# Think Tank > History >  Why is Barry Goldwater Considered a Libertarian?

## Tywysog Cymru

This is something that really pisses me off.  Barry Goldwater is often referred to as a Libertarian Republican and freedom-minded philosophically.  I don't understand why anyone would consider him such, He seems to me like the father of the NeoCon movement.

He advocated for nuclear weapons to be used as conventional weapons, suggesting that they be used in Vietnam to defoliate trees (saying this while 'Nam was still under French occupation).  I would prefer Lyndon Johnson, or even George W. Bush than this guy.  If he had won I believe that a nuclear WWIII would have taken place.

(John McCain adored him btw).

----------


## AuH20

I think it is time to be properly educated on the great man known as Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater a neoconservative? I thought I heard it all:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater




> I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
>         The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell, p. 15





> *I told Johnson and old colleagues on Capitol Hill that we had two clear choices. Either win the [Vietnam] war in a relatively short time, say within a year, or pull out all our troops and come home.*
> 
>     Barry M. Goldwater with Jack Casserly, Goldwater (Doubleday, 1988), p. 222





> *Vietnam is about halfway around the world from Washington. It's as large as the major European nations, with nearly 130,000 square miles... Its ancient recorded history goes back to 111 B.C... We entered (that country) with considerable ignorance.*
> 
>     Barry M. Goldwater with Jack Casserly, Goldwater (Doubleday, 1988)





> *Most Americans have no real understanding of the operations of the international moneylenders... the accounts of the Federal Reserve have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the credit of the United States*
> 
>     With No Apologies (1979)


Goldwater, Mr. Neocon as you mischaracterized him as, despised AIPAC:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/10/goldwa...oot-of-it.html

----------


## Maximilian American

+rep




> I think it is time to be properly educated on the great man known as Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater a neoconservative? I thought I heard it all:
> 
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Michael Landon

> I think it is time to be properly educated on the great man known as Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater a neoconservative? I thought I heard it all:
> 
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
> 
> 
> Goldwater, Mr. Neocon as you mischaracterized him as, despised AIPAC:
> 
> http://mondoweiss.net/2010/10/goldwa...oot-of-it.html


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AuH20 again."

- ML

----------


## Michael Landon

Some time this upcoming week, I'll go into great detail why Goldwater is considered a libertarian Republican and why he is NOT a neo-con.

I just don't have the time right now.

- ML

----------


## Keith and stuff

Goldwater wasn't a libertarian. He was fiscally libertarian, though. In other words, he wanted a decent amount of economic freedom.

Perhaps by the standards of his day he was considered a libertarian.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I think it is time to be properly educated on the great man known as Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater a neoconservative? I thought I heard it all:
> 
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He supported the Vietnam War, seems pretty un-Libertarian to me.




> *And I support, before anyone gets the wrong idea, as does my party,  as do all Americans, the President's firm action in response.* But I  must point out that it was just that, I must point out that it was just  that a response--an incident not a program or a new policy; a tactical reaction, not a new winning  strategy. 
> 
> *Yes, all of us support the President in this strong, right  action.* No, we will not let this one action obscure a multitude of other  needed actions.

----------


## FrankRep

*Before They Hated Ron Paul, They Hated Barry Goldwater* 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...arry-Goldwater

----------


## AuH20

> He supported the Vietnam War, seems pretty un-Libertarian to me.


We had an assistance pact with South Vietnam that was tested years before the manufactured Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The main problem with the Vietnam War was that it went on aimlessly for 20 years after previous bungling by the state departments in the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations. It should been 8-12 months and out. But the MIC and the global community never wants brief resolutions to conflicts.

----------


## 69360

> He supported the Vietnam War, seems pretty un-Libertarian to me.


He supported what the Vietnam war should have been, not what it was. Goldwater wanted to use overwhelming force, win the war and get our troops out. Not the limited engagement rules that doomed the war to failure. Big difference.

----------


## AuH20

> He supported what the Vietnam war should have been, not what it was. Goldwater wanted to use overwhelming force, win the war and get our troops out. Not the limited engagement rules that doomed the war to failure. Big difference.


He told LJB point blank to be prepared to win it in 1 year or don't get involved. Obviously, that advice was dismissed.

----------


## FrankRep

> He supported the Vietnam War, seems pretty un-Libertarian to me.


No. Goldwater supported either winning the war *or* Withdrawn. Goldwater didn't support the war itself.


*Goldwater attacks Johnson's Vietnam policy*
Sept. 22, 1964:

Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, Republican senator from Arizona, charges that President Lyndon *Johnson lied to the American people* and that he is *committing the United States to war "recklessly."* Having previously called the war "McNamara's War," he now described it as "Johnson's War."

Goldwater said that the United States should do whatever it took to support U.S. troops in the war and that if the administration was not prepared to "take the war to North Vietnam," it should withdraw.

----------


## Antischism

Don't be mistaken, Goldwater was an interventionist.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The main problem with the Vietnam War was that it went on aimlessly for 20 years after previous bungling by the state departments in the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations. It should been 8-12 months and out.


Yeah... no.

That was NOT the "main problem" with the "Vietnam War".  

The main problem with the "Vietnam War" was that, you know, there were American troops involved... at all.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No. Goldwater supported either winning the war *or* Withdrawn. Goldwater didn't support the war itself.
> 
> 
> *Goldwater attacks Johnson's Vietnam policy*
> Sept. 22, 1964:
> 
> Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, Republican senator from Arizona, charges that President Lyndon *Johnson lied to the American people* and that he is *committing the United States to war "recklessly."* Having previously called the war "McNamara's War," he now described it as "Johnson's War."
> 
> Goldwater said that the United States should do whatever it took to support U.S. troops in the war and that if the administration was not prepared to "take the war to North Vietnam," it should withdraw.


Quite a bit different from the man who said, "WE MARCHED RIGHT IN... WE CAN MARCH RIGHT OUT!"

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> He told LJB point blank to be prepared to win it in 1 year or don't get involved. Obviously, that advice was dismissed.


Ron Paul would never have gotten involved.

Anyway, I'd rather have a drawn-out war than one where our commander-in-chief supports using tactical nukes as "conventional weapons."

Had I lived in 1964 I would have either voted Johnson or cast a blank ballot.  (interestingly enough, my county* voted for Johnson in 1964, the last time they voted for a Democrat).

*My county is in Thomas Massie's district, so they supported Liberty when it manifested itself in it's true form.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> He supported what the Vietnam war should have been, not what it was.


What it "should have been" was NOTHING AT ALL.  And that is NOT what Goldwater supported.  

Bunch of MIN-terventionists around here anymore...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What it "should have been" was NOTHING AT ALL.  And that is NOT what Goldwater supported.  
> 
> Bunch of MIN-terventionists around here anymore...


Beware of those trying to twist libertarianism into something it's not. Their goal is to co-opt the Ron Paul movement. They have been quite critical of Dr Paul's ideas.

----------


## AuH20

> Yeah... no.
> 
> That was NOT the "main problem" with the "Vietnam War".  
> 
> The main problem with the "Vietnam War" was that, you know, there were American troops involved... at all.


It's called an assistance pact. It's simple to understand. South Vietnam gets attacked and the U.S. is OBLIGATED to Assist. And this subversion from the North happened well before Gulf of Tonkin which was the cherry on top. In 1956, Ho Chi Minh called for a reunification of both South and North Vietnam and the Viet Cong was born. A series of skirmishes and corresponding propaganda campaign preceded the Gulf of Tonkin incident by 8 years. Just come out and say you don't like entangling alliances. That would be fine. But don't say the U.S. had no rightful claim to assist the republic of South Vietnam. Per their treaty they were well within their right.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Beware of those trying to twist libertarianism into something it's not. Their goal is to co-opt the Ron Paul movement. They have been quite critical of Dr Paul's ideas.


:thumbs:

Some apparently need to familiarize themselves with the non-aggression principle.

----------


## FrankRep

*Barry Goldwater, Jr. on Ron Paul*



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVoYhlZIiGQ


*Barry Goldwater, Jr. Endorses Ron Paul for President*



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPyEgYH4UPs

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It's called an assistance pact. It's simple to understand. South Vietnam gets attacked and the U.S. is OBLIGATED to Assist. And this subversion from the North happened well before Gulf of Tonkin which was the cherry on top. In 1956, Ho Chi Minh called for a reunification of both South and North Vietnam and the Viet Cong was born. A series of skirmishes and corresponding propaganda campaign preceded the Gulf of Tonkin incident by 8 years. Just come out and say you don't like entangling alliances. That would be fine. But don't say the U.S. had no rightful claim to assist the republic of South Vietnam. Per their treaty they were well within their right.


Yeah, it's not like I'm hiding the fact that I find entangling alliances reprehensible.  Sons and daughters are not subject to the slaughter because some politician signed a piece of paper that had the words, "assistance pact" at the top of it... sorry to burst your bubble.  

There is no "U.S."... but even if there were, the politicians who "run" it were in violation of the rights of the people the sent to do their killing, as well as the people whom they killed.

Every single one of them should be tried by a jury and if justice be served found guilty and executed for their GROSS violations of human rights.

----------


## cajuncocoa

So? And Rand endorsed Romney...what does Goldwater's son's endorsement prove?

----------


## AuH20

> :thumbs:
> 
> Some apparently need to familiarize themselves with the non-aggression principle.


Yup. The Viet Cong needed a lesson in the NAP. Frankly, Eisenhower was an idiot to continue on the path laid down by the French and alienate Ho Chi Minh. The second catastrophic mistake was Kennedy installing Catholic tyrant Ngo Dinh Diem as the president of South Vietnam.

----------


## AuH20

> Yeah, it's not like I'm hiding the fact that I find entangling alliances reprehensible.  Sons and daughters are not subject to the slaughter because some politician signed a piece of paper that had the words, "assistance pact" at the top of it... sorry to burst your bubble.  
> 
> There is no "U.S."... but even if there were, the politicians who "run" it were in violation of the rights of the people the sent to do their killing, as well as the people whom they killed.
> 
> Every single one of them should be tried by a jury and if justice be served found guilty and executed for their GROSS violations of human rights.


I agree with you. No entangling alliances since it's fraught with peril. But if you have a pact of assistance already signed, you can't simply abandon it at the last second.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yup. The Viet Cong needed a lesson in the NAP. Frankly, Eisenhower was an idiot to back the French and alienate Ho Chi Minh. The second catastrophic mistake was Kennedy installing Diem as president.


Half a planet away.  Why do you or I know ANYTHING at all about the history of Vietnam?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Barry Goldwater was atrocious concerning Foreign Policy, but pretty good domestically. You have to go back to Robert Taft though for the last time a libertarian was close to the WH. As bad as Taft was drifting by the early 50s, he was still better than Goldwater, and MUCH better than that crony Eisenhower who ended up barely beating him in the Primary.

----------


## FrankRep

> So? And Rand endorsed Romney...what does Goldwater's son's endorsement prove?


Watch the first video before making stupid comments.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I agree with you. No entangling alliances. But if you a pact of assistance already signed, you can't simply abandon it at the last second.


Had I been president, I would have ignored this so called "assistance pact" in a heartbeat.  If you think I would have sacrificed millions of human lives over the formality of a signed piece of paper, you're insane.  In short, sir, yes you absolutely can abandon war at the last second.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Yup. The Viet Cong needed a lesson in the NAP. Frankly, Eisenhower was an idiot to continue on path laid down by the French and alienate Ho Chi Minh. The second catastrophic mistake was Kennedy installing Diem as president of South Vietnam.


The first mistake was Eisenhower beating Taft. We would have never have gotten involved in that hellhole or a bunch of other foreign interventions had he won.

----------


## AuH20

> Had I been president, I would have ignored this so called "assistance pact" in a heartbeat.  If you think I would have sacrificed millions of human lives over the formality of a signed piece of paper, you're insane.  In short, sir, yes you absolutely can abandon war at the last second.


Agreed. But here's the problem. Your predecessors (Eisenhower & Kennedy) laid the seeds for this major problem to fester and eventually spiral out of control. They put a huge target on the government of South Vietnam and basically drew in the Viet Cong. Their nearsighted policies strengthened and gave credence to Ho Chi Minh's cause.

----------


## fr33

He was a principled conservative. Your criticisms of him don't change that. But yes I don't like that people call him a libertarian but what can ya do...

----------


## Contumacious

> T Why is Barry Goldwater Considered a Libertarian? .



He talked a good game:

'Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

.

----------


## FrankRep

*Rand Paul on Barry Goldwater and Limited Government*




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEdcgy7p4vk


Rand Paul discusses the benefits of small government, especially to low-income Americans. He also talks about limited-government hero Barry Goldwater and quotes a passage from "The Conscience of a Conservative."

----------


## AuH20

> He was a principled conservative. Your criticisms of him don't change that. But yes I don't like that people call him a libertarian but what can ya do...


I don't think he is a doctrinaire libertarian, but he's still a libertarian in my eyes.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He supported what the Vietnam war should have been, not what it was. Goldwater wanted to use overwhelming force, win the war and get our troops out. Not the limited engagement rules that doomed the war to failure. Big difference.




No wonder he thinks we should "Respect" the military, and neg repped me for refusing to genuflect before his altar.  Its because he supports warmongering.  Supporters of murder will support murders.




> He told LJB point blank to be prepared to win it in 1 year or don't get involved. Obviously, that advice was dismissed.


Not any better.




> Yeah... no.
> 
> That was NOT the "main problem" with the "Vietnam War".  
> 
> The main problem with the "Vietnam War" was that, you know, there were American troops involved... at all.


Yep.




> Ron Paul would never have gotten involved.
> 
> Anyway, I'd rather have a drawn-out war than one where our commander-in-chief supports using tactical nukes as "conventional weapons."
> 
> Had I lived in 1964 I would have either voted Johnson or cast a blank ballot.  (interestingly enough, my county* voted for Johnson in 1964, the last time they voted for a Democrat).
> 
> *My county is in Thomas Massie's district, so they supported Liberty when it manifested itself in it's true form.


The only thing I want to know is, why the crap would you vote for LBJ?

I mean, I'm not saying that Goldwater was a good choice, but since when is "Lesser of two evils" a good strategy?

Goldwater reminds me of Ted Cruz at first glance.  A very well-disguised hawk.  Even still, I'd prefer Goldwater over LBJ.  I wouldn't have voted for Goldwater, but if I were forced to choose, I'd rather someone with crappy foreign policy and decent fiscal policy over someone that dramatically increased the size of the Federal Government AND sucked on foreign policy.

