Saddam captured

[FileNotFound]

Libertarians are about protecting the LIBERTY of the US. NOT the world.

It is NOT our RIGHT to 'liberate' other nations. End of story.

Libertarians do not support oppression or involvement in foreign affairs.

In other words: We may not like the way Saddam treats his people, but it's not our place to get involved.

That’s how freedom works you see. If we attacked Iraq, killed Saddam and freed the Iraqi people, would they really be free or would we have suddenly made ourselves the world ‘bully’ who forces everyone to play by ‘his’ rules?

[Radar]

Let's go through Undertoads BS one point at a time...

So completely horrified by the liberation of millions upon millions of people

Neither I, nor any other Libertarian that I know is horrified about any country being "liberated" or experiencing freedom. We are horrified at the misuse of our military to START unprovoked wars and to intervene in the affairs of other nations. I love how the idiots who support this war try to turn it around and suggest we don't support freedom if we don't support the American military violating the Constitution. I wish the Iraqi people all the best in getting their freedom as long as it doesn't entail the US using our military for anything other than defending America from attack which Iraq never did.

Rejecting the hope of liberation of an entire region of the world

Bullshit again. I HOPE all regions find freedom, but again, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for America to send our military to make it happen. They must earn their own freedom. America isn't here to "liberate" anyone. And for the record, the people of Iraq are no better off now than they were with Saddam.

Advancing the notion that a nation's sovereignty can be established and maintained by torture, mass killing, and bogus elections

It's worked pretty well in America. And it's pretty stupid to claim a country has no sovereignty if they don't have a government that we approve of. America has no authority beyond our own borders and no other country must answer to us. Even if they are run by a dictator. All governments including dicatorships get their power from the consent of the governed. If the people of Iraq truly wanted to be "liberated" they could have beaten Saddam and his supporters and won thier liberation on their own. There are many examples of governments being overrun with people even when those governments had superior arms.

Blithely and conveniently ignorant that free trade really requires complicated involvement with the rest of the world, who may not agree with our ideas

This is laughable. First off we don't have free trade. And Free trade doesn't require any complicated involvements with the rest of the world at all. Only an idiot who knows literally NOTHING about trade would make such a ludicrous claim.

Free trade means just that. We trade freely with all countries, but don't make complicated treaties that involve using our military. If someone wants to trade with us and we want to trade with them, we're free to do so. The founders were EXTREMELY clear on their intent to NEVER use the military to defend any nation but our own, but to freely trade, communicate, and make non-aggression treaties with others. Free trade does not require any promise of the use of our military and only a fool would claim it does.

I'm not being a contrarian at all. If I seem like my ideas are always contrary to yours it's because yours are contrary to reality, logic, and common sense.

[Kitsune]

I'll ask this: why do we, The United States, go to other countries to liberate them? Are we really the police of the world, out to free populations from tyrannical governments? Do we involve ourselves in wars because we cannot stand to see people opressed?

Or are we really just in it because it is in our interest? For security?
Maybe only for global stabilization?

Or just financial interests?

[FileNotFound]

The Excuse:
We cannot stand to see people opressed.

The Reasons:
Because it is in our interest. For security.
Financial interests.

[Undertoad]

I know exactly what Ls support, FNF; I was one of 'em, and in a big way.

The other way that freedom works is that free countries typically do not attack each other. And so, a more free middle east would be a huge gigantic boon to the security of the US.

The war itself was not all that costly, killed about a hundredth of the number of people Saddam himself killed, and was done by an all-volunteer military. What's the big effing deal?

The "reconstruction" will be very costly, that's the part you should oppose I'd expect.

[Beestie]

It is NOT our RIGHT to 'liberate' other nations. End of story.

End of story for you, perhaps.

We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it. We invaded it because we felt threatened by it (Saddam). The threat, real or perceived, has been neutralized.

I think feeling threatened is as good a justification to attack as any. We might disagree on whether or not we SHOULD have felt threatened by Iraq but I cannot reasonably entertain the notion that we should ignore a mounting threat.

The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago. Either way, we were RIGHT in forcing the USSR to back down. We would have invaded had they not. I suppose you would have a problem with that too.

[FileNotFound]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The war itself was not all that costly...

86 Billion

Cost of the planned mission to Mars is about 70.

Now don't get me wrong. But frankly I'd much rather see the US go to Mars, not lose a single man(hopefully), make amazing scientific discoveries and help mankind through science by finally tackling the "final frontier".

But that’s just me..

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by Beestie
The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago.

The difference with the Cuban Missile Crisis is, however, that we had proof that missiles were there. We had satellite photos showing them.

We went into Iraq because a general showed CG images of trailers with test tubes and bunsen burners in them.

[Radar]

We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it. We invaded it because we felt threatened by it (Saddam). The threat, real or perceived, has been neutralized.

