussein to bin Laden at this point in time they would gladly jump at the chance. It would insure the American public's backing of further war efforts in Iraq which have waned significantly since it became common knowledge that Bush lied through his teeth about the whole thing. Tying Hussein to bin Laden would do wonders for the Republicans right now. But alas, nothing.

Stan at January 29, 2007 12:38 PM

Non-interventionist foreign policy is a libertarian principal and when we support government that intervenes in another we agree that is a violation of principal.

Stan, you seen like a logical guy with a firm grip on your emotions so a reasoned exchange may be actually possible. If you are willing to take the time, I have a question?

Opposing ideologies confronted free societies in the last century. German National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Japanese Imperialism, and Soviets' Communism. The U.S. and with others, opposed these "isums" by economic, diplomatic and military means. In this century the western ideologies are confronted by another, we call Radical Islam. Surely you are aware of plans for Western civilization and means to achieve them. New form of warfare calls for new set of rules but we are still in the debating stage.

Question: If western governments fail to influence the outcomes in the conflict region, how, when, and why would that protect our political and economic system with its associated freedoms?

golferhal -

"The Soviet Union collapsed for exactly the reasons you stated. The question now is how did those conditions arise?" -
These policies of the Soviet Union began from the very moment that the Soviet Union was established. Their communist experiment was doomed from the beginning and only got worse due to their insistence on maintaining a big government that included a nationalized economy, a massive welfare state, and an enormous military establishment.
It also didn't help that their military and police were the same thing, and imprisoned and tortured and executed those who dissented from Soviet policies.
In addition, it didn't help that they ran roughshod over the Soviet republics, thereby causing the political unrest that eventually erupted and contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Later on, the Soviet Union further hurt themselves by sending foreign aid to other countries. Their resources were spread so thin that it's a wonder that they lasted as long as they did. In fact, the United States contributed to the prolonged existence of the Soviet Union by providing foreign aid itself to nations that aligned itself with the Western bloc. If the U.S. did not give foreign aid or form alliances with other countries, then the Soviet Union would be allowed to give more foreign aid to more countries. This, in turn, would have spread the Soviets even thinner throughout the world. This, in turn, would have sped up the collapse of the Soviet Union.
When you combine these factors, it is clear to see that the Soviet Union had dug its own grave.

"Did Pope Johns constant critisism of communism have any effect on the people?" -
Pope John Paul II could have criticized communism until he was blue in the face. It still didn't have an effect on the Soviet Union since the Soviet Union was already on life support (and eventually, thankfully died) due to the aforementioned measures.

"Did Reagan's constant military challenge supported vociferously by Margaret Thatcher cause any of their military expenditure." -
Not at all. In fact, the "strength" of the Soviet Union was greatly exaggerated. In fact, the U.S. government made the Soviet Union look two times stronger than it really was in terms of its economy and military.

"Did any of the economic sanctions imposed by the EEU proposed by Ms Thatcher have any effect." -
See previous answer.

"Did the communist leaders just do all of these things you site in a vacumn?" -
See my answer to the first question.

Jake -

"For one to claim that 40 or so years of superpower competation had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet system would be to ignore history." -
I have not ignored history at all. I made my points clearly. All the competition in the world could not have hurt the Soviets any more than the pain that the Soviet Union inflicted on itself. How many times can one country shoot itself in the foot before bleeding to death?
--------------------------------------------------
Jake -

"One example: When Gorborchef spoke of Reagans' proposed space based ABM shield and offer to share the technology, there was near panic in his voice. No longer could they afford to compete and build it! The political and economic pressures forced system changes but when he attempted major changes, it just fell apart." -
The reason why Gorbachev and the Soviet Union could not compete was due to the aforementioned policies of the Soviet Union, which spread itself so thin, that they were doomed to collapse.
--------------------------------------------------
golferhal -

"Stan; One of the characteristics of a libertarian is tolerance. I have stated the history which brings me to my conclusion, you have resorted to name calling. I WIN!" -
I didn't use any real name-calling. I used history to make my points to bring me to my conclusion. Now, if you want say that I went overboard in questioning your libertarian credentials, fine. I'll say this though, unlike the overwhelming majority of libertarians, you support a more adventurous foreign policy.
Now, if you want to brag about how tolerant you are, go ahead. But keep in mind that people who have disagreed with me have often lacked any tolerance or respect for my views (and, in fact, acted in a condescending manner toward me) in much the same way that you and I have displayed for each others points.

I do appreciate that Stephan Gordon posted the WaPo article without commentary, asking for feedback.

Too often, the debate is framed in terms of evil interventionist Bush and his Zionist buddies, vs. virtuous libertarians who will solve the world's problems by waving allegedly libertarian principles.

What would a libertarian government look like?
It would protect life, liberty, and rightfully
acquired property; financed by subscription.
But if the second were implemented,
the first would be superflous, because people
should have the right to whatever government they
wish, so long as they don't initiate force against others.

Regretably, we don't have such a government today.
We are taxed and government violates rights. Yet
the legitimate purposes of government still
remain. Whether or not we have enemies who
threaten our way of life, is a factual question
that cannot be determined "a priori".

To "intervene" means to get in between two
disputing parties. In a sense, the toppling of
Saddam was an intervention, because it did
protect Iraqis from his mass-murderous rule. But
then, every time government captures domestic
murderers, rapists, and robbers, those are also
interventions. Any use of force to mediate a
dispute is an intervention.

Not all government actions are interventions;
e.g. a person may be prosecuted for mere
possession of drugs, without any intent to sell
to another.

"intervention" is not necessarily unjust,
and some non-interventions are unjust.
Therefore, non-interventionism isn't the same
thing as non-initiation-of-force. The confusion
in terms has many thinking their dovishness gives
them moral superiority and proves their
libertarian-ness. The truth is, non
interventionists and libertarians are two
different groups, that overlap but do not
coincide 100% with each another.

Please, join our discussions at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightforliberty/

Ciao!
Kevin

Stan; If I understand your position, the Soviet Union sent foriegn aid to other countries purely from their own benevolence. They did not need to send aid in order to maintain allies they just did it out of their generosity. Did the Soviet Union invest in their military just for sport? Did the Soviet Union have any motivation to spread communism? Did this motivation cause them to over commit themselves? The Pope exposing the citizens of the satelite nations had no effect on educating people; or is it education of the citizenry has no effect on their political status? I am sorry Stan but I can find zero logic to your process. I believe people exposed to ideas and freedom help suppress oppression and ignorance. Communism is still a very large part of the world economy. But as people are exposed to capitalism and freedom, communism is reduced. The Soviet Union's collapse was hastened considerably by the work of President Ronald Reagan, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul. God praise the greatest President of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan.

golferhal -

No. The Soviet Union did not send foreign aid out of their own benevolence. They did so with the hope of securing alliances.
I could understand if they only kept the military in their own country and solely defended the country. Unfortunately, they also sent military technology to their allies and wanted to spread a communist revolution (eerily similar to the Shrub wanting to spread a democratic revolution at gunpoint).

