Neo-con blogger bashes libertarians:

[ATF Consumer]

Expensive? Reckon that depends on whether you value money, or soldier's lives, more.

If we cared for soldiers lives, we wouldn't have them in Afghanistan losing theirs in harm's way. Joe, by my math, having us fight and die over there seems to be quite expensive for both money and lives.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Switzerland seems more libertarian in their isolationist/neutrality than the United States. Apart from World War II where they should have intervened, their policy of nonintervensionism seemed to have worked pretty well for them and they're much tinier than us.

Of course, and before someone says it, I'd much rather live here than there.

 

[88GT]

It's long, I'm sorry. I really tried to keep it as concise as possible. But written conversations are not conducive to short reads.

Our Navy is quite mobile and has the capability to have forces in any area of the world within days. Our Air Force is even more mobile and can react within a few hours. There is no need to have all of our forces spread out to foreign territories like they are.

Not to the extent that we do, perhaps, but the extreme stance that argues for the removal of all foreign bases is short-sighted IMO and ignores reality as well.

Navy aircraft carriers that can do the job. Other countries have bases and airports in which we could use as well. I think because of technological advances in weapons and other supportive hardware we have available today, large Army and Marine forces just aren't necessary any longer. I think we need to reduce both of the branches and build up our Air force and Navy. Both of those are where first responses come from and they can both handle most any situation. How would you suppose we would be logically and tactically if we had our Navy fleet built up to the number where we not only had plenty at our own US bases, but also had ship groups patrolling the waters around the globe where the entire globe would be reachable within a very short time?

We don't have a large enough Navy to pick up the slack that would be left by abandoning land bases. And from my understanding--correct me if I'm wrong--the L/libertarian opinion of defense spending is that it needs to be trimmed, premised on the assumption that we need not involve ourselves elsewhere as much as we do. So what's the point of removing ourselves elsewhere partially in an effort to cut costs, if you're just gonna turn around and spend money to make up the difference in other places? I don't get it.

I also think that relying too heavily on gadgets and doo-dads (technology) is a fool's errand. Ground troops have always been a requisite part of a military action. Unless you plan on nuking them or firebombing the countryside out of existence. And I'd rather have more of my guys on the ground than theirs. YMMV.

To your last question, I would think that it would be completely anti-thetical to the l/Libertarian ideal of isolationism (I know you hate that word, but don't pop a gasket until you read below, please.) It's essentially a marine-based version of policing. It's still being involved on some level, which means it still costs money and still puts us out there.

The tank landing ship I was stationed on was large enough to carry 400 Marines plus around 20 AAV's below deck and had a helo pad as well. We could basically remove all foreign land bases and make them mobile by water. It would certainly reduce the risk of a planned attack on military installations.

Until your watercraft is rendered inoperable. I would think that support of a downed water-based vehicle would also be more costly and more timely to implement. The risk of attack might be less if land bases are available as an alternative, but that difference is negated if there's only one option: you're it, buddy. You might argue the logistics of planning an implementing an attack would lower the risk, but I'm willing to bet it's only by a little. Bad guys are crusty little bastages. "Where there's a will, there's a way, heh?

Nothing like putting all your eggs in one basket either.

US. Navy

Only possible if you spend as much or more and STILL spread yourself around the globe which negates the argument being "out there." It does remove the " on foreign soil" issue, but there's always the issue of territorial waters. A lot of good a boat could do from however many miles out when Americans on on dry land and it can't get enough men on said land to do the job.

Let's face it. There's no branch of the armed forces that is going to be able to tackle all of the possible scenarios that could come up to the same level that another branch might be capable. There are pros and cons to each.

I seriously don't understand why some people on here can't grasp the concept that libertarians are not isolationist...it is a completely incorrect label...if libertarians are isolationists, then republicans are for big government. Yes, we take the fight to them...

Yeah, it sucks doesn't it. It's about as intellectually honest and fair as l/Libertarians bandying about the word "imperialism" to describe US policy overseas as it relates to our military presence in other countries.

I don't mean to include the protectionism aspect. Strictly speaking, avoidance of involvement in foreign actions (assuming no unprovoked attacks on us) is isolationism though. You are erecting a wall of sorts between you, well, your country and the rest of the world, saying, "We won't come out if you don't come in." Just another way of saying "live and let live."