Wrong, we attacked because Iraq was NOT a threat. Notice we didn't attack an actual threat like North Korea. Bush wanted to take attention away from his failure to capture Bin Laden so he attacked a non-threat (Iraq). They weren't percieved as a threat and weren't a threat at any point.

Notice they found one man in a hole in the ground of Iraq, but still no WMD's. And even if Iraq had a thousand WMD's, that doesn't make them a threat. England, France, Russia, China, etc. have nukes, does that make them threats?

Attacking Iraq for weapons they MIGHT have and MIGHT use in the future is like going door to door to arrest all gun owners and executing them for murders they MIGHT commit in the future. Except the attack in Iraq was even worse because they didn't even have the gun, and we have no authority to tell them they can't have one.

The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago. Either way, we were RIGHT in forcing the USSR to back down. We would have invaded had they not. I suppose you would have a problem with that too.

I sure do. The Cuban missile crisis happened as a direct result of America putting nukes in Turkey. Russia put missiles in Cuba in retaliation for America putting them in Turkey. Russia only removed the missiles from Cuba AFTER Kennedy was smart enough to back down and take our nukes out of Turkey.

We never would have had that crisis if we didn't initiate the threat against them.

[FileNotFound]

Originally posted by Beestie


End of story for you, perhaps.

We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it. We invaded it because we felt threatened by it (Saddam). The threat, real or perceived, has been neutralized.

I think feeling threatened is as good a justification to attack as any. We might disagree on whether or not we SHOULD have felt threatened by Iraq but I cannot reasonably entertain the notion that we should ignore a mounting threat.

The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago. Either way, we were RIGHT in forcing the USSR to back down. We would have invaded had they not. I suppose you would have a problem with that too.

Why did we feel 'threatened' by Saddam who sat about and did nothing but not North Korea who parade their military about and BRAG about their 'weapons of mass destruction"?

Feeling 'threatened' is NOT a good justification to attack. I can feel threatened by your existence, but that doesn't give me the right to end it.

The Cuban missile crisis is a BS example because you fail to mention that US had plenty of missiles damn close to the USSR also. (Turkey I believe. Not 100% sure, but I can check.)

Placing the missiles in Cuba was a "me too" on the part of USSR. In fact it was later found that most of the missiles were NOT operational. But that’s besides the point.

If libertarians were in power at the time they'd not have the "Oh yeah?!" cold war going with USSR.

[Beestie]

The difference with the Cuban Missile Crisis is, however, that we had proof that missiles were there.

So you are saying the the UN, Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac and Bill Clinton were all wrong? They all said and agreed that Iraq had WMD.

Like I said, we can disagree on whether Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the US (directly or indirectly by selling some toxins to terrorists) but its completely indefensible to assert that he was incapable of posing a threat.

[FileNotFound]

Beestie:
.....but its completely indefensible to assert that he was incapable of posing a threat.

And who 'incapable' of posing a threat?

Canada is capable of posing a theat. Canada has 'weapons of mass destruction' (WTF is WMD supposed to mean? What "isn't" a weapon of mass destruction anyway? You have WMD. We will now use our WMD on you!)

Anyway, lets attack Canada, they too are capable of being a threat and I think I can get some people to agree that they have WMDs.


Your logic is horribly flawed.

[juju]

People are easier to find than non people, because they frequently interact with other people who then wander around interacting with other people. Weapons just sit there not interacting with anyone or anything (unless a person uses them).

[FileNotFound]

Originally posted by juju
People are easier to find than non people, because they frequently interact with other people who then wander around interacting with other people. Weapons just sit there not interacting with anyone or anything (unless a person uses them).

Your logic is horribly flawed.

People NOT trying to hide: frequently interact with other people who then wander around interacting with other people.

People trying to hide: just sit there not interacting with anyone or anything.

WMD : = BIG
Person: = Small.

WMD := Rare, if seen will be spotted.
Person:= All over the place. Easily disguised.

The fact that not a single WMD has been found to date only proves that there are no WMDs.

I'm sure that even the now incustody Saddam will support this. He's got nothing to lose by telling the truth now.

Fact is:

IF there were WMDs he'd have used them before he fell from power when he had nothing to lose. He didn't. This means there are no WMDs.

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by Beestie


So you are saying the the UN, Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac and Bill Clinton were all wrong? They all said and agreed that Iraq had WMD.

Like I said, we can disagree on whether Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the US (directly or indirectly by selling some toxins to terrorists) but its completely indefensible to assert that he was incapable of posing a threat.

How did Iraq pose a threat, Beestie? They had an army? They had tanks? Everyone's got those.

The UN inspection teams hadn't found anything in violation of UN terms by the time we invaded and they wanted more time to continue their search and run tests. At one time Iraq did pose a threat to surrounding areas, but in the past two years there was no evidence (except for false or misleading) to support that Iraq had WMD.