(sarcasm) Alot of good that did for them!

I don't appreciate the fact that you want to twist my words around. What makes you any different from the overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats?

golferhal!

I share your support for Reagan, as the right man for that time in history. The nation was really in a funk, so to speak.

Stan,

I think your position is the Soviets would have fallen as a result of the failures in its system completely independent of outside pressures from the free world.

Seems that's your story and you'r sticking to it! Actually if one believes there was an inherent flaw in the system, that could be correct but I suggest that today we would still be looking across the divide at a militant, expansionest, Soviet Union.

We can speculate but of course no one knows!

Reagan was a scumbag.

Iran is leaving little choice but war. Some of the fruitcakes round here seem to have gone deaf to what Iranian leaders themselves are proclaiming, and have been saying for years. And Iran's 'actions' certainly look as if they are gearing up for war(s), and was never based on anything the US did or didn't do. If libertarians favor a nuclear armed iran, which would have directly led to a nuclear armed hussein, had he not been taken out, and an arms race in the heart of islamic radicalism, then you do not deserve the air you breath.
wake up knuckleheads. your children's lives depend on stopping these threats now, or struggling thru them later. you're disagreement on one war doesn't make another one undoable.

Stan,

From what you said it seems you believe if our government followed a non interventionests foreign policy we would be better off. If you truly believe that please anunciate.

If western governments do not influence the outcome in the conflict region, how, when, and why would that protect our political and economic system with its associated freedoms?

paulie,

please advertise your site somewhere else!

Damon,

Unlike you some people depend on how they feel about a problum before deciding what to do about it. These people scare me because they don't inform themseves about the world and can vote.

Something I do worry about is, a homicide bomber attack in of the our shopping Malls, and or a major attack and loss of life. The public demand public would make on the federal governement to protect them could a serious loss of freedoms.

There are just too many that fail to understand the value of an offensive anti- terroists policy. It is those same people that will be the loudest in their acusations and demands.

It is not the U.S.'s place to influence policy one inch beyond its own territorial limits. The U.S. must observe the absolute sovereignty of foreign states, no matter how much we dislike their government.

The best way to protect the homeland is to keep all our troops and all our money and resources within the United States. We can best protect ourselves sitting on our own home turf, and at the same time we won't be irritating foreign radicals into attacking us in the first place. With just a small fraction of the money we have squandered on this war we could improve our intelligence gathering, install radiation detectors and keep people along the border to stop terrorists from crossing in. War on the other hand merely wastes resources and indeed makes us far less safe.

Damon -

The C.I.A. has stated that Iran won't even have the capability of building nuclear weapons for another ten years. And even if they do gain nukes one day, they would still have to contend with other countries in the Middle East, namely Israel. Besides, Israel has a large arsenal of nuclear weapons (between 200-500 bombs).

Jake -

If we had followed a strict non-interventionist foreign policy from the 1840s in the United States to the present, we would not have been
involved in so many needless wars, with so many soldiers dying in vain. And, we would not be in the troubles that we have endured because of meddlesome foreign policy.

The last legitimate war that the United States was involved in was the War of 1812.

Stan,

Why was the War of 1812 legitimate and not WWI, WWII,or the cold war with the Soviets? Is it that there was no threat to U.S. interests both at home and overseas?

The War of 1812 was legitimate, other than the invasion of Canada, which was not legitimate.

The U.S. had absolutely no reason to enter WWI. Had we not intervened, it is likely that the war would have ended in a stalemate. There would have been no punitive Treaty of Versailles. The conditions that led to the rise of Nazism likely would not have happened. It is very likely that the Germans would have wiped out the communist revolution in Russia before it had a chance to take root. Our intervention in WWI had a large role bringing about both communism and WWII. Interventionism breeds more trouble than it solves.

I'm amazed at the amount of speculation I've seen spouted here. I have direct knowledge of dissidents in Cuba supporting America's embargo; the end of American aid (driven by Reagan) helping to bring down the Soviet Union (without which they were even less able to keep paying their enormous bills); and of Saddam Hussein providing material aid to terrorist groups (I did mention that whether he supported al Qaeda is debatable). Saddam had plenty of reasons to support several terrorist groups and did, as evidenced by the numerous weapons caches found in Karbala, Mosul, and other areas.

Dictators should never be coddled by free nations. Do you realize that the hatred of Western civilization coming from the Middle East is fueled completely by their power-hungry dictators, and not by our past or present actions? Any diplomacy, aid, or trade afforded these vicious tyrants only serves to legitimize them, fuel their peoples' hatred toward us, and support their oppression.

Our previous support to Saddam, Arafat, bin Laden, and others has only hurt us. And that direct foreign aid is no different from the act of buying gas at a Citgo station and supporting what is in the midst of becoming the new USSR, South America.

The very act of attempting to enjoy capitalism with totalitarian nations undermines the very intent of capitalism.

Mark B.,

Help me out here.

We agree WWI & WWII were costly, changed the borders and ideologies of nations. And we agree the law of unintended consequences is still in effect.

I just don't understand why you think watching events unfold without trying to influence the outcome would obtain a better result.

Trying to influence events that effect us is what we all do every day in our personal lives. Surely you try to influence events to achieve a desired result in your life

Stan,

If nations execute politics by other means, when have negoiations failed and the forecast of events is unacceptable, what was unacceptable that led to the war of 1812 that made the fight legitimate?

The question was what made the war legitimate?

Jake -

Mark B. was 100% right about World Wars I and II. These eventually led to U.S. unnecessary involvement in Korea and Vietnam, and other conflicts thereafter.

The War of 1812 was legitimate since Britain had interfered with our ability to conduct international trade; hijacked American commercial ships, kidnapped crew members, and drafted them into the British navy; imposed a trade embargo on the U.S.; and sent their military to invade the states. The only unjust act by the U.S. during the war was its attempt to invade and occupy Canada.

We never should have gone to war with Mexico. I can understand the U.S. desire to expand westward. However, it should have been done solely through a purchase. Besides, the U.S. an emerging nation that was accumulating wealth and looking to expand westward, while Mexico was deeply in debt and desperately looking for cash. A land purchase between the two countries should have been conducted instead.

The U.S. government should never have tried to forcibly annex the Confederate States of America back into the union or gone to war with them when the southern states had every right to secede from the union.