There's also the fact that it ignores a glaring reality: certain things outside our borders have direct effects on us. I believe that it is impossible to isolate ourselves from the world to the point that we can avoid all military engagements that do not originate with an attack on us. THAT is the isolationism aspect to which I refer.

On a side note: does the lover of ultimate individual liberty believe that a nation with our capabilities should stand and watch from the sidelines when those liberties are being threatened elsewhere in the world at the hands of a despotic and tyrannical third party?

Iraq certainly did not fall into that category, so we did it all wrong IMHO.
Afghanistan is a complete waste of our resources as they currently stand. Only a small elite force with CIA involvement could handle this situation.

Hussein violated the terms of his surrender from the first engagement in the Gulf. Whether or not you agree with our involvement in THAT affair, prudence dictates that we enforce the terms of the surrender. Reason failed. Force was our only alternative. Failing to enforce it puts the original targets of Hussein at risk again (Kuwait and Iran--though that might not have been a bad thing), and minimizes our credibility on the world stage to the point of destroying it altogether. Our allies will shrink from future relations and our enemies will laugh. History provides a fine example when a nation or group of nations fails to enforce the terms of surrender of the defeated nation. IMO we were OBLIGATED to act.

Just look at what we did to help Israel lately...
We go into Iraq to rid it of Saddam, but before we got there he was able to move plenty of weapons to Syria. Syria has since transferred these weapons to Lebanon where Hezbullah is getting their hands on them to use against Israel...compliments of your good pals from the USA!

One could argue we went into Iraq to enforce surrender terms, which directly translates to an increase in safety for a lot of different people.

ignoring that, however, your statement is a non sequitor. The possessor of those weapons is irrelevant. Having them in Iraqi control because we DIDN'T go in isn't any better.

Not to mention all of the weapons we gave Afghanistan during their fight against Russia that are now being used against our troops. That is some great foreign policy right there.

Hindsight is 20/20 and Monday Morning quarterbacking is flawless. I'm not supporting or justifying the choices made, but I'm also not privy to the information that was used to make them. On the assumption that the choices were made based on a desire to do the right thing, as opposed to selfishness and a desire for personal or political gain, I cannot completely fault the decision makers.

On the flip side of that same coin: we're not supplying military equipment to Israel or Taiwan anymore (thanks to the current WH occupant). What if our failure to do so led to the annihilation of one or both of those countries? It's not outside the realm of possibility given the Islamic hatred for Israel and the Chinese obsession with controlling Taiwan. Yet in neither of those cases were we the target of aggression and as such, the l/Libertarian stance says we maintain a hands-off policy.

What is the right and proper answer? I have trouble with sitting back while evil trumps over good. To iterate a point I made above: l/Libertarians should too if the preservation of individual liberty is their motivation (which it is, that much I do know).

I don't claim to have all of the right answers, but I can bet you there is a workable solution that counters the Neo-Con way in most any circumstance that also protects Americans lives.

Neither do I, but here's a little bit of info that might help us find one: neo-con is not the only other player in this game. This isn't an either/or solution situation. There are some real untenable aspects to the l/Libertarian platform that cause my stomach to turn. I no more want to remove the USA from the main stage of world politics than I want to jump willy nilly into every last fracas and skirmish that crops up across the world. Nor do I want to wait for the enemy to strike me first before removing him as a threat. If that means coming to the aid of another nation that has already fallen prey to his appetite for power and control, so be it.

Now, could someone be so kind as to explain the difference between libertarian and Libertarian, because I can find no such distinction, much less an explanation for it. Thanks.

 

[rambone]

Now, could someone be so kind as to explain the difference between libertarian and Libertarian, because I can find no such distinction, much less an explanation for it. Thanks.

A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party and consistently votes that way.

A libertarian shares those principles, but does not hold allegiance to the Libertarian Party.

 

[irishfan]

If we cared for soldiers lives, we wouldn't have them in Afghanistan losing theirs in harm's way. Joe, by my math, having us fight and die over there seems to be quite expensive for both money and lives.