Even still, if Johnson and Goldwater were the only guys on the ballot, I'd vote third party or abstain.  If somehow Ted Cruz ends up as the GOP candidate against any Democrat I can imagine, I'd do the same thing.




> So? And Rand endorsed Romney...what does Goldwater's son's endorsement prove?


Exactly.  Endorsements don't matter.  Which is why Ron's endorsement of Cruz also doesn't matter.



> I agree with you. No entangling alliances since it's fraught with peril. But if you have a pact of assistance already signed, you can't simply abandon it at the last second.


Yes you can.




> Half a planet away.  Why do you or I know ANYTHING at all about the history of Vietnam?


OK, I disagree with this.  I don't think knowing another country's history is a bad thing just because of how far away it is.




> Barry Goldwater was atrocious concerning Foreign Policy, but pretty good domestically. You have to go back to Robert Taft though for the last time a libertarian was close to the WH. As bad as Taft was drifting by the early 50s, he was still better than Goldwater, and MUCH better than that crony Eisenhower who ended up barely beating him in the Primary.


I don't think Taft was a pure libertarian either, but he was actually a solid candidate.



> Had I been president, I would have ignored this so called "assistance pact" in a heartbeat.  If you think I would have sacrificed millions of human lives over the formality of a signed piece of paper, you're insane.  In short, sir, yes you absolutely can abandon war at the last second.


Amen.




> *Rand Paul on Barry Goldwater and Limited Government*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEdcgy7p4vk
> 
> 
> Rand Paul discusses the benefits of small government, especially to low-income Americans. He also talks about limited-government hero Barry Goldwater and quotes a passage from "The Conscience of a Conservative."


I can't watch it now, but Rand has said positive things about Friedman as well...

----------


## dillo

The reason LBJ won the presidential election against Goldwater(actually more of a slaughter) is that he convinced the USA people that Goldwater was some crazy interventionalist that wanted to nuke everyone.  LBJ was probably the biggest piece of $#@! megalomaniac America ever elected, and apparently his propaganda worked its wonders on some forum members to.

----------


## AuH20

> Ron Paul would never have gotten involved.
> 
> Anyway, I'd rather have a drawn-out war than one where our commander-in-chief supports using tactical nukes as "conventional weapons."
> 
> Had I lived in 1964 I would have either voted Johnson or cast a blank ballot.  (interestingly enough, my county* voted for Johnson in 1964, the last time they voted for a Democrat).
> 
> *My county is in Thomas Massie's district, so they supported Liberty when it manifested itself in it's true form.


He wanted to use low yield nuclear weapons for defoliage purposes. They weren't going to be dropped on civilian centers or enemy locations. 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=3556,2675656

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

The Vietnam War (open war) was started due to a fabrication, and I still don't see why a nuclear weapons advocate is a Libertarian.

----------


## AuH20

> *The Vietnam War (open war) was started due to a fabrication*, and I still don't see why a nuclear weapons advocate is a Libertarian.


That's another falsehood. The war between North and South (with low profile U.S. assistance) was raging well before 1964. The Tonkin false flag OFFICIALLY kicked it off.

----------


## FrankRep

> The reason LBJ won the presidential election against Goldwater(actually more of a slaughter) is that he convinced the USA people that Goldwater was some crazy interventionalist that wanted to nuke everyone.  LBJ was probably the biggest piece of $#@! megalomaniac America ever elected, and apparently his propaganda worked its wonders on some forum members to.


The Rockefeller Republicans declared War on Barry Goldwater.


As documented here:

*Before They Hated Ron Paul, They Hated Barry Goldwater* 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...arry-Goldwater

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Vietnam War (open war) was started due to a fabrication, and I still don't see why a nuclear weapons advocate is a Libertarian.





> That's another falsehood. The war was raging well before 1964. The Tonkin false flag OFFICIALLY kicked it off.


Nope, he's right, and you've been a Ron Paul supporter for far longer than he has, which is rather sad all things considering...

This is  fairly simple stuff...

----------


## FrankRep

So people here have nothing better to do than to attack Barry Goldwater?

Sad and Pathetic.

----------


## AuH20

This is the event that really sent it from a simmering conflict to a full-fledged war. With no political options, thus the Viet Cong was born:




> *July 1956: South Vietnamese President Blocks Unifying Elections*
> 
> South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, backed by the US, successfully blocks the unifying elections that had been set by the 1954 Geneva Accords, which the US refused to sign (see 1954). It is widely believed that Ho Chi Minh would have easily carried the elections (see 1954). This would have been an unacceptable outcome for the US. [Herring, 1986, pp. 55]

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So people here have nothing better to do than to attack Barry Goldwater?
> 
> Sad and Pathetic.


 a question was asked and is being answered...why do people ask questions if they don't want the answer?

----------


## 69360

> What it "should have been" was NOTHING AT ALL.  And that is NOT what Goldwater supported.  
> 
> Bunch of MIN-terventionists around here anymore...


I explained Goldwater's position. You have incorrectly assumed it was mine.

----------


## FrankRep

*Barry Goldwater Predicts Ron Paul*


Lew Rockwell.com
November 29, 2007


"The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: 'I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.'”

Barry Goldwater, *The Conscience of a Conservative*, (1960) p. 17.

----------


## TaftFan

The Conscience of a Conservative was actually written by Bozell, not trying to take anything away from it.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> That's another falsehood. The war between North and South (with low profile U.S. assistance) was raging well before 1964. The Tonkin false flag OFFICIALLY kicked it off.


Yeah, but US interests in 'Nam were represented by mainly military advisers before 1964, You could argue that the Vietnam War was raging since Japanese occupation.

----------


## AuH20

> *Yeah, but US interests in 'Nam were represented by mainly military advisers before 1964*, You could argue that the Vietnam War was raging since Japanese occupation.


Absolutely. Military aid as well. But like I said, Gulf of Tonkin was the final cherry on top.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So people here have nothing better to do than to attack Barry Goldwater?
> 
> Sad and Pathetic.


Some people here have nothing better to do than defend a pointless military intervention half-a-planet away.

Seriously, it's indefensible.  No one has even made a case that it was just... obviously because it wasn't, but for some reason you guys still defend it.  

Sad and pathetic.

----------


## FrankRep

> Some people here have nothing better to do than defend a pointless military intervention half-a-planet away.
> 
> Seriously, it's indefensible.  No one has even made a case that it was just... obviously because it wasn't, but for some reason you guys still defend it.  
> 
> Sad and pathetic.


Blame Johnson, not Goldwater.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Agreed. But here's the problem. Your predecessors (Eisenhower & Kennedy) laid the seeds for this major problem to fester and eventually spiral out of control. They put a huge target on the government of South Vietnam and basically drew in the Viet Cong. Their nearsighted policies strengthened and gave credence to Ho Chi Minh's cause.


I wouldn't oversee the murder of millions of people just because the course of American foreign policy trended in that direction.

What the...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Blame Johnson, not Goldwater.


I'm blaming you.

----------


## FrankRep

> I'm blaming you.


Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Conscience of a Conservative was actually written by Bozell, not trying to take anything away from it.


Nor did Ron Paul write his own books.  But, the ideas came from him and the final product was approved by him.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.


Then try to be consistent.  Try to imagine Ron Paul advocating the use of "low yield nuclear weapons for defoliage purposes" in the course of a foreign military intervention with absolutely zero consequences for the territorial United States.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm blaming you.


Are you sure he was even alive during this particular intervention?



> Then try to be consistent.  Try to imagine Ron Paul advocating the use of "low yield nuclear weapons for defoliage purposes" in the course of a foreign military intervention with absolutely zero consequences for the territorial United States.


He wouldn't.  And while there are some issues that I can let slide, this isn't one of them.  Goldwater sucks.

That said, I don't agree with Tywysog/CelticEmpire that Johnson was the lesser of two evils.  I'd still say Goldwater was the lesser of two evils, but not good enough to vote for.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Are you sure he was even alive during this particular intervention.


I'm blaming him for defending Goldwater and his FP stance right here and now.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm blaming him for defending Goldwater and his FP stance right here and now.


True, but that doesn't make him responsible for the war.  Johnson still was, and to a certain extent, everyone who voted for or fought in the conflict.

That said, that we're having this conversation here of all places is truly depressing.  Then again, that's all I'd expect from Ted Cruz supporters...

----------


## FrankRep

> Then try to be consistent.  Try to imagine Ron Paul advocating the use of "low yield nuclear weapons for defoliage purposes" in the course of a foreign military intervention with absolutely zero consequences for the territorial United States.


Goldwater backed away from the "low yield nuclear weapons" idea, considering the fact that it wasn't his idea in the first place.


During the storm of criticism that followed, Goldwater tried to back away from these drastic actions, claiming that *he did not mean to advocate the use of atomic bombs* but was "repeating a suggestion made by competent military people."

- http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...atomic-weapons

----------


## LibertyEagle

You guys are so wrong about Goldwater.  I don't agree with the war ever being started, but it had been.  If he had become President, we would have won the war (that was already going on by the way) quickly and gotten out of there.

Back then, the Cold War was raging.  The USSR was invading and taking over country after country and they made no bones about the fact that their goal was to have world communism.  There were Communist spies in our government, in our media and in our schools, and this fact was proven.  The USSR was threatening us constantly with violent overthrow and it was much more than rhetoric.

I was a kid then and I remember it.  I also remember Goldwater standing against the MIC, the Federal Reserve, federal government overreach, etc.  He was a strong defender of the Constitution and individual liberty and he was no poser.  

Before Ron Paul there was Barry Goldwater and he was a fine man, indeed.  They stood for many of the same things.  I wish we was alive today.

----------


## FrankRep

> I'm blaming him for defending Goldwater and his FP stance right here and now.


Goldwater said that Johnson lied to the American people to get into war. Goldwater said either win the war or withdraw, but don't just leave our soldiers in enemy territory to die recklessly and needlessly.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> True, but that doesn't make him responsible for the war.  Johnson still was, and to a certain extent, everyone who voted for or fought in the conflict.
> 
> That said, that we're having this conversation here of all places is truly depressing.  Then again, that's all I'd expect from Ted Cruz supporters...


Why?  Ron Paul respected Barry Goldwater, Sr. a great deal.

There is a reason why Dr. Paul has invited Goldwater's son to appear at his events in both presidential campaigns.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> True, but that doesn't make him responsible for the war.  Johnson still was, and to a certain extent, everyone who voted for or fought in the conflict.


Defending previous foreign military interventions provides the framework for future conflicts.




> That said, that we're having this conversation here of all places is truly depressing.


:thumbs:

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Nor did Ron Paul write his own books.  But, the ideas came from him and the final product was approved by him.


Looking at the cover of Liberty Defined now and it says "Ron Paul: #1 New York Times Bestselling Author of The Revolution and End the Fed"

Going beyond the cover it says, 
"Also By Ron Paul
End the Fed
The Revolution: A Manifesto
A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce and Honest Friendship
Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property
The Case for Gold: A Minority Report of the United States Gold Commission"

What is your source behind claiming Ron Paul didn't write his own books? It certainly reads like Ron Paul wrote them.

----------


## FrankRep

> Defending previous foreign military interventions provides the framework for future conflicts.
> 
> :thumbs:


Barry Goldwater didn't support the Vietnam War.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Looking at the cover of Liberty Defined now and it says "Ron Paul: #1 New York Times Bestselling Author of The Revolution and End the Fed"
> 
> Going beyond the cover it says, 
> "Also By Ron Paul
> End the Fed
> The Revolution: A Manifesto
> A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce and Honest Friendship
> Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property
> The Case for Gold: A Minority Report of the United States Gold Commission"
> ...


Some of his older books are just compilations of speeches.  I am talking about his later books that are more than that.  Thomas Woods played a big part in their writing.  You didn't know that?  They all do this; it's not uncommon.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You guys are so wrong about Goldwater.  I don't agree with the war ever being started, but it had been.  If he had become President, we would have won the war (that was already going on by the way) quickly and gotten out of there.


Ever since the Iraq war went into overtime, this - "win the war and get out" - has become the mantra of the neocons who went scurrying from the light for a while.  It's garbage.

AS RON PAUL SAID, WE MARCHED RIGHT IN, WE COULD MARCH RIGHT BACK OUT.  That doesn't infer a brief period of majorly kicking ass, then coming home.  That infers walking away from a damned mistake, before any more innocent human beings die as a consequence.  

Iraq was a mistake, and so was Vietnam.  There would have been no justice in "winning the war and getting out".  The correct policy would have been to get the hell right out of there, ASAP.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> That said, I don't agree with Tywysog/CelticEmpire that Johnson was the lesser of two evils.  I'd still say Goldwater was the lesser of two evils, but not good enough to vote for.


I would say Goldwater was better than Johnson, except for Barry's attitude about nuclear weapons.

----------


## FrankRep

> Looking at the cover of Liberty Defined now and it says "Ron Paul: #1 New York Times Bestselling Author of The Revolution and End the Fed"
> 
> Going beyond the cover it says, 
> "Also By Ron Paul
> End the Fed
> The Revolution: A Manifesto
> A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce and Honest Friendship
> Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property
> The Case for Gold: A Minority Report of the United States Gold Commission"
> ...



The Revolution: A Manifesto, the bestselling book supposedly authored by Dr. Paul, was actually *ghost-written by Thomas E. Woods Jr.*

September 2, 2008 

*SOURCES:*

*Washington Post: Paul Is Here, and the RNC Isn't Happy*

*New Republic: Ron Paul's Ghostwriter: "this Is Ron Paul's Book In Every Way"*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why?  Ron Paul respected Barry Goldwater, Sr. a great deal.
> 
> There is a reason why Dr. Paul has invited Goldwater's son to appear at his events in both presidential campaigns.


So what?

First of all, judging the son by the father isn't really fair anyway.  I don't know what Goldwater Jr. believes, but I can tell you my beliefs are not the same as my dad's.  In our case, there's a lot of overlap, but I'm far more radical than he is (He's probably pretty close to Rand Paul's public positions on most issues.)  In the case of one English teacher I had, her husband and her son were politically polar opposites (One liberal, one a Rush Limbaugh listener, and apparently conservative, although I don't know exactly what his positions were.)

Second of all, so what?  Ron Paul respects a lot of people, and is sometimes wrong.