We also never should have been involved in the 1898 war with Spain. The Spanish did not attack the U.S.S. Maine. Instead, it was gun powder on the Maine that was accidentally ignited that led to its sinking. Of course, the U.S. government looked for a perfect scapegoat, and Spain fit the role nicely. We "liberated" all of Spain's colonies only to occupy them, including the Philippines (with whom we were at war from 1899-the 1910s).

JJ,

Reagan was right for the time. He entered office with three major goals. Later about that Reagan said, "Two out of three ain't bad!"

The fall of the Soviet Union was due to many many factors, all of which include spreading themselves too thin (we are doing that now), dissent from republics within the Soviet Union (we are doing that now state by state), influence from other countries and political/religious leaders to the people in the Soviet bloc (our bloc has historically been Latin America and Western Europe and we know how they are sketchy toward us right now), the costly war in Afghanistan (Iraq in our case), and a seriously flawed economy (gee, who here thinks our economy is headed in the right direction?)

The Roman Empire (roads from colonies), The Holy Roman Empire (Protestantism), the British Empire (wars and spreading too thin), The Soviet sphere of influence (economics, really that's the jist of it), the U.S. Empire? Well, for anyone to think it will last with anything other than freedom for all people in this country and for it's People to decide that our leadership sucketh royally and finally choose Liberty on election day it will not be long. Not long at all, before we are sent packing with our collective tail between our legs.

To all of the non-interventionists; Are we allowed to defend ourselves only on our property or can we, like we did in WWII go out and capture foriegn land (Wake Is, Philipines, Guadacanal, Italy, No. Africa etc..? I believe that we are being attacked by islamic extremists. Not just the USA, but all of the Judeo/Christian world. They are attacking us in Somalia, Iraq, England, Philipines, Indonesia, and even here in America. As a supporter of Andre Moreau, I believe in the principles of small government, not weak government. The federal governments primary responsibility is to protect it's citizens. The world has established a system of diplomacy that allows all of us to travel with the assumption of resonable safty, relative to where we are traveling.

50+ years ago we developed a weapon so powerful that it hopefully will never be used again, but there are religious zealots that do not share that idea. That means we need to assist all of the free (countries of a Judeo/Christian culture) world countries in protecting our culture.

In my life I have seen that the motivation to help someone who is trying to defeat one of my enemies, over rides my fear of them. The idea that Saddam would not help islamic extremists to fight the west is totally unbelievable. He not only would, according to documents which have been uncovered in Iraq, he did.

If you want to percieve the US as invading Iraq in attempt to conquer it, then that is your perception, but in my never to be humble opinion you are wrong.

One other item, what is a soveriegn nation? Is a military dictatorship a legitimate soveriegn nation? Is a government that stays in power by force a legitimate soveriegn nation? Just remember, that your answer is not a world wide answer.

"To all of the non-interventionists; Are we allowed to defend ourselves only on our property or can we, like we did in WWII go out and capture foriegn land (Wake Is, Philipines, Guadacanal, Italy, No. Africa etc..?" -
We should only defend ourselves on our turf and in our waters and airspace. At the same time, we should only send special ops forces to put only al-Qaeda cells out of commission.

"I believe that we are being attacked by islamic extremists. Not just the USA, but all of the Judeo/Christian world. They are attacking us in Somalia, Iraq, England, Philipines, Indonesia, and even here in America." -
I couldn't give a damn if they attack other countries. It's the job of those other countries to protect themselves. Likewise, it's our job to only protect ourselves.

"As a supporter of Andre Moreau, I believe in the principles of small government, not weak government." -

"The federal governments primary responsibility is to protect it's citizens. The world has established a system of diplomacy that allows all of us to travel with the assumption of resonable safty, relative to where we are traveling." -
Woodrow Wilson didn't take any real action to protect Americans. In fact, he allowed Americans to go on board the British R.M.S. Lusitania despite the fact that his Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan informed him of a stern warning issued by the German Embassy which stated:
"NOTICE!
TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY,
Washington, D.C. April 22, 1915

This was a perfect example of how low Woodrow Wilson was. He didn't give a damn about those American s on board. In fact, he told them to disregard the warnings of the German embassy and even encouraged them to go on the ship.

I would also like to add that "U.S. Senator Wesley Jones of Washington implored the President "to be careful, to proceed slowly, to make no harsh or arbitrary demands, to keep in view the rights of 99,990,000 people at home rather than of the 1,000 reckless, inconsiderate, and unpatriotic citizens who insist on going aboard belligerent ships." - The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, pgs. 118-119.
U.S. Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin expressed that it wasn't asking too much of citizens to avoid traveling aboard armed belligerent ships. - same book, pg. 119

By the way, the R.M.S. Lusitania carried large amounts of munitions to Britain. Also, the British often antagonized the Germans by having its ships fly the flags of neutral countries only to lure German U-boats to the surface and sink them. Germany responded in retaliation for such attacks by initiating unrestricted submarine warfare. Also, the British imposed a naval blockade on Germany that prevented the shipment of food from entering Germany, for the sake of starving German civilians. Frankly, I would not have shed a tear if Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire achieved victory in World War I over Britain, France, and Italy.

--------------------------------------------------

I find it amazing how condescending you interventionists are towards those who oppose a meddlesome foreign policy, and even question the patriotism of non-interventionists. A perfect example of that is the 2003 issue of National Review which contained the infamous cover: "Unpatriotic Conservatives". In that issue, David Frum (a native-born Canadian neocon who hates Canada) had the audacity to question the patriotism of true American traditionalist conservatives. David Frum is the last guy who should question anybody's patriotism.

golferhal -

If you believe that Saddam Hussein worked with Osama bin Laden and other Islamic fundamentalists, than I own a bridge that I want to sell to you for pennies on the dollar.

"As a supporter of Andre Moreau, I believe in the principles of small government, not weak government." -
It seems to me that you support a big and meddlesome U.S. government abroad.

By the way, who the hell is David Frum to question the patriotism of anti-war conservatives and anti-war libertarians and denounce them as traitors?

Once again, the U.S. should have stayed out of war with Mexico, the Confederate States of America, and the Spanish Empire. It also should have satyed out of WW1, WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and all other conflicts.

I was wrong for saying that I couldn't give a damn about what happened to other countries. However, I still stand by the fact that other countries should be responsible for their own defense, and the fact that we should stay out of wars that have nothing to do with the defense of the United States or an attack on U.S. soil.

Stan,,

There is no direct connection between Osama bin Laden guys and Seconomic dependence on the institution of slavery.addam Hussians' that I know of.

One would think 9/11 attacks demonstrated it is utterly impractical to isolate the nation. We don't even manage traffic across our borders.

Stan,

Lets try that again.

There is no connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden that I know of.

One would think the 9/11 attacks demonstrated it is utterly impractical to isolate the nation. We don't even manage traffic across our borders.

There that is better!

Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were bitter enemies who tried to kill each other several times.