You sir are making to much sense

 

[turnandshoot4]

Expensive? Reckon that depends on whether you value money, or soldier's lives, more.

Lives are of the highest priority.

So let's bring them home.

 

[gunowner930]

88GT- I thought you made a very well thought out post and rep'd you as well. I do disagree with a few of your points.

I have many libertarian views but I can't call myself one. I agree we cannot isolate ourselves from all foreign conflicts. We are bound by NATO to defend 27 nations, some of which no standing army or have a small defense force that would be collectively outgunned by INGO. Taiwan is not a member of NATO but we obligated to defend them as well. The effects of us pulling out of NATO or backing out of our agreement to defend Taiwan would change the world.

However, I'm sick and tired of Americans dying for nationbuilding 3rd world countries.

Hindsight is 20/20 and Monday Morning quarterbacking is flawless. I'm not supporting or justifying the choices made, but I'm also not privy to the information that was used to make them. On the assumption that the choices were made based on a desire to do the right thing, as opposed to selfishness and a desire for personal or political gain, I cannot completely fault the decision makers.

You're right but seemingly unconditional support for Israel and the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia has caused the Muslim hatred of the U.S. and the 9/11 attacks. Until our foreign policy changes towards the Middle East we'll continue to see terrorist attacks on U.S. We can never stop them all.


On the flip side of that same coin: we're not supplying military equipment to Israel or Taiwan anymore (thanks to the current WH occupant). What if our failure to do so led to the annihilation of one or both of those countries? It's not outside the realm of possibility given the Islamic hatred for Israel and the Chinese obsession with controlling Taiwan. Yet in neither of those cases were we the target of aggression and as such, the l/Libertarian stance says we maintain a hands-off policy.

Israel is more than capable of defending themselves against their Arab neighbors, as they've proven in the past. I doubt Syria would want to get into a conventional engagement with Israel now that they're not getting Soviet aid to rebuild their military after getting waxed again. I agree with you on Taiwan.


What is the right and proper answer? I have trouble with sitting back while evil trumps over good. To iterate a point I made above: l/Libertarians should too if the preservation of individual liberty is their motivation (which it is, that much I do know).

Who is good and who is evil? I can give you a few examples of tyrants we've supported only because they hated communism or were a convenient ally. Our freedom and invidual liberties have been paid for with blood throughout the history of this country. I don't like the idea of Americans dying in some sh*thole country like Iraq for their freedom.

 

[88GT]

A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party and consistently votes that way.

A libertarian shares those principles, but does not hold allegiance to the Libertarian Party.

So somebody made a big deal about a distinction that's hardly worth mentioning. Gotcha.

"No, I'm not that kind of L/libertarian; I'm a l/Libertarian."

 

[88GT]

8

However, I'm sick and tired of Americans dying for nationbuilding 3rd world countries.

I'd like you to point out where in my posts I advocated for that. I was addressing specific statements made by others. Nothing more, nothing less.

You're right but seemingly unconditional support for Israel and the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia has caused the Muslim hatred of the U.S. and the 9/11 attacks. Until our foreign policy changes towards the Middle East we'll continue to see terrorist attacks on U.S. We can never stop them all.

We could do a complete 180 regarding our foreign policy in that area and we would still have the same results. I'm sure they would be happy to know that the excuses they publicly use to justify their violence against innocents is taking root with the Western world though.

Israel is more than capable of defending themselves against their Arab neighbors, as they've proven in the past. I doubt Syria would want to get into a conventional engagement with Israel now that they're not getting Soviet aid to rebuild their military after getting waxed again. I agree with you on Taiwan.

Somewhat moot since I was pointing out the opposite of giving aid, not whether or not the countries were capable of defending themselves. But, yes, I agree. Israel's scorched earth policy makes her an unlikely target. And she's more than happy to buy from the French or any other country that can supply what fulfills her needs.

Who is good and who is evil? I can give you a few examples of tyrants we've supported only because they hated communism or were a convenient ally. Our freedom and invidual liberties have been paid for with blood throughout the history of this country. I don't like the idea of Americans dying in some sh*thole country like Iraq for their freedom.

According the libertarian platform, the line between good and evil is quite obvious. I didn't create their platform, so if there are issues with it, take it up with them.

