Libertarian Party ... How I Wish....

[Guest AeroEngrSoftDevMBA]

I can't disagree with anything that you've said. I understand collateral damage is a part of warfare. And yeah, if we are gonna have to fight a war then by all means lets go all out. Freedom isn't free, but was a war really necessary? Really?

You might think so. I don't think so. So we agree to disagree. But to the original point of this topic, the Libertarian platform, i agree with the following (and no I don't classify what Saddam was doing as aggression towards the US, he was bluffing the Iranians and unfortunately we fell for it).

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

Edited August 27, 2008 by AeroEngrSoftDevMBA

[TGO David]

I can't disagree with anything that you've said. I understand collateral damage is a part of warfare. And yeah, if we are gonna have to fight a war then by all means lets go all out. Freedom isn't free, but was a war really necessary? Really?

Well considering that the article in question, that you provided, is about collateral damage in Afghanistan and considering that the GWOT took us to Afghanistan because it was the defacto stronghold of Al Quaeda during and immediately following the 9/11 attacks... you tell me if it was necessary or not.

[TGO David]

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

THAT sort of isolationist view of things is one of the reasons why the Libertarian party will never gain any real traction. I agree with quite a bit of their views and would consider myself libertarian by nature but never by political alignment.

I'm going to start quoting Imperial Law courtesy of the Star Wars universe if this crap keeps up. After all, it's just as irrelevant!

[G27]

IMO, the US would do well to return to the isolationist history we once enjoyed.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

IMO, the US would do well to return to the isolationist history we once enjoyed.

I don't think so. If we pulled out of everywhere and decided to become an "island unto ourselves" we would be ****ed. Not just economically, commercially, and trade-wise... but there's a pretty good reason why we police our areas of the world. Because we are looking out for ourselves, as well as others. The term "a good defense, is a good offense" is pretty true in this case. We hold our lines of defense, so that the filth out there doesn't come straight for us, here at home. We've already seen what one example of that would be like, on 9/11. If we pull out of everywhere, just to hold ourselves up in the U.S., and lock down our borders, the world will go to hell in a hand basket. With the U.N. doing such a hot job on controlling people, the "S" would "HTF". Then every Islamic piece of ****, and US-hating country, would head straight here... with not much protection against stopping them.

I would rather fight on foreign soil, to keep them away from my home (and country), than give in to the pressure that we should leave everyone alone and let them do their own thing.

Just my $0.02.

[strickj]

As the saying goes, "Freedom isn't free. Peace isn't pretty."

I would rather fight on foreign soil, to keep them away from my home (and country), than give in to the pressure that we should leave everyone alone and let them do their own thing.

+1

What does being Christian have anything to do with anything?If I said I wasn't a Christian what would you do?

[Guest Verbal Kint]

If I said I wasn't a Christian what would you do?

Start a Jihad.

You infidel piece of ****.

[Im Neero]

The public has no need to know what happens on the battlefield and often lacks the stomach to accept that war IS hell,

I wonder what else the public has no need to know?

That opinion explains a lot.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

I wonder what else the public has no need to know?

That opinion explains a lot.

Sorry, but having served in the military, I agree with Tungsten's (and many's) view on that. The media needs to stay the hell off the battlefield, and out of the way. If the public wants to know about the ugliness of war, maybe they should pick up a rifle and enlist... but then again, I'm sure most just want to be "in the know" from the comfort of their couch, where they can piss and moan about it.

Mandating 2-4 years of military service for all citizens, much like Israel's requirement, would change a proverbial **** ton of people's views and comments.

[Im Neero]

I don't think having served in the military gives any special weight to your opinion. The public pays for the war and elects politicians based on their opinions of war. The war in Iraq is going to be one of the biggest issues in November, the public has a right to know what's going on.

Also, think about all the truly terrible things that our troops did in Vietnam. A measure of accountability isn't a bad thing.

[DavidD]

now that you mention thanking me for not "settling" on the "lesser of 2 evils". I will assume that in 2000 and 04, you played it smart and voted for the lesser of 2 evils, G.W. Bush. If that is the case, let me thank YOU for:

Patriot act 1

Patriot act 2

Patriot act 3

the suspension of habeus corpus

the thousands dead in an unessaceary war against Iraq

the Thousands more that will die in an unessecary war against Iran, if Bush and McCain have their ways

4.00 a gallon gas

warrantless wiretapping

an ever growing beauracracy

ever shrinking freedom

and the list goes on...

suddenly the "lesser of 2 evils" doesn't look like such a good bet anymore, does it?

the one thing you have to remember about "the lesser of 2 evils" is that they are still evil.

Ok, I can see why you might () blame Bush for the first 5, but come on, blaming him for a war with Iran. Why not blame Ahmadinejad? He's the nut that wants YOU dead, or converted to Islam. And for Gas prices? Wasn't Nancy Pelosi the one that said if the Dem's get control of the House they'd lower gas prices when gas was below $2.50 a gallon? And as you said, the list goes on.