> Ever since the Iraq war went into overtime, this - "win the war and get out" - has become the mantra of the neocons who went scurrying from the light for a while.  It's garbage.
> 
> AS RON PAUL SAID, WE MARCHED RIGHT IN, WE COULD MARCH RIGHT BACK OUT.  That doesn't infer a brief period of majorly kicking ass, then coming home.  That infers walking away from a damned mistake, before any more innocent human beings die as a consequence.  
> 
> Iraq was a mistake, and so was Vietnam.  There would have been no justice in "winning the war and getting out".  The correct policy would have been to get the hell right out of there, ASAP.


+rep.

----------


## FrankRep

> I would say Goldwater was better than Johnson, except for Barry's attitude about nuclear weapons.


Goldwater backed away from the "low yield nuclear weapons" idea, considering the fact that it wasn't his idea in the first place.


During the storm of criticism that followed, Goldwater tried to back away from these drastic actions, claiming that *he did not mean to advocate the use of atomic bombs* but was "repeating a suggestion made by competent military people."

- http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...atomic-weapons

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I would say Goldwater was better than Johnson, except for Barry's attitude about nuclear weapons.


Even still, I'd say Goldwater was "Better."  But that doesn't mean I necessarily would have voted for him.  He reminds me of Ted Cruz in a lot of ways, and I'm not a fan of Cruz either.

----------


## FrankRep

> So what?
> 
> First of all, judging the son by the father isn't really fair anyway.


Read that again: ---> "Ron Paul respected Barry Goldwater, *Sr.* a great deal."

----------


## FrankRep

> Even still, I'd say Goldwater was "Better."  But that doesn't mean I necessarily would have voted for him.  He reminds me of Ted Cruz in a lot of ways, and I'm not a fan of Cruz either.


FreedomFanatic is a Rockefeller Republican. lol

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Even still, I'd say Goldwater was "Better."  But that doesn't mean I necessarily would have voted for him.  He reminds me of Ted Cruz in a lot of ways, and I'm not a fan of Cruz either.


And you'd be wrong.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Goldwater backed away from the "low yield nuclear weapons" idea, considering the fact that it wasn't his idea in the first place.
> 
> 
> During the storm of criticism that followed, Goldwater tried to back away from these drastic actions, claiming that *he did not mean to advocate the use of atomic bombs* but was "repeating a suggestion made by competent military people."
> 
> - http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...atomic-weapons


I find myself sitting here trying to imagine Ron Paul even accidentally advocating the use of "low-yield" nukes... 

I'm trying to imagine him drunk or something.  Or maybe just having a really crappy day... you know, one of those days where if you were president you would just totally nuke the $#@! out of some third-world country, just to download all of your anger and failures onto their countryside.  

It's just not working out...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FreedomFanatic is a Rockefeller Republican. lol


No, I'm a Ron Paul Republican.

Or at least, I will be once I actually register to vote.



> And you'd be wrong.


I honestly don't know a ton about him, just going by what I see here.  But what I see here is the Goldwater defenders actually defending a foreign policy that I believe to be immoral.   YMMV.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I find myself sitting here trying to imagine Ron Paul even accidentally advocating the use of "low-yield" nukes... 
> 
> I'm trying to imagine him drunk or something.  Or maybe just having a really crappy day... you know, one of those days where if you were president you would just totally nuke the $#@! out of some third-world country, just to download all of your anger and failures onto their countryside.  
> 
> It's just not working out...


Its not working for me either.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Some of his older books are just compilations of speeches.  I am talking about his later books that are more than that.  Thomas Woods played a big part in their writing.  You didn't know that?  They all do this; it's not uncommon.


I figured he had some help, sure. He also cites various people and their works but as far as I can tell his books were written by him. They actually sound like him when you are reading them. His writing style.

That's not to say some people might not have collaborated with him to get his thoughts in order and to make the book flow smoothly but as far as I can tell it was written by him. They're great reads either way.

----------


## krugminator

> The Revolution: A Manifesto, the bestselling book supposedly authored by Dr. Paul, was actually *ghost-written by Thomas E. Woods Jr.*
> 
> September 2, 2008 
> 
> *SOURCES:*
> 
> *Washington Post: Paul Is Here, and the RNC Isn't Happy*
> 
> *New Republic: Ron Paul's Ghostwriter: "this Is Ron Paul's Book In Every Way"*


That's interesting. I have watched a lot of Ron Paul interviews. I read End the Fed and my initial thought was that it was very unlikely that Ron Paul was capable of writing it. 

I don't think having a ghostwriter is a huge deal and he may well have written End the Fed.  But I guess this means my initial impression might be correct.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The Revolution: A Manifesto, the bestselling book supposedly authored by Dr. Paul, was actually *ghost-written by Thomas E. Woods Jr.*
> 
> September 2, 2008 
> 
> *SOURCES:*
> 
> *Washington Post: Paul Is Here, and the RNC Isn't Happy*
> 
> *New Republic: Ron Paul's Ghostwriter: "this Is Ron Paul's Book In Every Way"*


Thanks.

I was not aware of that.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Goldwater backed away from the "low yield nuclear weapons" idea, considering the fact that it wasn't his idea in the first place.
> 
> During the storm of criticism that followed, Goldwater tried to back away from these drastic actions, claiming that *he did not mean to advocate the use of atomic bombs* but was "repeating a suggestion made by competent military people."
> 
> - http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...atomic-weapons


When politicians say something stupid, they often try to claim that they've been misunderstood, or to blame someone else.

The fact that he ever said such a thing should be a red flag.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> This is something that really pisses me off.  Barry Goldwater is often referred to as a Libertarian Republican and freedom-minded philosophically.  I don't understand why anyone would consider him such, He seems to me like the father of the NeoCon movement.
> 
> He advocated for nuclear weapons to be used as conventional weapons, suggesting that they be used in Vietnam to defoliate trees (saying this while 'Nam was still under French occupation).  I would prefer Lyndon Johnson, or even George W. Bush than this guy.  If he had won I believe that a nuclear WWIII would have taken place.
> 
> (John McCain adored him btw).






Johnson had one of the most vicious attack ads to make Goldwater seem like a psycho on FP. My journalism professor who lived it said that Goldwater was less hawkish, in fact, than Johnson. 

Everything I heard about Goldwater, he seems libertarian-leaning by today's standards.

----------


## FrankRep

> When politicians say something stupid, they often try to claim that they've been misunderstood, or to blame someone else.
> 
> The fact that he ever said such a thing should be a red flag.


Barry Goldwater wasn't a 100% perfect candidate and he made some mistakes. Goldwater likely made the comment out of frustration and later, with the clear head, realized it was a bad idea. You also have to realize that this was around the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Soviet Union was sending in supplies to Vietnam to kill American soldiers. People make mistakes and say things they don't really mean out of anger.

----------


## Christian Liberty

While that's true, I wouldn't want a President who would say that out of anger...

----------


## FrankRep

> While that's true, I wouldn't want a President who would say that out of anger...


Tons of American soldiers were getting killed in a war with no purpose or direction. That doesn't anger you apparently.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> When politicians say something stupid, they often try to claim that they've been misunderstood, or to blame someone else.
> 
> The fact that he ever said such a thing should be a red flag.


People are human.  Even Ron Paul, who has done this on different issues, many, many times.

----------


## Michael Landon

I want to add one thing.... Goldwater wasn't a Libertarian, he was a Constitutional Conservative Republican.  Ron Paul isn't a Libertarian, he is a Constitutional Conservative Republican.  Rand Paul isn't a Libertarian, he is a Constitutional Conservative Republican.  There is a difference.  When Ron Paul ran for the Libertarian Party nomination for President in 1988, he barely beat out Russell Means for the nomination because the Libertarians felt he was too much of a Republican and not enough of a Libertarian.

In regards to Robert Taft, read his book "A Foreign Policy for Americans" and you'll see his foreign policy was the same as Goldwater's.  And just a bit more hawkish than Ron Paul and the same as Rand.  Goldwater was portrayed as being far more hawkish than he really was by the Democrats and the liberals in the Republican party....liberals like Rockefeller and Romney.

- ML

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Tons of American soldiers were getting killed in a war with no purpose or direction. That doesn't anger you apparently.


It would anger me, but I'd also recognize  that America  had no business being there.  I'd never advocate murdering innocents to win an unjust war.




> People are human.  Even Ron Paul, who has done this on different issues, many, many times.


But... nukes?

When has Ron done this for ANYTHING BTW?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> It would anger me, but I'd also recognize  that America  had no business being there.  I'd never advocate murdering innocents to win an unjust war.
> 
> 
> 
> But... nukes?
> 
> When has Ron done this for ANYTHING BTW?


Paul did make the mistake of voting for the Afghan War.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> He supported what the Vietnam war should have been, not what it was. Goldwater wanted to use overwhelming force, win the war and get our troops out. Not the limited engagement rules that doomed the war to failure. Big difference.


What the Vietnam war should have been was non-existent. Any other answer is incorrect.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch by A Son of Liberty.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> *Barry Goldwater, Jr. on Ron Paul*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVoYhlZIiGQ
> 
> 
> *Barry Goldwater, Jr. Endorses Ron Paul for President*
> 
> ...


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...king-for-2016/




> King, who's now in his 11th term, cited Michael Mukasey, former federal judge and U.S. attorney general under George W. Bush, and former California Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr. as two Republicans supporting the idea of a 'King for President' campaign.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...-sure-acts-in/




> And from former Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr., California Republican, was this: Weve fallen down in foreign policy.  Peter well understands this. He stands out in a crowd and says whats on his mind, Newsmax reported.

----------


## FrankRep

> It would anger me, but I'd also recognize  that America  had no business being there.  I'd never advocate murdering innocents to win an unjust war.


Goldwater urged Johnson to withdraw from Vietnam, as I've repeated several times before.

----------


## TaftFan

> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...king-for-2016/
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...-sure-acts-in/


Newsmax has the full quote, which highlights Barry's lack of awareness of King rather than bad positions.




> Goldwater, who has campaigned for King since his first House race back in 1992, told Newsmax that *"we've fallen down in foreign policy and, under Bush and Obama, we've become too quick to march off to war without considering foreign cultures and religions first.* Peter well understands this. He stands out in a crowd and says what's on his mind."


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pet...7/17/id/515681

Bad attempt of a smear by you, IMO.

----------


## FrankRep

> King, who's now in his 11th term, cited Michael Mukasey, former federal judge and U.S. attorney general under George W. Bush, and former California Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr. as two Republicans supporting the idea of a 'King for President' campaign.


Barry Goldwater Jr. hasn't endorsed anyone yet and no one is officially running yet. Attack him AFTER he endorses someone, not before.


*Edit:*

LOL. *Feeding the Abscess was busted* for spreading False Propaganda. I figured it seemed odd for Goldwater, Jr.

----------


## TaftFan

> Barry Goldwater Jr. hasn't endorsed anyone yet and no one is officially running yet. Attack him AFTER he endorses someone, not before.


And the quote was chopped, making it sound if he was a neocon. The reality is he agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy and he is senile/confused about who Peter King is and what HE believes.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I figured he had some help, sure. He also cites various people and their works but as far as I can tell his books were written by him. They actually sound like him when you are reading them. His writing style.
> 
> That's not to say some people might not have collaborated with him to get his thoughts in order and to make the book flow smoothly but as far as I can tell it was written by him. They're great reads either way.


That's because Tom Woods is an excellent writer and knows the subject matter inside and out.

----------


## FrankRep

> And the quote was chopped, making it sound if he was a neocon. The reality is he agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy and he is senile/confused about who Peter King is and what HE believes.


Thanks for calling out Feeding the Abscess. That was a dirty MSNBC/Rachel Maddow-type smear job he was trying to pull off.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Newsmax has the full quote, which highlights Barry's lack of awareness of King rather than bad positions.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pet...7/17/id/515681
> 
> Bad attempt of a smear by you, IMO.


I provided the quote unedited from the Washington Times, and it was one of the first sources in a Google search for Barry Goldwater Peter King. Goldwater has supported King and campaigned for him since 1992, he's either been senile since 1992 or he's duplicitous.




> Barry Goldwater Jr. hasn't endorsed anyone yet and no one is officially running yet. Attack him AFTER he endorses someone, not before.
> 
> 
> *Edit:*
> 
> LOL. *Feeding the Abscess was busted* for spreading False Propaganda. I figured it seemed odd for Goldwater, Jr.





> Thanks for calling out Feeding the Abscess. That was a dirty MSNBC/Rachel Maddow-type smear job he was trying to pull off.


See above.




> The reason LBJ won the presidential election against Goldwater(actually more of a slaughter) is that he convinced the USA people that Goldwater was some crazy interventionalist that wanted to nuke everyone.  LBJ was probably the biggest piece of $#@! megalomaniac America ever elected, and apparently his propaganda worked its wonders on some forum members to.


Goldwater did it to himself. Don't talk about dropping nukes if you don't want people taking you seriously and recoiling in horror after hearing that.

----------


## AuH20

> You guys are so wrong about Goldwater.  I don't agree with the war ever being started, but it had been.  If he had become President, we would have won the war (that was already going on by the way) quickly and gotten out of there.
> 
> Back then, the Cold War was raging.  The USSR was invading and taking over country after country and they made no bones about the fact that their goal was to have world communism.  There were Communist spies in our government, in our media and in our schools, and this fact was proven.  The USSR was threatening us constantly with violent overthrow and it was much more than rhetoric.
> 
> I was a kid then and I remember it.  I also remember Goldwater standing against the MIC, the Federal Reserve, federal government overreach, etc.  He was a strong defender of the Constitution and individual liberty and he was no poser.  
> 
> Before Ron Paul there was Barry Goldwater and he was a fine man, indeed.  They stood for many of the same things.  I wish we was alive today.


One of the first prominent politicians in this country to openly talk about the NWO as well.

----------


## AuH20

> Blame Johnson, not Goldwater.


Actually, blame Eisenhower and Kennedy for being the catalysts. They set up the entire situation for the Communists to take over South Vietnam.

----------


## FrankRep

> Goldwater did it to himself. Don't talk about dropping nukes if you don't want people taking you seriously and recoiling in horror after hearing that.


Thank you Captain Hindsight 20/20.

----------


## dillo

Goldwater called out that the Christian right was going to take over the party and how none of them were really conservative

----------


## AuH20

> I honestly don't know a ton about him, just going by what I see here.  *But what I see here is the Goldwater defenders actually defending a foreign policy that I believe to be immoral.*   YMMV.