The U.S. government should only have sent special ops forces to attack only al-Qaeda cells.

Stan,

As I understand your War of 1812 example of a just war, that would be in response to an attack or forceable interference with international trade, or maybe even kidnaping of US citizens.

Not a pre-emptive strike to stop a precieved or forecast attack. About right?

I won't question anybody's patriotism, just their common sense.
It is naive to think that we can sit back within our borders and ignore the world and the world will ignore us. This was US policy from WWI to WWII. We were still attacked.
One thing for Libertarians concerned about the Patriot Act to consider is that fighting this war completely within our own borders will make that act seem benevolent. Not only that but many of you also seem to be in favor of completely open borders. How do you propose to prevent terrorist attacks?
Trust me, if there is another 9/11 people will be even more willing to give up rights for security. Of course there is little that can be done to stop a suicide bomber. Except to keep him/her away from their target.
This means either police state actions here at home, ironclad border/immigration control or attacking the sources of the suicide bombers.
I know none of these solutions sounds good to you, but you must make a choice. I am not joining any sort of suicide pact.
Saddam is not directly linked to 9/11 - granted. However he was: offering cash money to the families of suicide bombers, funding terrorist groups, assisting in the training of terrorists, allowing them to train on his soil and used chemical/biological weapons on his own people. Not only that but his actions during the late Clinton years and pre-invasion Bush years certainly indicated to the rest of the world that he was continuing his WMD program. Every country believed he had them (Even France).
Maybe the US shouldn't have supported certain regimes during the Cold War (Shah, etc.). But hindsight is 20/20. We made decisions in fighting the greater evil that threatened to take over the world - Communism. If anybody doubts that this was their goal you only have to read their own literature.
Regardless the question still remains - what do we do now?
From you non-interventionists (I would say pacifists) what do you propose other than burying our heads in the sand?

Nick,

The Dow Jones set yet another all time high last week and is up to 12,510 near the close today.

Unemployment fell to 4.3 percent even under the job market pressure of 11 to 15 million illegal aliens, employed or seeking work and competition from digital workers from China and India. While Germany, France, and Britian unemployment remains in double digits.

Home construction has been in the most rapid expansion of the decade and resale of existing homes topped an all time record last and fell only 8% this year from last.

Inflation is less than annual 2.3% and interest rates are at a 30 year low.

Tax revenues have set an all time record even with tax reductions.

Nick, If you know some not doing well, maybe you might advise them to reacess what they offer employers or move to another part of the country where market is booming.

John Brandimore -

"I won't question anybody's patriotism, just their common sense. -
It is naive to think that we can sit back within our borders and ignore the world and the world will ignore us. This was US policy from WWI to WWII. We were still attacked." -
FDR provoked Japan into attacking us by doing the following:
(a) He ordered the Japanese government to pull their military out of Manchuria and the rest of China.
(b) He imposed a trade embargo on Japan. This is known by anybody with a brain as an act of war.
(c) He froze Japan's economic assets in the U.S. Again, this is known by anybody with a brain as an act of war.
(d) He moved the Pacific Fleet from California to Hawaii. The Japanese government interpreted this as a possible U.S. attack on Japan. Therefore, Japan launched a pre-emptive strike.
You are the one who is ignorant here.

"One thing for Libertarians concerned about the Patriot Act to consider is that fighting this war completely within our own borders will make that act seem benevolent. Not only that but many of you also seem to be in favor of completely open borders. How do you propose to prevent terrorist attacks?" -
There should be only a few immigration restrictions:
(a) Provide the proper documents.
(b) Don't have a criminal history.
(c) Don't be a risk to public health or national security.

"Trust me, if there is another 9/11 people will be even more willing to give up rights for security. Of course there is little that can be done to stop a suicide bomber. Except to keep him/her away from their target." -
Anybody who would give up liberty for the sake of security deserves neither.

"This means either police state actions here at home, ironclad border/immigration control or attacking the sources of the suicide bombers.
I know none of these solutions sounds good to you, but you must make a choice. I am not joining any sort of suicide pact." -
No, but you are willing to sign a pact in which you are relegated to slavery, even if that slavery involves Uncle Sam as your master.

"Saddam is not directly linked to 9/11 - granted. However he was: offering cash money to the families of suicide bombers, funding terrorist groups, assisting in the training of terrorists, allowing them to train on his soil and used chemical/biological weapons on his own people." -
He had those weapons until 1991. He had not used those weapons since then. And, any "weapons" that he might have had were old and useless. That's still not reason enough for the U.S. government to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
By the way, Saddam had no association with Islamic fundamentalists. He may have been involved with terrorists with a secular Arab nationalist agenda. And, Saddam literally had no control over the Kurdish north adn Shia south regions of Iraq.

"Not only that but his actions during the late Clinton years and pre-invasion Bush years certainly indicated to the rest of the world that he was continuing his WMD program. Every country believed he had them (Even France)." -
Saddam was trying to give the impression to his neighbors (especially Iran) that he had WMDs when he really had no significant weapons. By the way, every country and individual (including myself at one point) that believed he had a major or minor arsenal were 100% wrong. Thankfully, I've smartened up since then. Unfortunately, some still haven't.

"Maybe the US shouldn't have supported certain regimes during the Cold War (Shah, etc.). But hindsight is 20/20. We made decisions in fighting the greater evil that threatened to take over the world - Communism. If anybody doubts that this was their goal you only have to read their own literature." -
As evil as the Soviet Union and their communist allies were, they still were not a real threat to the U.S. except in the minds of war-mongers. In fact, the strength of the Soviet Union was exaggerated.

"Regardless the question still remains - what do we do now? From you non-interventionists (I would say pacifists) what do you propose other than burying our heads in the sand?" -
Your denouncement of non-interventionists as pacifists only reveals what an ignorant war-monger you are. You are no different from the neocons.
The only thing that the U.S. should do in fighting al-Qaeda is by using special operations forces to put al-Qaeda cells out of commission, permanently.
By the way, it is apparent that the interventionists have their heads buried up their a**es.

John Brandimore,

You are informed and not so handicapped by a principal that you can strive seek a successful strategy that may conflict with that principal. I saw nothing that questioned anyone’s patriotism. Some people get so emotional in their criticism of some government policy it sounds like they hate their country and others get annoyed at that and are offended. Admittedly there are some bomb throwers, and some loons out there but they will tell you who they when they speak up.

Stan,

You said a legitimate response to attack was force of arms and used the War of 1812 as your example. Japan attacked and Germany declared war on the US. You remind us FDR demanded Japan stop with its invasions, and refused to sell it more materials of war to get Japan to stop killing Chinese. So their attack at Pearl Harbor was legitimate response to provocative US actions.