Don't get me wrong, I think George W sucks as a president but he has done some good. I'll give you two names, John Roberts and Samuel Anthony Alito. Both were appointed by ole GWB and both SCOTUS posts would have been filled by a Liberal if I, and many others, would have voted for Gore and or Kerry or a Libertarian. So now imagine the Heller decision 3/6. Remember that ***hole named Naifeh? I'd bet he'd take it and run. First, HG permits, then semi autos, but who really knows what "could or could not" happen. This (next SCOTUS appointee) is the main reason I'll vote Republican. I’m am not happy with the Republican Party any more than you are but I’m not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. I also agree with the majority of the Lebertarian view. If I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt Obama was going to win, I'd vote Libertarian and send that message but that is the only way. I am actually becoming more Optamistic that McCain has a chance every day.

I'm sorry but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. If you give the government and inch they take a mile. They have proven this over and over and over throughout history. Today they might be tapping the phone of Hamid, but tomorrow it might be your phone. They say, "well he's a Muslim extremist and anti-American". But then they come to this message board and see our complaints and say you too are anti-American.

Every bit of power granted to the government by the people can and will probably be abused. And your statement effectively condones the government breaking the law. What is the point of law if we allow the government to break it?

I believe you are right however thank God (and our founding fathers) for the Supreme Court of The United States!

I don't think so. If we pulled out of everywhere and decided to become an "island unto ourselves" we would be ****ed. Not just economically, commercially, and trade-wise... but there's a pretty good reason why we police our areas of the world. Because we are looking out for ourselves, as well as others. The term "a good defense, is a good offense" is pretty true in this case. We hold our lines of defense, so that the filth out there doesn't come straight for us, here at home. We've already seen what one example of that would be like, on 9/11. If we pull out of everywhere, just to hold ourselves up in the U.S., and lock down our borders, the world will go to hell in a hand basket. With the U.N. doing such a hot job on controlling people, the "S" would "HTF". Then every Islamic piece of ****, and US-hating country, would head straight here... with not much protection against stopping them. I would rather fight on foreign soil, to keep them away from my home (and country), than give in to the pressure that we should leave everyone alone and let them do their own thing.

I agree 100% and in order to maintain our freedom, we must continue. History has proven time and time again that isolationalist theories always fail. Is it pretty? No, but is just a fact of life. Just my .

Edited August 27, 2008 by DavidD

[Marswolf]

Also, think about all the truly terrible things that our troops did in Vietnam. A measure of accountability isn't a bad thing.

Hey, I served and got wounded in Vietnam twice and I volunteered. You are 23 years old and obviously don't know a ******* thing about war. The vast majority of Vietnam vets faithfully served their country and don't deserve crap from effete know-it-all snobs like you. All you know about it is how to run your mouth.

[DavidD]

I don't think having served in the military gives any special weight to your opinion. The public pays for the war and elects politicians based on their opinions of war. The war in Iraq is going to be one of the biggest issues in November, the public has a right to know what's going on.

Also, think about all the truly terrible things that our troops did in Vietnam. A measure of accountability isn't a bad thing.

I whole heartedly dissagree. I'd trust a soldier on the ground 1,000,000,000 times more than some yappy liberal news person about how things are going over in Iraq. I didn't agrree with Bush about Iraq in the beginning but now I see it was probably the thing to do. Though it has brought some unstability to the region, it may actually bring stability in the long run. Hell, I say lets go on to Iran and reinstate the draft. How old are you? Also, before you go pissin off the Vetrans (for which I'm sad to say I am not), think about those WWII vetrans that died so'd you'd not speak Japanese or German......

[Im Neero]

Nice logical arguments guys, I wasn't aware that you had to serve in the military to hold an opinion in this country. Sounds kinda fascist to me.

I don't buy into this blind faith in anybody with a uniform and if you don't like it, well then you can just not like it, no skin off my nose.

[fury2neon]

And also, were the "kids" killed because of collateral damage or were the Jihadist hiding behind the kids like they do in Israel and using them as shield so the press will say kids were killed by the US or Israel? Just a question... We have ample evidence showing Hamas using women and children as shield so why not the Taliban.

[Im Neero]

By the way, I wasn't trying to imply that most soldiers didn't serve honorably in Vietnam, I have several relatives who did, with quite a few purple hearts among them.

I'm also not defending Geraldo revealing troop movements on live TV.

That doesn't make me think that the American public has no need to know what's going on during a time of war.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I don't think that a war should be run by us civilians or by media bias. I am glad we can disagree with anything and everything, and talk about what we don't like, but once the hounds are released, you let them run till they tree the coon. Same is true with the military. If they are told to go fight, get the !@#$ out of the way and let them fight. I think that a military man trained in strategy and tactics knows a whole hell of a lot more about fighting a war than I do.

My two cents, and happy as hell that I can spout it whenever I want. God Bless America.

[Marswolf]

Hell, I say lets go on to Iran and reinstate the draft.