But here's the problem. Inaction has immoral consequences as well. A repeat of the Killing Fields occurring in the cities and countryside of South Vietnam (which ended up happening anyway after the 20 year debacle) if you leave your ally, the republic of South Vietnam, to hang out to dry, in direct violation of the mutual assistance treaty. This is when the real world tramples over abstract philosophy. As president you would inherit years of incredibly horrible Cold War policies and be placed in an untenable, no win dilemma. Think of the Kobayashi Maru scenario for the Star Trek fans. 

What's even scarier to fathom is a preemptive attack on Israel by a rogue state while Rand Paul is president. Per the language of the treaty he would be obligated to assist with U.S. military forces, even if he thought such actions were morally wrong. Like I said, Rand would inherit the baggage left over from the Bush and Obama administrations and be forced into a conflict not of his choice. I think nonintervention is the preferred foreign policy model, but there are numerous traps left over by the previous administrations, whether it be executable treaties or past belligerent actions. Who here would want to be POTUS in that type of no-win scenario? Not I.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I used to think that the due course of time would reveal historical truth, and that Ron Paul would eventually be vindicated from all the crazy whack-job smear propaganda that was levied against him.  Reading this thread I'm not so sure about that now.    Propaganda is very effective indeed to still be painting perceptions this powerfully 50 years later.

----------


## fr33

Attacking Vietnam was wrong or right. That is the argument.  Defend it or criticize it.

What you are witnessing on this thread is the Great Man Theory that is often applied to politicians. Most of us, myself included, fall for it.

The fact is during Goldwater's life there were better men and women who did not wish to kill Vietnamese for being influenced by communism. Stop defending the war on ideas. Communism fails all on it's own. There has never been a communist nation. It cannot work. It always self-destructs.

Bombing and shooting foreigners for their opinions is immoral.

Goldwater was decent compared to his colleagues but he had his faults. I dislike that we can't all agree on that. It's the Great Man Theory that we let infect our minds just because he was a politician.

----------


## AuH20

> Attacking Vietnam was wrong or right. That is the argument.  Defend it or criticize it.
> 
> What you are witnessing on this thread is the Great Man Theory that is often applied to politicians. Most of us, myself included, fall for it.
> 
> The fact is during Goldwater's life there were better men and women who did not wish to kill Vietnamese for being influenced by communism. Stop defending the war on ideas. Communism fails all on it's own. There has never been a communist nation. It cannot work. It always self-destructs.
> 
> Bombing and shooting foreigners for their opinions is immoral.
> 
> Goldwater was decent compared to his colleagues but he had his faults. I dislike that we can't all agree on that. It's the Great Man Theory that we let infect our minds just because he was a politician.


The real problem is the the events that transpired after the Yalta conference in February 1945. From that point, life on the planet would never be the same. West and East would be pitted across the globe in series of battles testing territorial and philosophical willpower. That's where most of these seemingly unavoidable conflicts have sprung from. Tit for tat. North Korea brazenly attacks beyond the 38th parallel and the UN Security Council validates action for U.S. forces to respond. The same territorial episode transpired in Vietnam.  In fact you could make an argument that we are still paying for the sins of those years that defined the global chess-match against the Soviets and their allies.

----------


## bolil

> I used to think that the due course of time would reveal historical truth, and that Ron Paul would eventually be vindicated from all the crazy whack-job smear propaganda that was levied against him.  Reading this thread I'm not so sure about that now.    Propaganda is very effective indeed to still be painting perceptions this powerfully 50 years later.


Propaganda, that is to say the influencing of human behavior, became a science in the 40's.  Today it is self fulfilling, all we rail against bows before its might.  Propganda is not propagated by men and women, it recreates itself, it dictates the past, it defines the presnt, and it becomes the future.  What does one get when one mates and Orwell with a Huxley?  Propaganda.  Dismissed by the very people that advance it.  I know nothing of Barry Goldwater... but I can blather ad naseum about the new deal.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I want to add one thing.... Goldwater wasn't a Libertarian, he was a Constitutional Conservative Republican.  *Ron Paul isn't a Libertarian, he is a Constitutional Conservative Republican.*  Rand Paul isn't a Libertarian, he is a Constitutional Conservative Republican.  There is a difference.  When Ron Paul ran for the Libertarian Party nomination for President in 1988, he barely beat out Russell Means for the nomination because the Libertarians felt he was too much of a Republican and not enough of a Libertarian.
> 
> In regards to Robert Taft, read his book "A Foreign Policy for Americans" and you'll see his foreign policy was the same as Goldwater's.  And just a bit more hawkish than Ron Paul and the same as Rand.  Goldwater was portrayed as being far more hawkish than he really was by the Democrats and the liberals in the Republican party....liberals like Rockefeller and Romney.
> 
> - ML


RP is a libertarian Republican.  He is in fact a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party.  You can parse that as you wish, but RP is in practice a right-ish libertarian.  If he weren't, I would never have donated to the campaign.

----------


## AuH20

> I used to think that the due course of time would reveal historical truth, and that Ron Paul would eventually be vindicated from all the crazy whack-job smear propaganda that was levied against him.  Reading this thread I'm not so sure about that now.    Propaganda is very effective indeed to still be painting perceptions this powerfully 50 years later.


I don't think it's propaganda. The world isn't this, which is where the fanatical non-interventionist lives. That's a fantasy:




It's more like this and often you are placed in situations not of your choosing where a pure moral equation is not workable. There can be no absolutes:

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Attacking Vietnam was wrong or right. That is the argument.  Defend it or criticize it.
> 
> What you are witnessing on this thread is the Great Man Theory that is often applied to politicians. Most of us, myself included, fall for it.
> 
> The fact is during Goldwater's life there were better men and women who did not wish to kill Vietnamese for being influenced by communism. Stop defending the war on ideas. Communism fails all on it's own. There has never been a communist nation. It cannot work. It always self-destructs.
> 
> Bombing and shooting foreigners for their opinions is immoral.
> 
> Goldwater was decent compared to his colleagues but he had his faults. I dislike that we can't all agree on that. It's the Great Man Theory that we let infect our minds just because he was a politician.


+rep

----------


## FrankRep

*Here's the timeline for Vietnam:*


October 1930 - Ho Chi Minh helps found the Indochinese Communist Party.

September 1940 - Japan invades Vietnam.

May 1941 - Ho Chi Minh establishes the Viet Minh (League for the Independence of Vietnam). 

September 2, 1945 - Ho Chi Minh declares an independent Vietnam, called the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. 

January 1950 - The Viet Minh receive military advisors and weapons from China.

July 1950 - The United States pledges $15 million worth of military aid to France to help them fight in Vietnam.

May 7, 1954 - The French suffer a decisive defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.

July 21, 1954 - The Geneva Accords creates a cease-fire for the peaceful withdrawal of the French from Vietnam and provides a temporary boundary between North and South Vietnam at the 17th parallel.

October 26, 1955 - South Vietnam declares itself the Republic of Vietnam, with newly elected Ngo Dinh Diem as president.

December 20, 1960 - The National Liberation Front (NLF), also called the Viet Cong, is established in South Vietnam.

November 2, 1963 - South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem is executed during a coup.

August 2 and 4, 1964 - North Vietnamese attack two U.S. destroyers sitting in international waters (the Gulf of Tonkin Incident).

August 7, 1964 - In response to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the U.S. Congress passes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

March 2, 1965 - A sustained U.S. aerial bombing campaign of North Vietnam begins (Operation Rolling Thunder).

March 8, 1965 - The first U.S. combat troops arrive in Vietnam.

January 30, 1968 - The North Vietnamese join forces with the Viet Cong to launch the Tet Offensive, attacking approximately one hundred South Vietnamese cities and towns.

March 16, 1968 - U.S. soldiers kill hundreds of Vietnamese civilians in the town of Mai Lai.

July 1968 - General William Westmoreland, who had been in charge of the U.S. troops in Vietnam, is replaced by General Creighton Abrams.

December 1968 - U.S. troops in Vietnam reaches 540,000.

July 1969 - President Nixon orders the first of many U.S. troop withdrawals from Vietnam.

September 3, 1969 - Communist revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh dies at age 79.

November 13, 1969 - The American public learns of the Mai Lai massacre.

April 30, 1970 - President Nixon announces that U.S. troops will attack enemy locations in Cambodia. This news sparks nationwide protests, especially on college campuses.

June 13, 1971 - Portions of the Pentagon Papers are published in The New York Times.

March 1972 - The North Vietnamese cross the demilitarized zone (DMZ) at the 17th parallel to attack South Vietnam in what became known as the Easter Offensive.

January 27, 1973 - The Paris Peace Accords are signed that provide a cease-fire.

March 29, 1973 - The last U.S. troops are withdrawn from Vietnam.

March 1975 - North Vietnam launches a massive assault on South Vietnam.

April 30, 1975 - South Vietnam surrenders to the communists.

July 2, 1976 - Vietnam is unified as a communist country, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

November 13, 1982 - The Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. is dedicated.

----------


## bolil

Isn't that the strange thing about war: fought by privates (cpls, sgts) and judged by everyone else.  I try to focus on the generals because if privates fight the wars it is the generals that start them.  Generally speaking.  Milton Olive, I roll a smoke for him as often as I can visit his memorial.  Jumped on a grenade.  I mean, can you imagine that? Cradled an explosive in his stomach to save his friends... amazing.  Strange that such testaments to the true potential of the bond between humans can only be fully demonstrated under such violent circumstances.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Propaganda, that is to say the influencing of human behavior, became a science in the 40's.  Today it is self fulfilling, all we rail against bows before its might.  Propganda is not propagated by men and women, it recreates itself, it dictates the past, it defines the presnt, and it becomes the future.  What does one get when one mates and Orwell with a Huxley?  Propaganda.  Dismissed by the very people that advance it.  I know nothing of Barry Goldwater... but I can blather ad naseum about the new deal.


+Rep

And a minor rant,

Goldwater was more hawkish than he should have been.  More hawkish than I am.  I have some not-insignificant disagreement with him on FP, and calling the defense of Goldwater a "Great Man Syndrome" (not you) is inaccurate.  Defending Goldwater is not tantamount to defending Vietnam, we are better than this.  Hell, _Goldwater_ didn't even support Vietnam, and one has to cherry-pick his record to bring out that impression.  The frustrating thing is, people who oppose such things as true small government have already done the cherry-picking for us so folks who otherwise know better can present the argument and as you say not even know it.  Re-creating itself and being repeated by people who don't even know it's cherry-picked ripped out of context and propagandized all to hell.

Goldwater's nuke comment wasn't even really advocating nukes at the time he said it.  He didn't 'walk it back,' he clarified what he meant in the first place.  He was frustrated with the people advocating embroiling policies and claiming 'there is nothing we can do,' so GW shoots back there is plenty we can do and cites a short laundry list of things the Generals said would end the war quickly.  It was never a serious statement of policy advocacy from the moment it was spoken.  But along comes the Johnson campaign and now even folks here who should be inoculated against folks being taken out of context and propagandized are buying it.

See, I figured a few quotes from folks showing that he actually opposed Vietnam and explaining the nuke comment, and we-who-are-smarter-than-the-world might at least stop and consider that maybe we may have swallowed some propaganda and made some space for a rational reassessment.  Even if the opinion doesn't change, for heaven's sake a glimmer of recognition that disinformation was at least possible would have been nice.  

I _do_ have issues with Goldwater.  He was significantly more interventionist than I like.  He wasn't even one tenth as interventionist as he is being made out to be, however.  I am more like Robert Taft than Barry Goldwater, but hell Taft is to Goldwater what Ron is to Rand.  

This idea that Goldwater supported Vietnam is nonsense.  The one quote where he was talking about how "every American" supported the decisive action was a rhetorical hook.  Nobody thought for a minute that 'every American' supported Vietnam.  This idea that Goldwater seriously advocated for the use of nuclear bombs is nonsense.  In a moment of anger and frustration he cited come Generals to prove those claiming "there is no choice, this is the only thing we can do" wrong, by saying there really were other things we could do than to sit there and get shot up for 12 years.  There never was a "let's do this" it was a "you guys are stupid."  If cherry-picking is an acceptable practice, then I could make anybody on the planet out to say anything I pleased.

We saw the same bastards do the same thing to Ron Paul.  We should be inoculated against this kind of thing, and its frustrating to me that we are not.

----------


## AuH20

> *Here's the timeline for Vietnam:*
> 
> 
> October 1930 - Ho Chi Minh helps found the Indochinese Communist Party.
> 
> September 1940 - Japan invades Vietnam.
> 
> May 1941 - Ho Chi Minh establishes the Viet Minh (League for the Independence of Vietnam). 
> 
> ...


If you could go back in time and erase these 5 years, there would have been no war likely.




> *July 1950 - The United States pledges $15 million worth of military aid to France to help them fight in Vietnam.*
> 
> May 7, 1954 - The French suffer a decisive defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.
> 
> July 21, 1954 - The Geneva Accords creates a cease-fire for the peaceful withdrawal of the French from Vietnam and provides a temporary boundary between North and South Vietnam at the 17th parallel.
> 
> *October 26, 1955 - South Vietnam declares itself the Republic of Vietnam, with newly elected Ngo Dinh Diem as president.*


Installing a Catholic tyrant as the President of a former colony that had just threw off the chains of it's mother country, which was coincidentally Roman Catholic. It was such a poor strategic blunder that the CIA had to kill him 8 years later.

----------


## FrankRep

> +Rep
> 
> And a minor rant,
> 
> Goldwater was more hawkish than he should have been.  More hawkish than I am.


November 2, 1963 - South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem is executed during a coup.

August 2 and 4, 1964 - North Vietnamese attack two U.S. destroyers sitting in international waters (the Gulf of Tonkin Incident).

August 7, 1964 - In response to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the U.S. Congress passes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.


This is an act of war, FYI. Attacking two U.S. destroyers in International waters.

They didn't have Alex Jones around to call the Gulf of Tonkin a "false flag" event.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> November 2, 1963 - South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem is executed during a coup.
> 
> August 2 and 4, 1964 - North Vietnamese attack two U.S. destroyers sitting in international waters (the Gulf of Tonkin Incident).
> 
> August 7, 1964 - In response to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the U.S. Congress passes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
> 
> 
> This is an act of war, FYI. Attacking two U.S. destroyers in International waters.
> 
> They didn't have Alex Jones around to call the Gulf of Tonkin a "false flag" event.


And yet it was, _in fact_, a false flag.  Which means it wasn't justifiable.  _Understandable_, perhaps, for those who did not know or suspect that it was a false flag; but not justified by any definition.  Those who supported it base on that were the victims of official fraud.  That is not justification.