Talking is the diplomacy liberals rave so much about, and there is nothing provocative about refusing to sell war materials. Considering the increasing hostility and agressiveness of Imperial Japan, since the letters of credit were drawn on Japanese banks, their assets were frozen as collaterial for what had already been shipped. Simple credit risk management!

When one nation invades another, the world is interested in what that may bring to their future. What Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and Facist Italy did set the world on fire. Please don't try to sell the idea they were justified because someone did not give them what they wanted.

Jake -

I'm not talking about refusing to sell weapons to other countries. I'm talking about refusing to sell oil and other American-made goods to Japan.

The only thing you have proven is that you're an apologist for FDR and his blatant act of provoking Japan into attacking the U.S.

Even if we refuse to sell things to Japan, that was no justification for them to bomb us.

Stan,

FDR needs no apology.

You just said because the U.S. refused to sell goods to Imperial Japan the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified.

Do you really want to say that?

Stan,

I said nothing about weapon sales.

Guess you didn't know it, but to resource poor Imperial Japan, scrap metal, and crude oil from the US was critical to their war machine.

Yes, scrap metal! One of the last US flag ships to unload scrap metal was in Yakuska harbor when the attack on Pearl Harbor began.

I am going to reply to other comments later, but to reply to one right now, to wit, "FDR needs no apology."

Putting aside any references to Pearl Harbor for the moment. FDR blatently expanded the Presidency, rammed the modern welfare state down America's throat. His moronic conduct of the nation caused an already bad depression to worsen and lengthen. He blatently tried to seize power by packing the Supreme Court. As a President, only "butchering Abe" ranks higher than him on the infamy scale.

My only regret in the matter is the polio didn't kill him outright, thus sparing our nation from his disastrous socialist presidency. FDR was the second biggest scumbag in the history of our nation.

Oh, and FDR and his accomplices knew to the exact minute when Pearl Harbor was going to occur. That is why the Aircraft Carriers were conveniently out at sea while the rest of the fleet, all of which were obsolete vessels, were left in the harbor, along with their crews, as sacrificial pigs to FDR war lust. The U.S. had broken Japan's Imperial code long before. They knew damn well what was going to happen. A simple warning would have gotten our planes in the air and likely minimized damage. But Roosevelt needed a catastrophe to get his desired war.

Mark B. -

Thank you for understanding and getting it right.

"A dictatorship like Iran's will always need an enemy. It will use the slightest foreign policy initiative by any country (e.g. the US) as a provocation, and use that to incite its people and unite them against this common enemy. Dictatorships do this to ameliorate dissent within their country and thus avoid being overthrown by people"

Switch Iran and US around in that, and you're right.

"There is no way that Iraq will be a truly representative democracy/republic."

A democratic Iraq would just be a theocracy.

The war there is evil, to promote imperialism and line the pockets of certain regime partner corporations (e.g., munitions, reconstruction and petroleum). War is a racket.

Blowback is a plus, because it justifies more wars. Some blowback is direct, like terrorist attacks, the rest comes in the form of Ex-GIs traumatized by their war experiences, the future generations of brutal cops and prison guards, violent gang members, mentally ill, homeless, wife beaters, etc.

But that all feeds the police-prison-industrial complex, and fear of crime, just like fear of terrorism, is another justification used to keep incraesing the power of the state at our expense.

'Ok, most seem to agree Iraq stratagy is a mess and success is more to our national interest than failure."

Real success would be if we could end imperialism and get the US regime to bring the troops home now.

Paulie Cannoli -

Thank you.

'until you solve the problem of the MIC like Eisenhower warned us about, we'll keep having these pointless wars."

Correct.

Jake,

Our economy would do a thousand times better without our government being involved in regulating everything from bread to bullets and if not for the oppressive excessive taxation we would be so much better off. They just keep adding to their power through taxation. And the Fed isn't doing us any favors. Our economy is stronger than many in spite of our government, but it won't last if they keep up their harmful actions towards employers and employees.

"This can be done by depriving people of food, medicine, weapons, etc. (to keep them physically unable to fight the government); by uniting them against a common enemy; or both. Saddam did both."

Actually that's what the US regime did in Iraq. First the first thing and then the other. Saddam allowed private gun ownership, it was only after he was deposed that civilian disarmament efforts happened in Iraq.

And the situation with food and medicine there was good until the invasions and embargoes, ever since 1991 by the Americans, which have so far resulted in the genocide of 2 million Iraqis, far more than Saddam ever killed. Another things is that the ones he did kill was mostly while he was a US ally, plus some more after the US regime incited some of his subjects to revolt and then did not back them up.

'Even if he did, send money and weapons to Arab nationalist terrorist groups, that still would not matter since it was the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group, al-Qaeda, that attacked us on Septemeber 11, 2001."

Al-CIA-duh

"Can a good Libertarian support President Bush and his use of the military in Iraq?"

Of course not. That's the dumbest question I heard yet today.

"Yes! America is not in a war with Iraq, the world is involved in a war with religious extremists."

Yeah. Cryptosatanic Christian Zionists!

"Several hundred years ago it was people who called themselves "christians" who tried to spread "christianity" through the use of military might (we call it "the crusades"), around the world."

And now George W. Bush is continuing the tradition.

"Today, it is religious leaders who call themselves "muslims". We cannot allow these extremists to gain control of more financial resources to use to spread their hatred."

The biggest recruiting tool for Islamic extremists is the actions of the neo-Crusaders in the middle east. Otherwise, the vast majority of Muslims would never give them the time of day. The actions of the neo-Crusaders are intentionally calculated to extremify and radicalize the Muslim world as much as possible. The more terrorism and extremism the more money they can make through munitions, Halliburton, war booty like petroleum, and the more domestic power they get through further developing authoritarianism at home. They are manipulating both sides of a chain reaction in their own favor.

They have done it before through their not so subtle support of European fascism, Marxist socialism, and narcotics smuggling. Playing both sides of a war is smart business for those whose business is war.

"I believe that by right to search diligently for the truth and to live that truth as it is revealed to me to be the most precious possession I have."

Finally, we agree on something.

"I will support every effort to make sure anyone who wants to take that freedom away from me will either kill me or die. That is the greatest gift I can give my great great great grandchildren. "

Thenn wake up to the fact that the ones taking away our freedom are the Bush-Clinton mon family commission.

"Ronald Reagan leading Margaret Thatcher and Pope John brought down the Soviet Union."

Baloney. I lived in the Soviet Union and the Soviet System brought down the Soviet Union. It was economically untenable, and the spread of information technology such as photocopiers played a role in its demise.

The fascist economic system built on war, imperialism and the police state which being built by the Bush war crime family will also collapse.

Economic and social systems built on coercion go against human nature and will destroy themselves, like Hitler's Thousand Year Reich and all the rest. Bush-Clinton will be no different.

