If you look at Paul's side on the Somalia exhample of Anarchy thread you can see that Paul is not pacafist nor does he have that trait common among libertarians of believing defense is a myth. Nothing Paul is saying here is weak on defense, or unamerican. HIs point of view also is not unusual among self proclaimed Libertarians.
I think you give Paul to much credit to say he could split a party himself. Like any man, Paul has good ideas and bad ideas, if we don't listen to any of them we will miss out on the good ones aswell as the bad. It is perfectly valid, and perfectly American to question Iraq. --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And tell me please, by whose definition of libertarianism does that > position eminent? > > That's NOT the libertarian movement I joined in 1985 straight out of > the Navy in Jacksonville, Florida. I was a Pro-Choice political > activist recruited by the Florida Libertarian Party (Nick Dunbar, > Dianne Pilcher, Rex Curry, et.al.). They didn't say anything to me > about non-interventionist foreign policy or pacifism. It was > all, "Hey, Eric, we Libertarians are basically Pro-Choice > Conservatives; free market/Milton Friedman/Ayn Rand types on > Capitalism, yet Pro-Choice, Pro-Rock 'n Roll, Pro-Sex and Pro-Drug > Legalization on social matters." > > I said COOL, I'm joining Dudes and Dudettes. It was only later > about a year or two after that I learned there were nutty Leftwinger > America-hating pacifists in the LP. > > Has the LP been misrepresenting itself to potential recruits? > > And if so, just what political movement should individuals such as > myself join, if we are hardcore Pro-Choice/Pro-Drug Legalization, > Pro-Free Markets on Economics, but also Pro-Defense, Pro-Patriotic > and Pro-America. > > Tell me Paul. Do you wish to split the libertarian movement right > down the middle, and cast off all those who disagree with you on > foreign policy? > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > Nope. Not even close. It wouldn't matter if Saddam and his sons > were > > murdering 10,000 Iraqi people per day, boiling thier screaming > > children in oil on national television and had live torture game > > shows. It wouldn't matter if he took over the entire middle- east, > > ruled with an iron fist, and controlled every drop of oil in the > > middle-east. No amount of human rights violations or even > genocide is > > justification to use the U.S. military for any reason other than > > responding to an attack against AMERICA. Being a "super power" > does > > NOT mean it's our responsibility to stop human suffering, > oppression, > > or even genocide happening elsewhere. It's not a libertarian > position > > to steal from Americans and to send Americans to die defending > people > > in another country. It's also not Constitutional. The libertarian > > position is to keep the government small and cheap and never to use > > the military other than in OUR OWN defense when we are attacked and > > not otherwise. > > > > We are the well wishers of freedom and liberty to all, but the > > champions only of our own. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" > > <ericdondero@> wrote: > > > > > > No, the US was justified in invading Iraq, for one, and one > reason > > > only; the massive human rights violations of Saddam, Uday, Qusay > and > > > their henchmen. Just as bad as Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. As the > > > world's only remaining superpower it is OUR responsibility to > stop > > > human genocide on the planet. That is inherently a very > libertarian > > > position, and it's amazing many libertarians have chosen to put > > > themselves on the side of totalitarian dictators instead of on > the > > > side of liberation. > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" > > > <uncoolrabbit@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nothing Paul said below contradicts that Iraqi's statement. > None > > > of > > > > sadams chemical weapons were found, that includes any that > made it > > > > to Syria. It is no secret that Iraq had chemical and > biological > > > > weapons. The real crime of the administration is falsely > leading > > > the > > > > people to believe IRaq was actively developing new wweapons, > > > > including nuclear ambitions, which was not the case. > > > > > > > > So, what does the statement have to do with calling Paul a > liar? > > > The > > > > Iraqi does not know where they went, only supporting Paul in > his > > > > claim that no WMDs were found in Iraq. It IS a fact. > > > > > > > > Aside from the specifics of Pauls statements validity, what > else > > > are > > > > you trying to get at? That the administration is justified in > > > > invading Iraq over a past and now dead chemical and biological > > > > weapons program, and that traces off that prgram, including > the > > > > undestroyed products of that program, products the US has > aswell > > > and > > > > has been slowly destroying for years, are all the > justification > > > > needed, while that same administration tolerated a real > program to > > > > develop nuclear weapons in North Korea? This war had nothing > to do > > > > with Iraq's arsenal, get over it. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" > > > > <ericdondero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And so Paul, you are claiming then that you know more about > what > > > > > actually happened to the WMDs than the 2nd in Command of the > > > Iraqi > > > > > Air Force who a few weeks ago, in an interview, stated > > > > categorically > > > > > that "we shuffled them all off to Syria two months before > the > > > > > invasion..."? > > > > > > > > > > Are you calling the guy a liar Paul? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't find anything ridiculous about the indisputable > FACT > > > that > > > > > > there were no WMD's found. Not even non-WMDs like mustard > gas > > > > were > > > > > > found. Only the components that could be used to make > mustard > > > > gas > > > > > > were found. So once again, NO WMDs WERE FOUND. That's > not an > > > > > attack > > > > > > on the President. IT IS A FACT and those who claim > otherwise > > > are > > > > > > woefully misinformed or completely dishonest and most > likely > > > Bush > > > > > > apologists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" > > > <geofgibson@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" > > > > <txliberty@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geof, attack message, NOT messengers, in THIS forum! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Terry Liberty Parker > > > > > > > > Owner/moderator, > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry. I try my best to attack ridiculous arguments > > > > without > > > > > > > personal reference. > > > > > > > I will re-double my efforts to remain impersonal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