----------


## bolil

> November 2, 1963 - South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem is executed during a coup.
> 
> August 2 and 4, 1964 - North Vietnamese attack two U.S. destroyers sitting in international waters (the Gulf of Tonkin Incident).
> 
> August 7, 1964 - In response to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the U.S. Congress passes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
> 
> 
> This is an act of war, FYI. Attacking two U.S. destroyers in International waters.
> 
> They didn't have Alex Jones around to call the Gulf of Tonkin a "false flag" event.


Which it has, since, been proven beyond all doubt to have been.  Even if those nonexistent NVA PT boats existed was it worth 50,000 US Marines and soldiers?  Was it worth countless Vietnamese?  Nope.  Never.  The greatest betrayal of our time was, what is known as, the Vietnam War.  And the betrayed, then unlike now, didn't get welcomed back as heroes fighting for our freedoms.  I guess that line has two purposes: to eliminate criticism of the 'leaders' and to instill hate or jealousy towards those that went in those, like me, who didn't go.

----------


## AuH20

> And yet it was, _in fact_, a false flag.  Which means it wasn't justifiable.  _Understandable_, perhaps, for those who did not know or suspect that it was a false flag; but not justified by any definition.  Those who supported it base on that were the victims of official fraud.  That is not justification.


Needless to say the greater war would have crystallized one way or another, with the Viet Cong so active in the South and along the Ho Chi Minh trail to the west. The North was determined to reunite the South, after the attempt for a unifying election was thwarted by Diem. Like I said, the seeds for a conflict were laid between 1950 and 1956. False flag or no false flag, war was coming to Indochina. The prime powers had deemed it so. War via proxies.

----------


## FrankRep

> And yet it was, _in fact_, a false flag.  Which means it wasn't justifiable.  _Understandable_, perhaps, for those who did not know or suspect that it was a false flag; but not justified by any definition.  Those who supported it base on that were the victims of official fraud.  That is not justification.


No one knew at the time that it was a "false flag" event, except for the insiders (few in number I'm sure). People just knew that North Vietnam hit us and we need to hit back.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No one knew at the time that it was a "false flag" event, except for the insiders (few in number I'm sure). People just knew that North Vietnam hit us and we need to hit back.


Which may lend some _understanding_ to the motives of the hawks, but certainly not _justice_.  Indeed, it makes for a description of how deeply justice was perverted.  If an act is justified, that means it was just.  This was anything but just.

----------


## bolil

> No one knew at the time that it was a "false flag" event, except for the insiders (few in number I'm sure). People just knew that North Vietnam hit us and we need to hit back.


Well, that sounds eerily familiar.  We needed to hit back?  If that is what was thought this is what happened: let us send the poor to hit back.  sound familiar?  I guess it is true what they say about history being cyclical.

----------


## AuH20

The lessons to learn from Vietnam.

1. Don't back imperial powers that just got their ass kicked by the natives
2. Don't install a strong man dictator eerily similar to the French just because he's willing to combat Communists

----------


## FrankRep

> Which may lend some _understanding_ to the motives of the hawks, but certainly not _justice_.  Indeed, it makes for a description of how deeply justice was perverted.  If an act is justified, that means it was just.  This was anything but just.


The People/Congress viewed the Gulf of Tonkin like they viewed the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

---


*Gulf of Tonkin Resolution*

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a joint resolution that the United States Congress passed on August 7, 1964, in response to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

It is of historical significance because it gave U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of "conventional'' military force in Southeast Asia. Specifically, the resolution authorized the President to do whatever necessary in order to assist "any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty". This included involving armed forces.

It was opposed in the Senate only by Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK). Senator Gruening objected to "sending our American boys into combat in a war in which we have no business, which is not our war, into which we have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated". (Tonkin Gulf debate 1964) The Johnson administration subsequently relied upon the resolution to begin its rapid escalation of U.S. military involvement in South Vietnam and open warfare between North Vietnam and the United States.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The lessons to learn from Vietnam.
> 
> 1. Don't back imperial powers that just got their ass kicked by the natives
> 2. Don't install a strong man dictator eerily similar to the French just because he's willing to combat Communists


I'd go one further and say how about 'no entangling alliances' at all.  That way we don't send tens of thousands of our poor and less-advantaged into meat grinders just to save face.

----------


## AuH20

> I'd go one further and say how about 'no entangling alliances' at all.  That way we don't send tens of thousands of our poor and less-advantaged into meat grinders just to save face.


That as well. As far as dissolving treaties, how would that even be accomplished? What branch of government could nullify such contracts? 2/3rds of the Senate and the Chief Executive?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The People/Congress viewed the Gulf of Tonkin like they viewed the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> *Gulf of Tonkin Resolution*
> 
> The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a joint resolution that the United States Congress passed on August 7, 1964, in response to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
> 
> ...


Well there you go.  No declaration = no accountability.  Someone had to know it wasn't kosher to come up with that bastardized and unconstitutional mechanism in the first place.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That as well. As far as dissolving treaties, how would that even be accomplished? What branch of government could nullify such contracts?


Couldn't the US Senate withdraw consent?

ETA -

Or, given that the President _enters_ under the advice and consent of the Senate, then I would imagine that the President could _withdraw_ under the advice and consent of the Senate in the same fashion.

----------


## bolil

irrelevance removed..

----------


## AuH20

> Couldn't the US Senate withdraw consent?
> 
> ETA -
> 
> Or, given that the President _enters_ under the advice and consent of the Senate, then I would imagine that the President could _withdraw_ under the advice and consent of the Senate in the same fashion.


What is the historical frequency of such events? I wonder.

----------


## FrankRep

> Well there you go.  No declaration = no accountability.  Someone had to know it wasn't kosher to come up with that bastardized and unconstitutional mechanism in the first place.


The insiders know exactly what they are doing, it's the slow and systematic destruction of the Constitution, American wealth, and accountability. It's no accident.

----------


## AuH20

On a sidenote, I can't believe I'm still up. Midnight hockey is a cruel mistress. Play at 1 am and you cannot fall asleep.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That as well. As far as dissolving treaties, how would that even be accomplished? What branch of government could nullify such contracts? 2/3rds of the Senate and the Chief Executive?


I would think so.  President says, "This international treaty was a mistake.  It is my intention to withdraw from it.  Mr. Vice President, go get us a 2/3 vote in the Senate and our withdrawal will be official."

That's how I think it would go.  There is no formal withdrawal procedure laid out, so I imagine just reversing the engaging process would be correct.  

And It's not as though withdrawing from a treaty is unconstitutional simply because the Constitution doesn't specifically cover that.  The Constitution doesn't specifically recover the repeal of laws or the repeal of amendments.  So they just use the same procedure as passing laws and amendments.  I would imagine repealing a treaty agreement would be the much the same.  Do the same procedure for agreeing to the treaty but make it a repeal of the agreement.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The insiders know exactly what they are doing, it's the slow and systematic destruction of the Constitution, American wealth, and accountability. It's no accident.


Which is why we have a Constitution, and public officers must swear an oath to defend it.  Had they been honoring their Oath, Congress would not have 'approved' a resolution taking us to war in Vietnam without a Declaration.  Had the Constitution been followed, it may well have prevented the Vietnam War altogether, as the responsibility for the Tonkin false flag would have come down on the guy seeking the Declaration.  Official Declarations of War are all about accountability.  Without them, we have none.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> On a sidenote, I can't believe I'm still up. Midnight hockey is a cruel mistress. Play at 1 am and you cannot fall asleep.


I can almost never fall asleep anyway.

----------


## AuH20

> I can almost never fall asleep anyway.



Glen Bradley the Night Owl!!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What is the historical frequency of such events? I wonder.


Not often I imagine.  We apparently withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2001...just because Bush said so.  Clinton had wanted to, but was reluctant to send the measure to the Senate for advise and consent, so he never pressed it.  Bush got into office and just said "We're out.  Bye."  So in the ABM Treaty withdrawal, we have Bill Clinton paying far more deference to Constitutional procedure than George Bush.  I am sure that will shock everyone on this board.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Glen Bradley the Night Owl!!


LOL that's about right!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> But here's the problem. Inaction has immoral consequences as well.


Am I seriously reading this $#@! here at RPF?  You should WELL KNOW that there is almost no end to foreign military interventionism according to this viewpoint.  

There are NO "immoral consequences" to the US government NOT sending it's military into another country on a "humanitarian" mission.  

Where the hell am I?  Hannity Forums??  




> A repeat of the Killing Fields occurring in the cities and countryside of South Vietnam (which ended up happening anyway after the 20 year debacle) if you leave your ally, the republic of South Vietnam, to hang out to dry, in direct violation of the mutual assistance treaty. This is when the real world tramples over abstract philosophy. As president you would inherit years of incredibly horrible Cold War policies and be placed in an untenable, no win dilemma. Think of the Kobayashi Maru scenario for the Star Trek fans. 
> 
> What's even scarier to fathom is a preemptive attack on Israel by a rogue state while Rand Paul is president. Per the language of the treaty he would be obligated to assist with U.S. military forces, even if he thought such actions were morally wrong. Like I said, Rand would inherit the baggage left over from the Bush and Obama administrations and be forced into a conflict not of his choice. I think nonintervention is the preferred foreign policy model, but there are numerous traps left over by the previous administrations, whether it be executable treaties or past belligerent actions. Who here would want to be POTUS in that type of no-win scenario? Not I.


You think it's cute to condescendingly tell us that "in the real world" these "tough decisions" have to be made, and "philosophy" falls short.  

Fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters are sent off to die in your "real world" by these politicians, because someone somewhere sometime ago signed some piece of paper.  In the real world, children are left orphaned by a conflict thousands of miles away about which they had no knowledge or investment.  Indeed, those conflicts are often senseless and tragic.  That does not justify binding the lives of people half a planet away by a piece of paper.  It's insane.  

THAT is the real world.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

Why is Barry Goldwater Considered a Libertarian? Because he was a libertarian.  It is only the 21st Century keyboard warriors who have attempted to redefine libertarianism that have a problem with it.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Why is Barry Goldwater Considered a Libertarian? Because he was a libertarian.  It is only the 21st Century keyboard warriors who have attempted to redefine libertarianism that have a problem with it.


Maybe Domestically, but just imagine if Rand Paul had said half of the things Barry said, his forum would probably be removed.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Maybe Domestically, but just imagine if Rand Paul had said half of the things Barry said, *his forum would probably be removed*.


Proving my point.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Why is Barry Goldwater Considered a Libertarian? Because he was a libertarian.  It is only the 21st Century keyboard warriors who have attempted to redefine libertarianism that have a problem with it.


Smug condescension aside, your comment is incorrect.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Smug condescension aside, your comment is incorrect.  
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism


"In Memoriam: Barry Goldwater" by Robert Poole, (August–Sept 1998) the article begins: "Barry Goldwater was 20th-century America's first libertarian politician."


http://www.thefreelibrary.com/In+mem...er.-a020954419

And by the way, my statement is only condescending if you self identify with the group of 21st Century keyboard warriors I referenced.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> "In Memoriam: Barry Goldwater" by Robert Poole, (August–Sept 1998) the article begins: "Barry Goldwater was 20th-century America's first libertarian politician."
> 
> 
> http://www.thefreelibrary.com/In+mem...er.-a020954419
> 
> And by the way, my statement is only condescending if you self identify with the group of 21st Century keyboard warriors I referenced.


Murray Rothbard, a free market anarchist, was instrumental in the founding of the Libertarian Party, proper.

And, no, your comment is condescending precisely because you meant it to be condescending.  Just be honest.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Am I seriously reading this $#@! here at RPF? 
> 
> Where the hell am I?  Hannity Forums??


Almost. It's getting difficult to tell the difference most days.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Almost. It's getting difficult to tell the difference most days.




Get real.  Do you even know anything about Goldwater?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Murray Rothbard, a free market anarchist, was instrumental in the founding of the Libertarian Party, proper.
> 
> And, no, your comment is condescending precisely because you meant it to be condescending.  Just be honest.


Rothbard wasn't always an anarchist, you realize, and the fact of the matter is that it was disgruntled Paleocons who founded the Libertarian Party.  "Libertarians" do not have the corner on libertarianism, as much as they want to believe they do.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Get real.  Do you even know anything about Goldwater?


What she was referring to at that point had little to do with Goldwater; she was commenting on my post, which was in response to AuH2O's absurd assertion that there are "immoral consequences" to American politicians _not_ sending the American military on "humanitarian missions".

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Rothbard wasn't always an anarchist, you realize, and the fact of the matter is that it was disgruntled Paleocons who founded the Libertarian Party.  "Libertarians" do not have the corner on libertarianism, as much as they want to believe they do.


Ma'am, it wasn't I who suggested one or the other group had the market on libertarianism cornered.  It was CaptLouAlbano.

Your lack of comment on his post is noted, of course.

ETA:

So we're all clear, I'm talking about this one:




> Why is Barry Goldwater Considered a Libertarian? Because he was a libertarian.  It is only the 21st Century keyboard warriors who have attempted to redefine libertarianism that have a problem with it.

----------


## 69360

So much fighting about what label to apply to a politician. I don't really care about what you call them, I care about what they do.




> Paul did make the mistake of voting for the Afghan War.


Wasn't a mistake. He voted to punish those who perpetrated an attack on the US, not the 12 year misadventure it became.




> Attacking Vietnam was wrong or right. That is the argument.  Defend it or criticize it.
> 
> What you are witnessing on this thread is the Great Man Theory that is often applied to politicians. Most of us, myself included, fall for it.
> 
> The fact is during Goldwater's life there were better men and women who did not wish to kill Vietnamese for being influenced by communism. Stop defending the war on ideas. Communism fails all on it's own. There has never been a communist nation. It cannot work. It always self-destructs.
> 
> Bombing and shooting foreigners for their opinions is immoral.
> 
> Goldwater was decent compared to his colleagues but he had his faults. I dislike that we can't all agree on that. It's the Great Man Theory that we let infect our minds just because he was a politician.


You and a lot of others here are applying a modern perspective to the Vietnam war. The cold war was on, there was a real fear of the spread of communism. Some in the government though if Vietnam fell the rest of Asia would follow. 