"These policies of the Soviet Union began from the very moment that the Soviet Union was established. Their communist experiment was doomed from the beginning and only got worse due to their insistence on maintaining a big government that included a nationalized economy, a massive welfare state, and an enormous military establishment.
It also didn't help that their military and police were the same thing, and imprisoned and tortured and executed those who dissented from Soviet policies.

In addition, it didn't help that they ran roughshod over the Soviet republics, thereby causing the political unrest that eventually erupted and contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Later on, the Soviet Union further hurt themselves by sending foreign aid to other countries. Their resources were spread so thin that it's a wonder that they lasted as long as they did. In fact, the United States contributed to the prolonged existence of the Soviet Union by providing foreign aid itself to nations that aligned itself with the Western bloc. If the U.S. did not give foreign aid or form alliances with other countries, then the Soviet Union would be allowed to give more foreign aid to more countries. This, in turn, would have spread the Soviets even thinner throughout the world. This, in turn, would have sped up the collapse of the Soviet Union.

When you combine these factors, it is clear to see that the Soviet Union had dug its own grave."

All true, and America is headed down the same path. It is reminding me of the USSR more and more all the time.

"In a sense, the toppling of
Saddam was an intervention, because it did
protect Iraqis from his mass-murderous rule."

The actions of the US regime in launching two wars and an embargo, and later occupation of Iraq, and formenting an orphaned rebellion against Saddam, have been far more mass murderous, in a shorter period of time, than Saddam ever was.

Prior to that, Saddam was - from even before he took power - a client and ally of the US regime.

In fact, up until the US-authorized invasion of Kuwait, he continued to be a US puppet/client.

The first invasion was an American double-cross, and the embargo was mass murder of a genocidal variety, which has continued under the invasion and occupation.

Saddam is dead, and the Americans have killed and continue to kill far more Iraqis than he ever did, as well as having supported him before they took the job of mass murder themselves, perhaps because he was not sufficiently efficient at it.

"Did the Soviet Union have any motivation to spread communism"

Theoretically, but the main motivation for Soviet military spending was defense.

Unlike America, Russia had been invaded and occupied many times, and millions of its citizens killed in the process. This happened again in living memory. Its rulers had orchestrated each other's killing many times, in the Czarist era as well as the Communist.

The Soviets were justifiably paranoid about Western military aims to take them down. Remember also the Russian Civil War which lasted into the mid-1920s after the Communist revolution. American and other western military aid, and actual troops, were in Russia to bring down their government.

They saw the Soviet client states mainly as a buffer against invasion.

In fact, the whole rift between Trotsky and Stalin was because Trotsky wanted to concentrate on spreading communism while Stalin wanted to consolidate a nationalistic form of socialism and totalitarian government within the Soviet Union.

You will not that from the time the USSR was consolidated until WWII he made no real expansionist moves. If the Soviets were so expansionist, wouldn't he have invaded Eastern Europe well before, say in the mid or late 1920s?

Stan- You want us to only fight if directly attacked and then only within our own borders, right?
Since we did not attack Japan how is their attack on us justified?
Why is the US to be held to such an impossibly high standard and other countries one much, much lower?
Refusing to sell goods (of any kind) is reason enough for an attack?
Under that reasoning we were more than justified in attacking Iraq since they had done far worse.
I never said Saddam was funding Islamic fundamentalists I said terrorists. Which you agreed with. I don't care if they are "Arab Nationalists" or fundamentalists. They all have the same enemies and similar goals. True Saddam probably didn't like Al Qaeda, but he funded others who were practically the same.
This war is not just about Al Qaeda. 9/11 was just the final straw. Terrorists had attacked our ships, commercial airlines, embassies, etc. at an alarmingly increasing rate before 9/11.
Not all of these attacks were Al Qaeda - they were from middle eastern terrorists.
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither" - I agree however when the next 9/11 hits watch the voters. A mother who is afraid for her children will give up freedom for security in a minute. Our TV stations will be filled with crying mothers telling us why we should vote for Patriot Act II. And the sheep will buy it.
Your stand on border security is principled (I think an erroneous principal). The problem is if we leave them alone over there they will come here. Without much more border guards, customs officials, etc. we won't be able to keep them out.
Paulie - The Russians were expansionist after WWII. Before, they were occupied with transforming their own country. The USSR's ultimate goal (according to their own documents) was to bring down the capitalist West. That means US!
I don't remember calling anyone any names unless you mean pacifist. I meant it as a descriptive term.
Because refusing to fight when someone attacks you is the sign of a pacifist. Jesus was a pacifist and I'm a Christian so I don't mean it as an insult.
I just don't think Jesus or Gandhi would be good heads of state.

Nick-
While I agree with your points that our economy would be better under libertarian true capitalism I must also agree with Jake.
Our current economy is not that bad compared with the last 70+ years of hybrid socialism and the debt that follows.

paulie, Mark, Stan,

Mark and Stan could present a more reasoned argument by following paulies’ style. In each paragraph he presents a thesis sentence followed by a response. While his selection and presentation of facts are very unevenly weighted to make a preconceived point, he seems to be a disciplined logical thinker but presents an unflattering and bigoted opinion of others. Specifically Christians, Jews and I suspect most others not of his group. Comments better left out as they make his intelligence suspect.

Conspiracies are extremely difficult to keep secret when there is a free press to shine the light on the event. More often than not, the simplest explanation is the most likely, so one shouldn’t make it too complicated unless for entertainment value. Their supporters come across as unhinged, remember Mel Gibson's character in, "Conspiracy Theory"?

One most amusing human dynamic is the behavioral change that occurs when some present their ideas in dynamic environment. Begun in a calm rational fashion, when ideas are questions or applied to unexpected situations, or some disagree with them, they grow impatient, loose control, resort to name calling and the use of excessive adjectives, as they reveal their emotional ownership of the idea, position, or truth. If there others in the room share their viewpoint they join is a self-congratulatory exchange. Having sufficiently confirmed the idea, position, or truth, they retire satisfied they are correct and have won the debate.

This exchange has been nothing if not amusing.

Jake, you claim without any basis that I am prejudiced against Christian and Jews (I'm mostly Jewish myself, ancestrally, and very favorably inclined towards the teachings of true Christianity) and I'm the one whose intelligence is suspect? LOL.

"Conspiracies are extremely difficult to keep secret when there is a free press to shine the light on the event. "

Conspiracy theories abound, DAs and other prosecutors love 'em. As for the "free" press, what's so free about it? Ever see an ownership chart? How about the little matter of government licensing?

"The Russians were expansionist after WWII. Before, they were occupied with transforming their own country. The USSR's ultimate goal (according to their own documents) was to bring down the capitalist West. That means US!"

