I believe that what would happen if soldiers left Iraq now is that
violence would esculate between factions over control of the
country. Howver, I believe that if soldiers were to leave Iraq 10
years for now that would still be true. The difference between
leaving Iraq now than at some point in the future is that staying in
Iraq will result in more soldiers being killed and dying and alot of
treasure being spent. Leaving now would mean no more soldiers would
die in Iraq and no more treasure would be spent keeping soldiers in
Iraq.
$
--- In [email protected], "wgilbert02" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I agree with everything you have said here. Everyone is arguing
> over the BS reasons that ole George gave for invading. I too
> thought it was crap. My logic herein is not to simply spend the
> rest of eternity crying over the pretext for war. I would rather
> argue over what should be done. ABSOLUTLEY NO ONE here has
answered
> what would happen if we left Iraq right now. I've wanted someone
to
> explain what the consequences are of leaving and all I get are
> analogies to robbing a damn bank, told that 1 american life and 1
> american tax dollar is not worth freeing 30 million people (which
is
> not what I think we are doing in Iraq), that every war since WWII
> has been illegal and unconstitutional (I agree with some of this),
> and more analogies and metaphores about Germany, etc. All i'm
> disagreeing with is what should be done now, so please spare me
the
> lecture on the 'illegal war in Iraq.' I get it, i'm on your side.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@> wrote:
> >
> > William,
> >
> > Regarding the Iraq War
> > The ends do not justify the means, especially when the original
> > end was a lie, when the means is war/death, and when the revised
> > end claims to justify the original - and a continuation of an
> > endless mean. For a little clarity and perspective, try applying
> > the govt "ethics"/"logic" on a smaller scale. A person trying to
> > justify the continuation of his mistake on the fact that it WAS a
> > mistake, was HIS mistake, was a BAD mistake, and has been going
> > on for a long time, is beyond most people's level of
> > comprehension. Yet somehow many seem to be able to accept this
> > same rationale on a national scale. There is nothing rational or
> > ethical about continuing this war/mistake. Unjustified aggression
> > does not defend further aggression any more than past spouse
> > abuse defends more spouse abuse. Nor does harm resulting from
> > past abuse defend further abuse, which is another "nonsanism"
> > (even more insane, if that's possible) commonly heard coming from
> > state/war supporters.
> >
> > I know you are new here, but if you are gonna get "personally
> > offended" so easily, put on your steel-toed shoes. No one here
> > walks on egg shells for anybody, or avoids sensitive toes.
> >
> > American Libertarianism is precisely that. Just like our
> > constitution, the LP / philosophy does not value world domination
> > over domestic goals. If a chance to spread liberty abroad
> > presents itself, I'm sure any Libertarian would jump on it; but
> > not if it comes at the expense of liberty at home. It's really a
> > very simple matter of basic priorities: America comes first. Do
> > you really think we Americans are in Iraq because we love them
> > more than ourselves??
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> >
> >
> > ************
> > {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> > "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> > case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
> > There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
> > unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
> > its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> > unjust lawsuits.
> > See www.fija.org
> > [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
> >
> > --------------------
> >
> >
> > I must agree with you here Eric. I had issues with the war and
> > still
> > do, but we are at war and must hope to achieve our objectives and
> >
> > quit harping on the past. I suppose my logic here would be:
> > although
> > I have issues with the origins of the war, defeat at the hands of
> >
> > Islamo-Fascists, irregardless of the pretext for war, is
> > certainly
> > far worse than winning the war and achieving our said objectives,
> >
> > irregardless of my personal disagreements.
> >
> > I simply find it amusing that those in this forum who front
> > liberty
> > and freedom as their mantra, loathe the attempted spread of such
> > liberties to others. I believe Paul claimed that not 1 American
> > life
> > would be worth achieving our objectives in Iraq. I find such
> > remarks
> > personnally offensive, because I percieve the political pretext
> > to
> > such a statement to have an underlying sentiment that liberty
> > and
> > freedom is reserved simply for us, even if that is not what
> > leftist
> > libertarians actually believe.
> >
> > William
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