I don't agree and the situation with Vietnam worked out in the present day, but that was the perspective then.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ma'am, it wasn't I who suggested one or the other group had the market on libertarianism cornered.  It was CaptLouAlbano.
> 
> Your lack of comment on his post is noted, of course.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> So we're all clear, I'm talking about this one:


Why does that bother you so much?  Call him a libertarian-conservative, or a constitutional conservative, if it makes you feel better.  He was a good man.  If you had been alive then, you would have liked him too.  He was the Ron Paul of his day and it was he who revived small government conservatism.  Did you know it was the grassroots who begged him to run?   It was.  He didn't really want to.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why is Barry Goldwater Considered a Libertarian? Because he was a libertarian.  It is only the 21st Century keyboard warriors who have attempted to redefine libertarianism that have a problem with it.


Tywysog isn't even a strict libertarian, at least not IIRC.  But he knows a warmongerer when he sees one.




> Almost. It's getting difficult to tell the difference most days.


Unless "Hannity Forums" is a lot better than I expect, I can imagine there's still a difference.  In most other places, even the most conservative person on here would almost certainly end up my ally.




> Rothbard wasn't always an anarchist, you realize, and the fact of the matter is that it was disgruntled Paleocons who founded the Libertarian Party.  "Libertarians" do not have the corner on libertarianism, as much as they want to believe they do.


I don't really have a problem with social conservatism, especially those willing to decentralize to the state level.  I have some disagreements, but again, we can debate those at the state level.  And I agree with social conservatives on some issues as well.  I strongly agree with them on the sanctity of life, and I partially agree with them on SSM as well.  

I do have a SERIOUS problem with foreign policy hawks.  My patience with them is very, very limited.  I understand it, heck, I used to be one and I sometimes struggle to argue against them when not having internet info easily accessible.  Nonetheless, I don't support any of them politically, no matter how "mild" their hawkishness.  Heck, Rand Paul's "An attack on Israel is an attack on the US" sets me on edge enough.  That's about as far as I'm willing to compromise on that issue, and even still, I don't like it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Tywysog isn't even a strict libertarian, at least not IIRC.  But he knows a warmongerer when he sees one.


This is seriously an ignorant statement.  Goldwater was no warmonger.  Look, before you run around smearing the name of such a fine statesman as Barry Goldwater, Sr., why don't you do some very needed homework.




> I don't really have a problem with social conservatism,


Are you implying that Goldwater was a socon?  Because he wasn't.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Why does that bother you so much?  Call him a libertarian-conservative, or a constitutional conservative, if it makes you feel better.  He was a good man.  If you had been alive then, you would have liked him too.  He was the Ron Paul of his day and it was he who revived small government conservatism.  Did you know it was the grassroots who begged him to run?   It was.  He didn't really want to.


What are you talking about?  I was responding to this comment of yours:




> "Libertarians" do not have the corner on libertarianism, as much as they want to believe they do.


_I_ wasn't asserting that "libertarians" have the corner on libertarianism; CaptLouAlbano stated that quote-unquote small government conservatives did.  _I_ was disputing that fact, just as you think you're disputing that your presumption that I was saying free market anarchists have the corner on the label.  

As I pointed out, what you incorrectly accuse me of doing, CaptLouAlbano actually was doing.  Yet, again, you fail to criticize him.  

And that is because you don't like us free market anarchists horning in on your labels.  So sorry.

----------


## klamath

I wonder what RP meant in the last debate before the iowa caucuses with the answer that got him surging in the polls. ...


> You can solve the problems if we follow our constitution and go to war only when we declare the war, *win them and get them over* with


...

----------


## AuH20

> Am I seriously reading this $#@! here at RPF?  You should WELL KNOW that there is almost no end to foreign military interventionism according to this viewpoint.  
> 
> There are NO "immoral consequences" to the US government NOT sending it's military into another country on a "humanitarian" mission.  
> 
> Where the hell am I?  Hannity Forums??  
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's cute to condescendingly tell us that "in the real world" these "tough decisions" have to be made, and "philosophy" falls short.  
> ...


I don't like the defined parameters of the game. It is very much rigged for interventionism, but you simply can't close your eyes and deny your responsibilities as Chief Executive. That's where I disagree with the UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES crowd. Like I stated earlier, no president has a clean slate in which he doesn't inherit a still active log of crimes from his predecessors. Frankly, with this knowledge, I would never want to be President.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What are you talking about?  I was responding to this comment of yours:
> 
> _I_ wasn't asserting that "libertarians" have the corner on libertarianism; CaptLouAlbano stated that quote-unquote small government conservatives did.  _I_ was disputing that fact, just as you think you're disputing that your presumption that I was saying free market anarchists have the corner on the label.  
> 
> As I pointed out, what you incorrectly accuse me of doing, CaptLouAlbano actually was doing.  Yet, again, you fail to criticize him.  
> 
> And that is because you don't like us free market anarchists horning in on your labels.  So sorry.


What?  lol

You seemed to have your shorts in a twist because CaptLou called Goldwater a libertarian.  That is why I made the comment I did.

You also seem to be trying to make an enemy out of Goldwater and he was very far from that.  I'm pretty sure you would have been a huge fan if you had been alive at that time.  So how about you ease off a little?

Goldwater and Ron Paul were cut from the same cloth.

----------


## pcosmar

I always thought of Goldwater as a Conservative. (before Neo-cons sullied the term)
Though there might be a crossover between the two.

----------


## AuH20

> What?  lol
> 
> You seemed to have your shorts in a twist because CaptLou called Goldwater a libertarian.  That is why I made the comment I did.
> 
> You also seem to be trying to make an enemy out of Goldwater and he was very far from that.  I'm pretty sure you would have been a huge fan if you had been alive at that time.  So how about you ease off a little?
> 
> *Goldwater and Ron Paul were cut from the same cloth.*


Agreed. Goldwater was more of a realist than Paul though.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't like the defined parameters of the game. It is very much rigged for interventionism, but you simply can't close your eyes and deny your responsibilities as Chief Executive. That's where I disagree with the UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES crowd. Like I stated earlier, no president has a clean slate in which he doesn't inherit a still active log of crimes from his predecessors. Frankly, with this knowledge, I would never want to be President.


You're twisting yourself into intellectual knots to justify sending uninvolved people into far flung foreign nations to die.

FYI: We stand against that sort of thing here.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> What?  lol
> 
> You seemed to have your shorts in a twist because CaptLou called Goldwater a libertarian.  That is why I made the comment I did.
> 
> You also seem to be trying to make an enemy out of Goldwater and he was very far from that.  I'm pretty sure you would have been a huge fan if you had been alive at that time.  So how about you ease off a little?
> 
> Goldwater and Ron Paul were cut from the same cloth.


Maybe I'm just an overly generous person, but this tactic of completely retracing your steps and ignoring the actual substance of a discussion isn't something I'm familiar with when it comes to discussing things with you.  

Oh well.  Maybe you're just in a mood today.

----------


## AuH20

> You're twisting yourself into intellectual knots to justify sending uninvolved people into far flung foreign nations to die.
> 
> FYI: We stand against that sort of thing here.


Not really. I've thought about these issues long and hard. We can respectfully disagree. I understand your perspective and it has merit. And I'm on your side in terms of crafting our foreign policy model, but there are still ways to go to completely eradicate the triggers that have been hardwired into the system.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you implying that Goldwater was a socon? Because he wasn't.


I was not.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Maybe I'm just an overly generous person, but this tactic of completely retracing your steps and ignoring the actual substance of a discussion isn't something I'm familiar with when it comes to discussing things with you.  
> 
> Oh well.  Maybe you're just in a mood today.


If I did, I didn't intend to.  Sorry.   It did seem to me largely about some stupid label.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I always thought of Goldwater as a Conservative. (before Neo-cons sullied the term)
> Though there might be a crossover between the two.


Back then, there was no Libertarian Party.  Conservatives, of the Goldwater-ilk were all about small government, the Constitution, personal privacy, personal responsibility, a strong national defense (not offense) and individual liberty.  Back then, it was Goldwater who revived the ideals of Jefferson.

The Libertarian Party was largely founded in the early 70s by disgruntled Goldwater-conservatives who got sick and tired of the Rockefeller-Republicans who controlled the Republican Party at the top.

So yes, libertarians and Goldwater-conservatives have a lot of shared principles.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You seemed to have your shorts in a twist because CaptLou called Goldwater a libertarian.


And I call him a libertarian, because pundits, authors, politicians and the public at large have referred to Goldwater as a libertarian for decades.  In large part, it is the Johnny-come-latelys and small handful of political isolationists that say that Goldwater was not a libertarian.  Just like there is a small band of people who say that Ron Paul is not a libertarian.

----------


## Michael Landon

> RP is a libertarian Republican.  He is in fact a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party.  You can parse that as you wish, but RP is in practice a right-ish libertarian.  If he weren't, I would never have donated to the campaign.


Joining the Libertarian party doesn't make you a libertarian.  Michael Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA but that doesn't make him a gun rights supporter.  Anyone can join the Libertarian party, Ron joined in 1987 to give constitutional conservatives a Presidential candidate to vote for instead of Bush.  He went back to the Republican party not long after.  Constitutional conservatives and Libertarians are very closely related, more so than that of constitutional conservatives and neo-cons.  They often get lumped together as one group, and the media likes to label constitutional conservatives as Libertarians.  But they are different.  Foreign policy is one of those differences.  Libertarians are more like isolationists where constitutional conservatives aren't against war, they just want Congress to declare war as required by the Constitution, then fight the war to win it asap so we can bring our troops home.  Goldwater is on record as saying that many times, as is Ron Paul.  Constitutionally declare war, fight and win the war, come home and do it quick.  Even Rand Paul is saying this now.

In regards to communism, Taft and Goldwater were both quick to condemn communism and felt it was one of the biggest threats to the liberties of the American citizens.  Taft's book on foreign policy goes into great detail on that threat and a majority of the book covers that subject.  The same with Goldwater.   Where they both were naïve is in their belief that we couldn't be conquered from within by communists, which is essentially what has happened.  Early in Goldwater's Presidential campaign, he was approached by Robert Welch of the John Birch Society and Welch tried to explain the internal threats of communism and Goldwater dismissed him.

Here is a great piece that explains how we have become a country run by communists:

------------------------------------------------------------

Source: http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html

*The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto* 
1848 by Karl Heinrich Marx


Although Marx advocated the use of any means, especially including violent revolution, to bring about socialist dictatorship, he suggested ten political goals for developed countries such as the United States.  How far has the United States -- traditionally the bastion of freedom, free markets, and private property -- gone down the Marxist road to fulfill these socialist aims?  You be the judge.  The following are Marx's ten planks from his Communist Manifesto. 


*1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.* 

The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more "eminent domain" power than was originally intended, Under the rubric of "eminent domain" and various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Management property taxes, and "environmental" excuses, private property rights have become very diluted and private property in lands, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the "forfeiture" provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs..

*2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.* 

The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago.  These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.

*3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.* 

Another Marxian attack on private property rights is in the form of  Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates upon their death.  Instead, government bureaucrats get their greedy hands involved .

*4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.*

We call it government seizures, tax liens, "forfeiture" Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

*5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.*

The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a "national bank" and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States.   This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective.   Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.

*6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.* 

In the U.S., communication and transportation are controlled and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission (established by Congress in 1887), and the Federal Aviation Administration as well as Executive orders 11490, 10999 -- not to mention various state bureaucracies and regulations. There is also the federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL -- outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises.   Instead of free-market private enterprise in these important industries, these fields in America are semi-cartelized through the government's regulatory-industrial complex.

*7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.* 

While the U.S. does not have vast "collective farms" (which failed so miserably in the Soviet Union), we nevertheless do have a significant degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price support subsidies and acreage allotments and land-use controls.   The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

*8. Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.* 

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot...The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

*9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.* 

We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

*10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.* 

People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" .


So, is the U.S. a "free country" today? Hardly! Not compared to what it once was. Yet, very few Americans today challenge these Marxist institutions, and there are virtually no politicians calling for their repeal or even gradual phase-out. While the United States of America may still have more freedoms than most other countries, we have nonetheless lost many crucial liberties and have accepted the major socialist attacks on freedom and private property as normal parts of our way of life. The nation, whose founders included such individualists as Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, James Madison, John Adams and Patrick Henry, has gradually turned away from the principles of individual rights, limited constitutional government, private property, and free markets and instead we increasingly have embraced the failed ideas and nostrums of socialism and fascism. We should hang our heads in shame for having allowed this to happen.

But, it is not too late to reverse these pernicious burdens and instead enact pro-freedom reforms to put our nation back on track again. It can be done.

In some ways the Left has a head start over us on the pro-freedom Right. The enemies of American freedom do admittedly dominate the entertainment industry, television news media, and academia -- but we have the tremendous strategic advantage that reality (including man's nature) is on our side; so, unlike the socialists and "liberals" (welfare-state fascists), we are not in the position of having to advocate a system which constantly tries to "make water to go uphill" -- or force human beings into a rigid utopian straitjacket based on the whims of some clique of central planning bureaucrats. We know that individual freedom for peaceful people within a constitutional republic works in practice; our country's history demonstrates that. The piecemeal abandonment of those principles and institutions which once made America great has proved to be a dead-end road to failure. That is why I tend to be a long-term optimist even though things often look pretty glum in the meantime. Just as Prohibition was eventually repealed, I feel encouraged that such key statist achievements as the income tax, government schools, fiat money/central banking (the Federal Reserve), "environmentalist" regulations, property forfeiture laws, and other Marxist planks and leftist institutions can be rolled back and repealed altogether, although it may take several decades.

Those who would carry forward the ideas and principles of self-ownership, private property, free markets, laissez faire, the rule of law, and constitutionalism which informed America's founders must become more active on the key ideological battle fronts. We need more influence not just in politics, but in areas of entertainment, academia, journalism, think tanks, churches (we need our own individualist Walter Rauschenbushes), literature, art, and other venues of expression and activism.

Marxism and socialism have proved to be colossal failures all over the world. As Frederic Bastiat wrote in his classic The Law just prior to his death, "let us now try liberty"!

------------------------------------------------------------

- ML

----------


## FrankRep

*Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater's late career and libertarianism*



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrE7V-56las

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Libertarians are more like isolationists where constitutional conservatives aren't against war, they just want Congress to declare war as required by the Constitution, then fight the war to win it asap so we can bring our troops home.


Well, uh, that's not really accurate.  Constitutional conservatives don't want war, either.  They just aren't pacifists.  If we are attacked, or if there is an imminent threat, they believe it is just to fight.  And if we do fight, we aim to win quickly and come home.