They had no means to do so, they could barely keep afloat. Those "internal documents" were basically propaganda and wishful thinking. Yeah, they established a security buffer after WW2, they were tired of being invaded and attacked and invaded (Napoleon, WWI/Russian Civil War and WWII), and Roosevelt and Churchill signed off on it at Yalta.

"I don't remember calling anyone any names unless you mean pacifist. I meant it as a descriptive term."

I'm sorry, was this still in response to me? Did I accuse you of calling names? What are you referring to?

"paulie,

please advertise your site somewhere else!"

Which site are you referring to?

John Brandimore -

"You want us to only fight if directly attacked and then only within our own borders, right?
Since we did not attack Japan how is their attack on us justified?" -
How many times do I have to explain to you? I said that the U.S. government should send special ops forces to the Mid-East in order to put al-Qaeda cells out of commission. Just don't bother with the government of Iraq.
By the way, Ronald Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon after their barracks were bombed by Hezbollah. Would you refer to him as a cut-and-run coward? It seems that by your words, you would have done just that.

"Why is the US to be held to such an impossibly high standard and other countries one much, much lower?" -
I'm telling you what this country's founding fathers warned us against. They warned us against meddling in the affairs of foreign nations.

"Refusing to sell goods (of any kind) is reason enough for an attack? Under that reasoning we were more than justified in attacking Iraq since they had done far worse." -
Everybody (especially during that time) knew that imposing an embargo on any other nation is an act of war in and of itself. However, Japan didn't do it just yet. They reacted when they saw that FDR moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii, which gave Japan the impression that they would be attacked. Therefore, Japan decided to initiate a pre-emptive strike. It was wrong. I'm just telling you what happened.

""I never said Saddam was funding Islamic fundamentalists I said terrorists. Which you agreed with. I don't care if they are "Arab Nationalists" or fundamentalists. They all have the same enemies and similar goals. True Saddam probably didn't like Al Qaeda, but he funded others who were practically the same.
This war is not just about Al Qaeda. 9/11 was just the final straw. Terrorists had attacked our ships, commercial airlines, embassies, etc. at an alarmingly increasing rate before 9/11.
Not all of these attacks were Al Qaeda - they were from middle eastern terrorists."" -
From your response, you have admitted that you don't care to make any distinctions. Instead, you have shown yourself to be a war-mongering neocon interventionist who is hell-bent on remaking the world at gunpoint.

["Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither" - I agree however when the next 9/11 hits watch the voters. A mother who is afraid for her children will give up freedom for security in a minute. Our TV stations will be filled with crying mothers telling us why we should vote for Patriot Act II. And the sheep will buy it.
Your stand on border security is principled (I think an erroneous principal). The problem is if we leave them alone over there they will come here. Without much more border guards, customs officials, etc. we won't be able to keep them out.] -
Wrong. They came over here because we've been over there. Think of the C.I.A. coup against Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Think of the aid that the U.S. sent to Israel for their wars in 1967 and 1973. Think of the aid that we sent to Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Think of all of the leaders that we supported then (the Shah and Saddam Hussein) and support now in the Mid-East (Hosni Mubarak and Pervez Musharraf).
By the way, the mother who calls for the passage of another Patriot Act deserves neither liberty, nor security, nor life.

Paulie - [The Russians were expansionist after WWII. Before, they were occupied with transforming their own country. The USSR's ultimate goal (according to their own documents) was to bring down the capitalist West. That means US!] -
Apparently, you don't want to learn about history. If you want to be ignorant, then be ignorant elsewhere.

"I don't remember calling anyone any names unless you mean pacifist. I meant it as a descriptive term. Because refusing to fight when someone attacks you is the sign of a pacifist. Jesus was a pacifist and I'm a Christian so I don't mean it as an insult. I just don't think Jesus or Gandhi would be good heads of state." -
Neocons have used the term pacifist to describe anyone who opposes the war in Iraq. I'm surprised that you, golferhal, Jake, and JJ have not used the term anti-American.
--------------------------------------------------
Jake -

It was your fellow interventionists that started with the name-calling. The only thing you have proven is that you, JJ, golferhal, and John Brandimore can't stand anybody who refuses to support an interventionist policy. Remember, I used to have the same interventionist mindset as you until I read Harry Browne's columns where he asked many great questions and made numerous strong points through accurate historical information, practical reasons, and constitutional reasons to show that the war in Iraq was a lousy idea. The results in Iraq have proven to be exactly that.

Stan:

Neither of the quotes you attribute to me are by me.

They are things I was quoting other people as saying, and then responding to.

I meant to attribute that to Brandimore.

Paulie -

I copied and pasted Brandimore's comment to you. I didn't intend to attribute that to you.

I think what we have to recognize, difficult as it is for I to accept, is that there is a definate neo-libertarian wing developing in the Libertarian Party. We need the support of these people to accomplish our domestic agenda. At the same time, we must carefully make sure that the Libertarian Party does not start getting swung around to a neo-libertarian/neo-conservative policy stance.

I am realistic enough to recognize that we have to work with non-purists in order to get things done. Work with non-purists as necessary, but ensure purists drive home the central message of libertarianism.

There is an extreme moral hazard problem here. The majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's policies in Iraq and would certainly oppose a war with Iran, however our commander-in-chief sees no logical reason to satisfy constituents being that the end of '08 marks his certain permanent departure from the white house. I am banking on a full-scale war with Iran by the end of this year unless our president is impeached.

If world leaders opened their eyes and realized that a joint-collaborative effort on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and ensuring security in the region would allow for strong foreign investment opportunities than a much worse conflict could be avoided.

The similarity between their domestic agenda and ours is only on the surface, and disapperas when you dig deeper. Historically and logically, warmongering is the worst thing possible for a libertarian social agenda. We don't need them in our alliance, as they stand directly in the way of recruiting a larger bloc of potential allies who agree with us mainly on peace and civil liberties issues and are open to persuasion on economic issues.

paulie:

I do agree about recruiting from other sectors at well. I have personally worked with a number of folks from the Green Party on anti-war issues and very suprisingly, on issues of personal liberty, including gun rights. I have had little luck in recruiting from the traditional Democratic Party. In the Republican Party, I prefer to try to recruit from the paleo-conservative wing of the party. The neo-conservatives tend to show up of their own accord, which is fine. I don't think recruiting from other sectors will be hurt, unless the party softens its official antiwar stand. As long as the party stays firm, we will be able to attract allies from the left.

Ultimately, that is the best function of purists, like myself, keeping the party and the general movement on message.

I've said it many times that the paleo-libertarians (radical libertarians) and paleo-conservatives (i.e. - traditional conservatives) need to form a stronger alliance and bring about the political demise of the social conservatives, the Religious Right, and the neocons. We must also form an alliance to ensure the political destruction of the Democratic Party (except for maybe the Blue Dogs, maybe).