I never liked the draft, although I was un-draftable for at least three reasons. The draft was unfair to a lot of folks. So naturally I volunteered when asked to do so.... But I do favor universal military service. It would probably eliminate 80% of the whining liberals and 90% of the anti-gunners.

[DavidD]

Nice logical arguments guys, I wasn't aware that you had to serve in the military to hold an opinion in this country. Sounds kinda fascist to me.

You do not (have to have served in the Military) however you are basing your argument from one vantage point, I simply choose another more trust worthy in my opinion. One that has earned my trust by serving MY country.

I don't buy into this blind faith in anybody with a uniform and if you don't like it, well then you can just not like it, no skin off my nose.

I am glad you do not buy into ANY blind faith, I do have hope for you now.

[Im Neero]

I am glad you do not buy into ANY blind faith, I do have hope for you now.

I don't buy into much of anything, it's my nature.

Another comment on the wasps nest I stirred up, I don't trust the media's coverage of the war, I just take serious issue with anyone that says "the public doesn't need to know about . . . keep the media out of it." Corruption and abuse of power is everywhere, the US military is no exception.

[Marswolf]

By the way, I wasn't trying to imply that most soldiers didn't serve honorably in Vietnam, I have several relatives who did, with quite a few purple hearts among them.

I'm also not defending Geraldo revealing troop movements on live TV.

That doesn't make me think that the American public has no need to know what's going on during a time of war.

Well, the My Lais were an infinitesimal percentage of what happened in Vietnam. And even that event had a reason. But people never in uniform probably have never researched it enough to understand the situation.

The problem is that if you do not have combat experience, you are unlikely to be able to interpret properly the events reported. It's like the anti-gunners imagining blood in the streets if we let common people carry a gun. But it never happens. Reports from the battlefield have the non-combat folks imagining all sorts of horrors. There are horrors, but they are not the ones the public imagines from the anti-war liberal "reporters."

BTW, My last combat wound was actually in Cambodia. Come over and I'll show it to you. I'll even let you kiss it. It was a Forrest Gump wound.

[DavidD]

I don't buy into much of anything, it's my nature.

Another comment on the wasps nest I stirred up, I don't trust the media's coverage of the war, I just take serious issue with anyone that says "the public doesn't need to know about . . . keep the media out of it." Corruption and abuse of power is everywhere, the US military is no exception.

We agree for the most part however there are things I'd not like to know about. I like how SUNTZU put it, "....but once the hounds are released, you let them run till they tree the coon". Do however keep in mind that the media is and always will be manipulated in one form or another. Things are rarely as they report.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

Nice logical arguments guys, I wasn't aware that you had to serve in the military to hold an opinion in this country. Sounds kinda fascist to me.

I don't buy into this blind faith in anybody with a uniform and if you don't like it, well then you can just not like it, no skin off my nose.

No, but serving in the military -- thus obtaining any level of a security clearance -- places you in positions of signing nondisclosure agreements. In the few short (6) years in the Air Force working with munitions assets, I can tell you that I worked with **** that doesn't exist, won't exist, and will never come to light. **** that goes bump in the dark. Secret Squirrel ****. Things that myths, legends, and sci-fi movies would spooge themselves over. Not blowing my own horn, but as a 3-stripe airman, I was privy to intel and assets that Colonels and above didn't know about. At one time, on a project, only 8 people on base (myself one of them) knew about it.

And you're damn right that the public needs to know about ZERO of that. Nor does any other military member, aside from those hand picked and sworn to secrecy. There were things at levels I wasn't cleared for, and I never asked questions or poked my nose into them. The things I were involved in were awesome (by definition) and blew my mind... I could only fathom what else exists out there... but understand that I didn't need to know.

Americans seem to think that they are entitled to know everything that goes on. Sorry, but they're not. Nowhere has it ever been stated that they are entitled to that "right". Freedom of Press allows the media to write what they want and report what they see... so the Smith family can sit around the TV and watch world events. It doesn't mean the military has to allow them on the battlefield. Soldiers have enough to worry about, without dumbasses compromising themselves and military logistics, let alone soldiers when they're forced to protect them, all because you or John Doe wants to know what is happening then and there.

You can hold an opinion all you want to. But like I said... if you want to know about war, take up a rifle and enlist. If you simply feel you have a right to know everything that goes on during a battle, go read a war novel or book on tactics.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Verbal Kint
****ing typos

[DavidD]

BTW, My last combat wound was actually in Cambodia. Come over and I'll show it to you. I'll even let you kiss it. It was a Forrest Gump wound.

[Im Neero]

FWIW, I plan on enlisting in the military after I graduate law school, but I don't plan on suspending all of my opinions on war until then.

I don't recall anyone complaining about the media coverage of Desert Storm, or the initial campaign in Afghanistan when it had public support.

So should we even tell the general population that we're at war if we're not going to tell them anything about it? Should Iraq be a non-issue in the election? Should Vietnam have been in '72 and '68?