Constitutional conservatives are called isolationists, just like the most pure of libertarians, because they don't believe our military should be used to police the world and overthrow governments who have not attacked us, nor pose any imminent threat.  In reality, we are non-interventionists.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Well, uh, that's not really accurate.  Constitutional conservatives don't want war, either.  They just aren't pacifists.  If we are attacked, or if there is an imminent threat, they believe it is just to fight.  And if we do fight, we aim to win quickly and come home.


When you combine pacifism, Anti-Americanism and non-interventionism you do wind up with a FP view that is about as damn close to isolationism as you can get.  There are some people who call themselves "libertarians" that hold that viewpoint.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Just come out and say you don't like entangling alliances. That would be fine.


Obviously no one decent likes entangling alliances.   You don't either, do you AuH2O?

Goldwater was bad on foreign policy, good on domestic.  Certainly much of his rhetoric was libertarian.  I think many Ayn Rand readers and other laissez-faire people were attracted to and inspired by him.

It is to the credit of the American people, however, that they were deeply disturbed and opposed to using nuclear weapons in Vietnam to "win the war quickly."  That is about the only good ideological stand Americans of that time period took.  They were wrong on essentially everything else.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> When you combine pacifism, Anti-Americanism and non-interventionism you do wind up with a FP view that is about as damn close to isolationism as you can get.  There are some people who call themselves "libertarians" that hold that viewpoint.


Huh?  Most of us here are all about non-interventionism.  You seem to be saying that is a bad thing?  Non-interventionism is NOT isolationism.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Why is Barry Goldwater Considered a Libertarian? Because he was a libertarian.  It is only the 21st Century keyboard warriors who have attempted to redefine libertarianism that have a problem with it.


 By the standards of his day, and especially for a high-profile politician, yes he was a libertarian.  At least in rhetoric and what he symbolized -- I really have no idea what his governing record says.

But if he were around today, and held identical views to his views in the 1960s, I would put him only on the far fringes of the libertarian movement.  I would not like him very much, either, because I'd see him as a war-mongering, nuke-happy _lunatic_!  But that's because we've advanced intellectually and in maturity and even politically as a movement since then.  I would not out-and-out condemn Goldwater.  He was saying many good things in his time.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> By the standards of his day, and especially for a high-profile politician, yes he was a libertarian.  At least in rhetoric and what he symbolized -- I really have no idea what his governing record says.


Perhaps you should go check, before you continue running your mouth.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Huh?  Most of us here are all about non-interventionism.  You seem to be saying that is a bad thing?  Non-interventionism is NOT isolationism.


Not at all. I am a non-interventionist.  What I said was when you combine non-interventionism with pacifism and an Anti-American viewpoint you get something that is very close to isolationism.

----------


## FrankRep

> Well, uh, that's not really accurate.  Constitutional conservatives don't want war, either.  They just aren't pacifists.  If we are attacked, or if there is an imminent threat, they believe it is just to fight.  And if we do fight, we aim to win quickly and come home.
> 
> Constitutional conservatives are called isolationists, just like the most pure of libertarians, because they don't believe our military should be used to police the world and overthrow governments who have not attacked us, nor pose any imminent threat.  In reality, we are non-interventionists.


Don't libertarians want to abolish the military? The RPFs libertarians do, it seems. If the U.S. was attacked by powerful country, the U.S. is pretty much screwed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Not at all. I am a non-interventionist.  What I said was when you combine non-interventionism with pacifism and an Anti-American viewpoint you get something that is very close to isolationism.


I don't think it requires an Anti-American viewpoint.  Maybe I don't understand where you are coming from.  Explain more.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Don't libertarians want to abolish the military? The RPFs libertarians do. If the U.S. was attacked by powerful country, the U.S. is pretty much screwed.


Are you talking about a federal military?  Because if you are, our Founders didn't want a standing Army, either.  Personally, I'm all for a national Navy and perhaps, Air Force, but I'd rather the Army be raised from the state militia (ie. the people), in case of a declared war.  Isn't this the constitutional viewpoint, Frank?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Perhaps you should go check, before you continue running your mouth.


 Get serious.  Do *you* know his voting record?  Can you name, from memory, even a single bill he voted for or against?

Did he vote against every appropriations bill that ever came before the Senate?  I'll bet he didn't.  So he was no Ron Paul.  Did he vote against _any_ of them?  I don't know.  I'll guarantee neither do you.  So get serious.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Get serious.  Do *you* know his voting record?  Can you name, from memory, even a single bill he voted for or against?
> 
> Did he vote against every appropriations bill that ever came before the Senate?  I'll bet he didn't.  So he was no Ron Paul.  Did he vote against _any_ of them?  I don't know.  I'll guarantee neither do you.  So get serious.


Yes, I think I know a great deal about him that you do not.  I was alive during that time and my Mother was a national delegate for him when he ran for President.  So, yes, I became pretty steeped in all things Goldwater.  lol

By the way, did you know that Goldwater changed his view on gays in his later years, when one of his grandsons came to him and told him that he was gay?

----------


## FrankRep

> Are you talking about a federal military?  Because if you are, our Founders didn't want a standing Army, either.  Personally, I'm all for a national Navy and perhaps, Air Force, but I'd rather the Army be raised from the state militia (ie. the people), in case of a declared war.  Isn't this the constitutional viewpoint, Frank?


Standing Armies are Constitutional. You just have to fund them every two years.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I don't think it requires an Anti-American viewpoint.  Maybe I don't understand where you are coming from.  Explain more.


Isolationism doesn't require it, but I think as a generalization those who are pacificsts, non-interventionists and anti-American (and I can add anti-military) are so close to being isolationists it is hardly recognizable.  The only thing that doesn't make them true isolationists is their desire for open borders and unrestricted trade.

----------


## AuH20

> Don't libertarians want to abolish the military? The RPFs libertarians do, it seems. If the U.S. was attacked by powerful country, the U.S. is pretty much screwed.


Would the RPFs maintain our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent? That's an interesting question to pose as well.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> There can be no absolutes


Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, wait ...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Standing Armies are Constitutional. You just have to fund them every two years.
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....


I guess I wouldn't call that a standing army.  The Constitution gives them the ability to raise Armies in case of war and then disband them afterwards.  This idea came from Rome and they knew well what happened when that didn't happen.  i.e. crossing the Rubicon.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Would the RPFs maintain our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent? That's an interesting question to pose as well.


NOPE!!  I believe in peace through strength.  Carry a big stick and you shouldn't have a need to use it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Yes, I think I know a great deal about him that you do not.


 And yet, the thing that I said I did not know was specifically this: *his voting record*.  And you did not, in fact, name, from memory, even a single bill he voted for or against.  May I presume you cannot?  I will operate on that presumption until you prove otherwise.  Please feel free to do so, if you can.

So perhaps we are both "running our mouths" in that neither of us know squat about his actual voting record.  But that's just because no one on planet Earth knows anything about that.  And it doesn't really matter as far as what he represented in the eyes of the voting public and ultimately of history, because American voters do not care at all about voting records.

Anyway, because both of us are "running our mouths", and because you yourself cannot educate me on what I am ignorant on, being ignorant of it yourself, perhaps you should not tell me to "stop running my mouth".  Perhaps you should not have said that I was "running my mouth" at all.  Because that's not nice.  Now is it?     Perhaps you also should have noticed that I _agreed_ with you about Goldwater being pro-liberty for his era before attacking me.  Now that's embarrassing!  Eh?

----------


## AuH20

> Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Oh, wait ...


Absolutes on interventionism. Or absolutes on noninterventionism. Each new challenge provides a unique set of obstacles. Our philosophy and understanding of the world is a guide but to be rigidly married to any one persuasion is foolhardy IMHO.

----------


## phill4paul

> I guess I wouldn't call that a standing army.  The Constitution gives them the ability to raise Armies in case of war and then disband them afterwards.  This idea came from Rome and they knew well what happened when that didn't happen.  i.e. crossing the Rubicon.


  So many do not get this LE.

  Article 1 section 8:

  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

  To provide and *maintain* a Navy;


  There is a marked difference in these two directives. I've bolded the important distinction for those that may not see it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And yet, the thing that I said I did not know was specifically this: *his voting record*.  And you did not, in fact, name, from memory, even a single bill he voted for or against.  May I presume you cannot?  I will operate on that presumption until you prove otherwise.  Please feel free to do so, if you can.
> 
> So perhaps we are both "running our mouths" in that neither of us know squat about his actual voting record.  But that's just because no one on planet Earth knows anything about that.  And it doesn't really matter as far as what he represented in the eyes of the voting public and ultimately of history, because American voters do not care at all about voting records.
> 
> Anyway, because both of us are "running our mouths", and because you yourself cannot educate me on what I am ignorant on, being ignorant of it yourself, perhaps you should not tell me to "stop running my mouth".  Perhaps you should not have said that I was "running my mouth" at all.  Because that's not nice.  Now is it?     Perhaps you also should have noticed that I _agreed_ with you about Goldwater being pro-liberty for his era before attacking me.  Now that's embarrassing!  Eh?


Yes, I know a lot of votes he made.  But, it's not me who needs to learn about Goldwater; it's you.  So, before you make yourself look even more foolish flapping your gums negatively about a man that you know nothing about, do a little research and inform yourself.

----------


## 69360

> Don't libertarians want to abolish the military? The RPFs libertarians do, it seems. If the U.S. was attacked by powerful country, the U.S. is pretty much screwed.


I'm fine with any military stationed in the US for defense. 




> Would the RPFs maintain our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent? That's an interesting question to pose as well.


Only if other countries do. If all nukes could be abolished great, but probably not possible.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Standing Armies are Constitutional. You just have to fund them every two years.
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....


"Loophole".

You full well know what the founders views were on standing armies.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Huh?  Most of us here are all about non-interventionism.  You seem to be saying that is a bad thing?  Non-interventionism is NOT isolationism.


Well said, LE.  CLA knows better.  In my opinion, he's just trying to push buttons with the "isolationist" nonsense.  It's a tag the GOP tried to hang on Ron.  It's a shame to see the same tactic being used here.

Libertarians in the way I use the word (Rothbardian) are by definition NOT isolationists.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Absolutes on interventionism. Or absolutes on noninterventionism. Each new challenge provides a unique set of obstacles. Our philosophy and understanding of the world is a guide but to be rigidly married to any one persuasion is foolhardy IMHO.


Nonsense.  You're advocating moral relativism.  

We do not go to war unless we are attacked.  We may disagree as to the extent of what one or the other of us considers an attack, but you're already well outside the bounds of that particular discussion with this nonsense.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> "Loophole".
> 
> You full well know what the founders views were on standing armies.


The Continental Army was founded in 1775 and disbanded in 1783.  But in 1792 the Legion of the United States was formed which eventually (by 1796 IIRC) became the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th US Infantry Regiments.  So from the period of 1783 to 1792 we did not have a standing Army.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

h/t EPJ

http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...ple-think.html




> That is the central message of the new and excellent Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam, by Nick Turse.
> 
> For the entire course of the war, Turse considers an estimate of 2 million civilian Vietnamese dead and 5.3 million civilian wounded.  Of course by no means were all of those the result of U.S. military action but many were
> - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/margin....iGHCaft5.dpuf


Timely to the discussion.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> There can be no absolutes





> Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Oh, wait ...





> Absolutes on interventionism. Or absolutes on noninterventionism. Each new challenge provides a unique set of obstacles. Our philosophy and understanding of the world is a guide but to be rigidly married to any one persuasion is foolhardy IMHO.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCy8MpT45gk

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Yes, I know a lot of votes he made.  But, it's not me who needs to learn about Goldwater; it's you.  So, before you make yourself look even more foolish flapping your gums negatively about a man that you know nothing about, do a little research and inform yourself.


  Honestly, ma'am!  Here's what you wrote:




> Perhaps you should go check, before you continue running your mouth.


  Now where am I supposed to check?  Wikipedia has nothing.  Google has nothing.  Such information seems virtually unattainable.  It would be like trying to "check" on the San Francisco city budget 1930-1940.  I have a very small and limited interest in the topic.  Nevertheless, I did not give up, I am still checking --I am checking with you.  You are a self-declared Goldwater expert.  Who better to check with?  I asked you about Mr. Goldwater's voting record.  You have told me (and the other thread readers) exactly nothing.




> before you make yourself look even more foolish flapping your gums negatively about a man that you know nothing about


 a) I do not know nothing about Goldwater.  Did I say I didn't read his book?  Did I say I haven't heard him speak?  Did I say I don't know what policy positions he took?  Did I say I don't understand how he fit into libertarian history, the YAL schism of 1969, etc?  No, I did not say those things.

b) I did not "flap my gums negatively" about Barry Goldwater.  I said he was pro-liberty, but bad on foreign policy.  I would say much the same about Ayn Rand, by the way -- a wonderful novelist and a giant heroine for liberty!  Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully!  How embarrassing for you!  Ah well, old age...

----------


## AuH20

> Nonsense.  You're advocating moral relativism.  
> 
> We do not go to war unless we are attacked.  We may disagree as to the extent of what one or the other of us considers an attack, but you're already well outside the bounds of that particular discussion with this nonsense.


I'm advocating careful analysis and review. Weighing pros versus cons on a case by case basis. I'm on the non-interventionist side. It is the logical and rational course most of  the time. But it's not as simple as saying I won't respond with military force, since an innocent may die due to collateral damage or some unexpected variable. If that's the case, you may as well disband the armed forces and submit your application to become a colony of either Russia or China. 

Secondly, why would anyone ever openly telegraph to their enemies that they are a pacifist leaning non-interventionist? Doesn't that seem abit foolish and naive? Mystery would benefit one's cause as opposed to declaring weakness openly.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Almost. It's getting difficult to tell the difference most days.





> Get real.  Do you even know anything about Goldwater?


The comment to which you are replying has nothing to do with Goldwater.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Unless "Hannity Forums" is a lot better than I expect, I can imagine there's still a difference.  In most other places, even the most conservative person on here would almost certainly end up my ally.


My comment referred to the ever-increasing tendency to embrace interventionist foreign policy that I see on this board.

----------


## klamath

> I guess I wouldn't call that a standing army.  The Constitution gives them the ability to raise Armies in case of war and then disband them afterwards.  This idea came from Rome and they knew well what happened when that didn't happen.  i.e. crossing the Rubicon.


It does not say in case of war. American militias were and most other militias always get their asses kicked.  I can guarantee that if our militias met a well trained modern airborne assault they would be crushed.You cannot train  militia to modern standards in the time it would take for a modern military to land multiple corps  on our soil.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> When you combine pacifism, Anti-Americanism and non-interventionism you do wind up with a FP view that is about as damn close to isolationism as you can get.  There are some people who call themselves "libertarians" that hold that viewpoint.