So FDR's moving our fleet from one part of the US (California) to another part of the US (Hawaii) is a hostile act? Countries don't have the right to move their forces around within their borders?
If our embargoes were an act of war than Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and the other Balkan countries would have been justified in attacking us after we placed an arms embargo upon them.
Stan- you said earlier that FDR's actions "provoked" Japan. Now you are trying to back out by saying that you're just telling me what happened.
Further back to a point you made about FDR's provocation. You said it was provoking when he ordered Japan to pull out of Manchuria and China (which under the standard you hold the US too were unlawful, unprovoked invasions). So would Bush be justified in attacking countries like France that have told us to get out of Iraq?
On the Reagan thing. I know for a fact that I never called anyone a "cut-and-run coward." In fact I have never referred to anyone here as a coward of any kind. I don't believe that your stand is out of fear. I think it is an example of a theoretical principle taken too far.
I use the term pacifist because it is an accurate description of those who oppose any war. Which from what I have seen of most of the "non-interventionists" here is accurate. Some have said that though we should have fought the War of 1812 we shouldn't have tried to invade Canada. We were supposed to fight the British where? Also I have explained that the term pacifist should not be construed as an insult by me.
Even if I grant that all of our previous intervention in the Middle East is wrong (Iran CIA coups, supporting the only democracy there Israel, etc.) we don't have a time machine to go back and change it. Do you really believe that these terrorists will leave us alone if we pull out and hide within our own borders?
Yes those that vote for Patriot Act II for security may not deserve it, but it will pass.
My question still remains- What do we do about the problem?
I outlined three options. Granted none of them are ideal. But in the real world you must sometimes deal with the least bad option.
Either we accept police-state tactics and iron-tight border security and stay within our own borders or we attack the places where terrorists are.
As a domestic libertarian, you know where I stand.

As for those of you who think Communism was not a threat in the cold war. Ask South Korea, South Vietnam (if there still was one), Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Ethiopia and there are others that I can't remember.
Not to mention the millions murdered by Communist regimes. Or the fact that the USSR's own documents show that they tried subversion here. (If you look at the way socialism has spread in certain institutions it seems they partially succeeded).
That's the history.

Totalitarianism at home and imperialism abroad are not either/or, they go hand in hand.

Well, than what do we do Paulie?

fight big government on all fronts.

I mean what do we do about the terrorists who want to kill Americans, Paulie?
We have to do something. You only attack every effort others put forth on that front.
How about a suggestion on what we should do.

FDR provoked the attack on Japan. And I make no apologies for stating the facts.

As I also stated earlier, the War of 1812 should have been the last war we fought. By the way, the invasion of Canada was the only illegitimate aspect of that war against the British. We should have simply fought the British on our soil. In fact, I seem to remember that it worked before. Remember our war of secession from Britain?

Also, the neocons have often used the term pacifist, cut-and-run coward, or anti-American to refer to anybody who opposes the war. In fact, the jackass known as Rush Limbaugh stated on his show that he wished that all opponents of the Iraq War would be exiled or imprisoned. I'm surprised that Brandimore, JJ, Jake, and golferhal have not gone so far as to use the previous insults yet, or to promote Limbaugh's proposals. But, I'm certain that the four of you will use it soon enough.

Brandimore -

As usual, you have decided to ignore my previous comments. I've suggested that we only use special ops forces to specifically attack al-Qaeda cells.

As much as I think Special Ops forces can do a great deal, in a country like Afghanistan more than Special Ops were required at the beginning of that retaliation that we had every right to do. Just ask the Soviet union how difficult it is there to fight the enemy, who by the way was not just al Qaeda but the Taliban government that supported them on many levels. Unfortunately, Bush and his team of idiots decided fighting Iraq was a better idea when it produced nothing but death and destruction with no real benefit. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy but why that was our problem has never been justified. Supporting other terrorits groups besides al Qaeda shouldn't matter to us unless those groups are the ones that attacked us. If they attacked the USS Cole or any other of our soverign property (not "interests" because only interests on our soil or coastal waters are our defensive responsibility) then our Special Forces should easily be able to destroy them where they lie. Our government does not seem to be interested in justice for attacks against us and that is the real shame.

We COULD defend our borders with our massive military might until a time comes when there is no threat. Then, and only then, the citizen defense some have suggested in other posts would be sufficient when we are no longer the enemy of others save for a few overzealous fools which will sadly, always exist. We should be championing the cause of defense at our borders with this great military we have and oppose foreign military advances aside from destroying those that have attacked us, or have imminent plans and means to do so. that is what the CIA, NSA, and Special Forces are for.

Paulie; Having read most of your comments, there is one thing you seem to overlook. As Lord Acton so eloquently said; "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." New people and ideas are constantly coming into power. That means there is a constant threat to freedom. Today, that threat comes from a tiny little percentage of people who refer to themselves as Muslims. Now if you will do nothing more than go into Dearborn, Michigan you will see that, so called moderate Muslims are more closely associated to the Muslim extremists than the "Judeo/Christians" who make up the vast majority of the population. I have yet to hear any Muslim Imam say that religious freedom and democracy is the way people should live. I was just reading a story about a Georgia Mayor who became a Muslim. He said he was glad to live in a country that advocates religious freedom. The problem is, Islam does not believe in religious freedom. Have you read about Birmingham, England where the Muslims want shira (sp) law invoked? Mixing Islam with Judeo/Christianity is like mixing oil & water. Islam does not want to assimilate.

So, even though it is an extemely small portion of Islam that is using extreme measures, the moderate Muslim is being a co-dependent.

Power corrupts, even religious power. You want to see it in Bush, I see it in Bin Laden.

Golferhal, Christianity also does not promote religious freedom. Religious freedom was instituted by deists in America who saw that not only could people of many religions live together peacefully, but that when any one religion is in control everyone suffers. I'll agree that many muslims advocate a muslim only world but there are many Christians in this country that advocate a Christian only world with strict biblical law, mostly ignoring the New Testament altogether, ironically.

The fact that there are muslims that want to kill Americans is true. And there are many Americans that want to wipe all Muslim nations off the map. This is not a one way street, and religious extremism is not exclusive to any one religion. George W Bush is not shy about saying he speaks to God and makes decisions based on that. He wages war based on his coversations with God, at least that is what must be the case if he leads (you can read that "rules" if you want) based on his faith in God. In other words his actions are based on his religion therefore he is imposing his religion on others. He has disregarded the Constitution domestically to suit his religious agenda.

"I mean what do we do about the terrorists who want to kill Americans, Paulie?
We have to do something. You only attack every effort others put forth on that front.
How about a suggestion on what we should do."

You could start by impeaching them, followed by civilian war crimes trials.

http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2007/02/02/hell-yes/