To your last statement: truly we must be a blessed country as we are the only ones deserving of that wonderful gift from God known as liberty.

 

[rambone]

So somebody made a big deal about a distinction that's hardly worth mentioning. Gotcha.

"No, I'm not that kind of L/libertarian; I'm a l/Libertarian."

Unless somebody wants to correct me, that's the main thing I've concluded.

 

[Ogre]

88GT, you consistently hint at the notion that the US SHOULD take up arms overseas to fight for the innocent or oppressed. In fact most of your posts supporting large a large military presence overseas boils down to the fact the US should police/protect the world. Call me an *******, but I think the innocent people being oppressed should be the ones to fight for themselves. The days of spilling the blood of US soldiers for the benefit of other nations, should be long over. Call me an isolationist if you wish, but I would rather bring most home, and start saving and preparing for a war that directly threatens our nation. It is folly to continually spread ourselves thin, and spend our way into oblivion to fight a war against a tactic (terror, they could at least call a duck a duck and say we are fighting militant muslims).

 

[irishfan]

88GT, you consistently hint at the notion that the US SHOULD take up arms overseas to fight for the innocent or oppressed. In fact most of your posts supporting large a large military presence overseas boils down to the fact the US should police/protect the world. Call me an *******, but I think the innocent people being oppressed should be the ones to fight for themselves. The days of spilling the blood of US soldiers for the benefit of other nations, should be long over. Call me an isolationist if you wish, but I would rather bring most home, and start saving and preparing for a war that directly threatens our nation. It is folly to continually spread ourselves thin, and spend our way into oblivion to fight a war against a tactic (terror, they could at least call a duck a duck and say we are fighting militant muslims).

I agree and disagree with you on getting involved in other affairs. I believe we should consolidate a lot of our bases in other regions(for Joe) to make them more cost effective while still maintaining strength if needed. Also, I don't see the purpose of getting involved in every conflict around the world when very few of our "allies" stand with us. Finally, if we do feel the need to get involved in a conflict then we should take the handcuffs off our military and hit the enemy as hard as possible to end the situation quickly while also showing that our country is not to be messed with anymore

 

[SirRealism]

^^ This. I thought it meant young, or "new" first-generation conservative.

From what I've read, I think Rambone's definition is pretty much dead on. Big gov't conservatives who believe in the welfare state. They're "new", in that they fled from today's liberalism.

The term seems to have been co-opted as a pejorative term for right-wingers by the media... you know, the people who tell us we can't say fat, retarded, black, and oriental?

 

[Von Mises]

It is typical of the disciples of Obama and some Libertarians (there is little difference in their conduct) to try to force their thoughts and words into other peoples mouths.

Wow, I've never seen this comparison before. Having been a Libertarian for over 20 years, our "conduct" has always been guided by asking critical questions and allowing others to find thier own conclusion.

 

[Von Mises]

Mr. Tracy is confusing neutrality with isolationism, his premise is nonsense, therefore his conclusion based upon them are equally flawed. In addition, take a look at the comments to the “article.”

Notice that Libertarian response has been openly and admittedly blocked. “Thank you for kicking those bozos (Libertarians) off your comments section. It’s nice having a place where REAL ideological discussions can take place.”

Indeed! A real ideological discussion where only one view is permitted. This is nothing more than an intellectual farce, just like the entire Obama campaign.

This has been a tactic of neo-cons for some time. Create a boogie-man, play like he’s real, stir up nationalism, then either steal you liberty or your kids in order to protect you.

First developed by the communists, it is a tactic called “pressure from below, pressure from above.” Here’s how it works: Take the illegal immigration problem.

The neo-cons have no more interest in fixing the problem than the other statist labels. So long as they can maintain the problem, they can impose upon your liberties to fix it. As the problem increasingly manifests itself, the people will increasingly look to the government to fix it. When the government has enough support to fix it in the manner best suited to the needs of statists it will be fixed. Make no mistake.

There is nothing in Ron Paul’s ideals, or the Libertarian platform that would make us defenseless, nor the victim of an unprovoked attack. In fact, the Libertarian platform can be found in the Constitution of the United States. If you contact the Cato Institute, they will send you a convenient pocket version.