To whom are you referring as "Anti-American"?

----------


## AuH20

> It does not say in case of war. American militias were and most other militias always get their asses kicked.  I can guarantee that if our militias met a well trained modern airborne assault they would be crushed.You cannot train  militia to modern standards in the time it would take for a modern military to land multiple corps  on our soil.


Largely because they train 24/7. Repetitiveness and redundancy hones your fighting skills, especially within a unit.

----------


## phill4paul

> It does not say in case of war. American militias were and most other militias always get their asses kicked.  I can guarantee that if our militias met a well trained modern airborne assault they would be crushed.You cannot train  militia to modern standards in the time it would take for a modern military to land multiple corps  on our soil.


   Then it is simple, really. You don't allow a modern army to land on your shore. The provided for and maintained Navy, with it's Naval air power and Marine Corps contingent is well suited to the task.

----------


## Contumacious

> He talked a good game:
> 
> 'Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
> 
> .

----------


## AuH20

> My comment referred to the ever-increasing tendency to embrace interventionist foreign policy that I see on this board.


It's more conditional non-interventionist as opposed to interventionist. None of us here are interventionists. Who here is advocating for preemptive strikes? Or manipulation of foreign governments? We are all staunchly opposed to such follies.

----------


## FrankRep

> Standing Armies are Constitutional. You just have to fund them every two years.
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....





> I guess I wouldn't call that a standing army.  The Constitution gives them the ability to raise Armies in case of war and then disband them afterwards.  This idea came from Rome and they knew well what happened when that didn't happen.  i.e. crossing the Rubicon.


That is a Standing Army. Why do you think Congress keeps having Military Appropriation bills every two years?

----------


## klamath

> Then it is simple, really. You don't allow a modern army to land on your shore. The provided for and maintained Navy, with it's Naval air power and Marine Corps contingent is well suited to the task.


The constitution didn't authorize navel airpower.There is zero mention in the constitution about airpower but you  want to substitute something absolutely Not in the constitution for something that IS in the constitution. The marine corps is an army.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That is a Standing Army. Why do you thing Congress keeps having Military Appropriation bills every two years?


It sure wasn't the intent of the founders, Frank, to have an Army at all times.  What they wanted was for the Army to be called up when needed to fight a war and then be disbanded afterwards.  They tried to ensure that by making the Congress appropriate the funds every two years.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The constitution didn't authorize navel airpower.There is zero mention in the constitution about airpower but you  want to substitute something absolutely Not in the constitution for something that IS in the constitution. The marine corps is an army.


But it did authorize a Navy.  It wasn't possible to fly at the time of the Constitution, so it's not a far stretch to assume they would be in favor of having an Air Force of some kind to guard against invasions.

----------


## FrankRep

> It sure wasn't the intent of the founders, Frank, to have an Army at all times.  What they wanted was for the Army to be called up when needed to fight a war and then be disbanded afterwards.  They tried to ensure that by making the Congress appropriate the funds every two years.


And Congress chooses to pass the Military Appropriations bill every two years, thus making it constitutional.

----------


## phill4paul

> The constitution didn't authorize navel airpower.There is zero mention in the constitution about airpower but you  want to substitute something absolutely Not in the constitution for something that IS in the constitution. The marine corps is an army.



   It authorized a Navy. Technological advances don't preclude addition. The Marine Corps. is a Naval expeditionary force under the direction of the  United States Department of the *Navy*.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And Congress chooses to pass the Military Appropriations bill every two years, thus making it constitutional.


The Congress does all kinds of things to twist the Founders' intent, Frank.  This should not come as a surprise to you.  Surely, you are not arguing that the Founders' intent was NOT to have an Army except in times of war, are you?

----------


## LibertyEagle

"I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." --Thomas Jefferson

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” -- James Madison

----------


## phill4paul

> And Congress chooses to pass the Military Appropriations bill every two years, thus making it constitutional.


  Which is a perversion of original intent. If an Army were meant to be maintained the there would not be a separation in directives. It would have been written..

    To provide and maintain a Navy and Armies

    or

   To raise and support Armies and a Navy, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

----------


## FrankRep

> The Congress does all kinds of things to twist the Founders' intent, Frank.  This should not come as a surprise to you.  Surely, you are not arguing that the Founders' intent was NOT to have an Army except in times of war, are you?


Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: "The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...."

I see nothing in the Constitution saying that you need to be at War to have an Army.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: "The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...."
> 
> I see nothing in the Constitution saying that you need to be at War to have an Army.


Read the Federalist Papers, Frank.  They were very clear.  Armies were to be RAISED AND SUPPORTED in case of war.  

Geez, the Birch Society has stuff on this too.  I am shocked you are arguing about this.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Read the Federalist Papers, Frank.  They were very clear.  Armies were to be RAISED AND SUPPORTED in case of war.  
> 
> Geez, the Birch Society has stuff on this too.  I am shocked you are arguing about this.


When you're right, you're right.  And good on ya for pointing it out, LE.




> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LibertyEagle again.

----------


## FrankRep

> Read the Federalist Papers, Frank.  They were very clear.  Armies were to be RAISED AND SUPPORTED in case of war.  
> 
> Geez, the Birch Society has stuff on this too.  I am shocked you are arguing about this.


I'm reading through these two numbers:

Federalist Papers No. 29: Concerning the Militia
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

Federalist Papers No. 74: The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive 
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa74.htm

Which Federalist Papers are you reading?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'm advocating careful analysis and review. Weighing pros versus cons on a case by case basis. I'm on the non-interventionist side.


Keep telling yourself that.  




> It is the logical and rational course most of  the time. But it's not as simple as saying I won't respond with military force, since an innocent may die due to collateral damage or some unexpected variable. If that's the case, you may as well disband the armed forces and submit your application to become a colony of either Russia or China.


Well, this is just fascinating.  A little while ago you were trying to explain your advocacy of foreign military interventionism;  now you're telling me that _my_ position would make the US susceptible to foreign invasion.  Fess up - I'm debating with Sean Hannity, aren't I??  :lol:  I've seen these tactics before, sir. 

I can't believe I have to ask this on RPF, but have you ever looked at a map?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Then it is simple, really. You don't allow a modern army to land on your shore.


Pretty easy job on this particular continent.

----------


## FrankRep

> Read the Federalist Papers, Frank.  They were very clear.  Armies were to be RAISED AND SUPPORTED in case of war.  
> 
> Geez, the Birch Society has stuff on this too.  I am shocked you are arguing about this.


The John Birch Society argues for the *Proper Use of Military*, not Disbanding the Military.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It does not say in case of war. American militias were and most other militias always get their asses kicked.  I can guarantee that if our militias met a well trained modern airborne assault they would be crushed.You cannot train  militia to modern standards in the time it would take for a modern military to land multiple corps  on our soil.


Well why don't we just fold up the tents, suspend habeas corpus, and use the Bill of Rights to light off the cannons, then?  Because someday, someone might do something bad.  In fact, I think we should invade the entire planet, to make it safe for freedom, democracy, and the American way of life.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The John Birch Society argues for the *Proper Use of Military*, not Disbanding the Military.


That article is well after the JBS started way toning it down so that they would be more acceptable to the general public.  I liked them better before.




> An army’s purpose is to abuse people. That’s why Americans – and their British ancestors – abhorred a professional, or standing one. England’s Saxons learned this lesson during the Norman invasion when soldiers under William the Conqueror devastated their country, then forced the victims to house their conquerors and pay taxes.
> 
> The Saxons contrasted these horrors with the behavior of their own militias – a difference James Madison articulated centuries later: an army “subdu[es] the force, of the people” while also producing “debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.” Militias, by contrast, exist solely for self-defense. People arming themselves only when directly threatened and only to protect their homes have little enthusiasm for roistering about other countries, plundering and attacking folks who aren’t endangering them.
> 
> No wonder Madison and the founding generation loved militias but feared a standing army as one of liberty’s “most dreaded enemies.” When an army pillages abroad, government has all the excuse wanted to raise taxes while tarring those who object as unpatriotic. And when it stays home, the army is handy for suppressing dissent.


http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/tho...tanding-armies

----------


## phill4paul

> Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: "The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...."
> 
> I see nothing in the Constitution saying that you need to be at War to have an Army.


 You keep writing this clause without including the 13th. There is a distinction when both clauses are taken together in context.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The constitution didn't authorize navel airpower.There is zero mention in the constitution about airpower but you  want to substitute something absolutely Not in the constitution for something that IS in the constitution. The marine corps is an army.


No, there you are wrong.  Remember, the Marine Corps was created in 1775, so it's not like they didn't know what one was when they ratified the Constitution in 1787.  The Marine Corps has always been distinct, and used in a distinct fashion from the Army.  It was mostly after Korea that the missions were (intentionally!) conflated by policymakers who considered them redundant, so they started giving them the same work to do to 'prove' that they were redundant.  

Thomas Jefferson, who vehemently insisted that Armies can't go off attacking other countries without a proper state of war, happily sent the Marines into Tripoli to retrieve our captives and stop the Barbary Pirates.

The Marines are by no means an Army, but I am sympathetic to people who think so because that conflation was created intentionally by policymakers who wanted to disband the Marine Corps.  Therefore they started getting all the same missions, and became the subject of campaigns to demonstrate that they were the same, so therefore they are redundant and why do we need them.




> It authorized a Navy. Technological advances don't preclude addition. The Marine Corps. is a Naval expeditionary force under the direction of the  United States Department of the *Navy*.


Correct!  The Constitution would not allow an independent Air Force without amending it to permit one, but it would allow for an Army Air Corps that was Dept of Army much like the Marine Corps are Dept of Navy.  See, we _used_ to respect the Constitution, once.

----------


## FrankRep

> That article is well after the JBS started way toning it down so that they would be more acceptable to the general public.  I liked them better before.
> 
> http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/tho...tanding-armies


Yeah, the founders warned about the dangers of Standing Armies, but Standing Armies are Constitutional. 

Hell, I'll warn you about the dangers of Standing Armies.

The John Birch Society, however, argues for the Proper Use of the Army, not Disbanding the Army.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> To whom are you referring as "Anti-American"?


Sorry for the delay, I haven't checked this thread in a few hours.  There are some people who are anti-American and anti-military.  Not anyone specific, but they do exist among those who call themselves libertarian.  The type of folks that say America is evil and the cause of all the world's problems and that soldiers are nothing more than blood thirsty murderers.  You know the "Code Pink" language so to speak. Some folks who came from the anti-war left into the libertarian movement "cut their teeth" and were heavily influenced by the radical anti-war left who want to see a total weakening of America.

When you take that viewpoint, add a whole lot of pacifism and of course being non-interventionists as well, the flirt with isolationism. On the contrary, there are plenty of people who are non-interventionists, but still believe in a strong national defense.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yeah, the founders warned about the dangers of Standing Armies, but Standing Armies are Constitutional. 
> 
> Hell, I'll warn you about the dangers of Standing Armies.
> 
> The John Birch Society, however, argues for the Proper Use of the Army, not Disbanding the Army.


Jumping back in on the standing Army topic.  While there are several quotes you can find out there from the Founders warning about a standing Army, I have a hard time finding anything post 1792 when the Founders reassembled the Army and left it standing.  I'm just making some broad assumptions here, but could it be that they warned against it, then later realized the need for it?  And since the Constitution did provide for a means to have a standing Army there was no issue for them to be concerned with?  Please anyone feel free to shed some insight on that point because the timeline of the Army's history seems to suggest that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Sorry for the delay, I haven't checked this thread in a few hours.  There are some people who are anti-American and anti-military.  Not anyone specific, but they do exist among those who call themselves libertarian.  The type of folks that say America is evil and the cause of all the world's problems and that soldiers are nothing more than blood thirsty murderers.  You know the "Code Pink" language so to speak. Some folks who came from the anti-war left into the libertarian movement "cut their teeth" and were heavily influenced by the radical anti-war left who want to see a total weakening of America.
> 
> When you take that viewpoint, add a whole lot of pacifism and of course being non-interventionists as well, the flirt with isolationism. On the contrary, there are plenty of people who are non-interventionists, but still believe in a strong national defense.


I put myself in the latter category, so long as it is *legitimate* ​defense.

----------


## AuH20

> Keep telling yourself that.  
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is just fascinating.  A little while ago you were trying to explain your advocacy of foreign military interventionism;  now you're telling me that _my_ position would make the US susceptible to foreign invasion.  Fess up - I'm debating with Sean Hannity, aren't I??  :lol:  I've seen these tactics before, sir. 
> 
> I can't believe I have to ask this on RPF, but have you ever looked at a map?


Note the verb "respond." Respond with military force. Not INITIATE. I don't think you know that you're arguing with someone who believes that the CIA should be dissolved and the U.S. should withdraw from both NATO & the UN.

----------


## FrankRep

I'm being attacked on RPFs for supporting the *Proper Use of Military* and opposing the Disbanding the Military. Yes, I'm being told that I'm an Unconstitutional Statist.


I'm told that I'm "twisting the Constitution" by quoting Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...."


I would like to point out, however, that my views are in line with Ron Paul's views of the Military. Would anyone on Ron Paul Forums like to attack Ron Paul for supporting the Military? 


*Paul: Limit military to national defense*

Concord Monitor
August 19, 2011 

The proper policy, *Paul* said, is to *keep our military limited to national defense*, not intervening in other nation's affairs.
...


*Ron Paul Ad - Secure* 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhmF7sNlraU

----------


## FrankRep

> Read the Federalist Papers, Frank.  They were very clear.  Armies were to be RAISED AND SUPPORTED in case of war.  
> 
> Geez, the Birch Society has stuff on this too.  I am shocked you are arguing about this.



Would you like to Attack Ron Paul as well? He supports my views (or I support his views).

*Ron Paul Supports Having a Standing Army for National Defense, Is he wrong?*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...se-Is-he-wrong

----------


## Contumacious

*Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus* 

“I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient for I mean to reduce its size,” the book proclaimed. “I do not undertake to promote welfare for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.”

*Yet Goldwater also proposed to expand the state*. His book urged the U.S. government to summon the will and the means to take the initiative against the Russians. Later, in the sort of rhetoric that would lead to his defeat, he was to advocate atom-bombing North Vietnam — a far cry from the limited government theory that had set his movement in motion."

.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Would you like to Attack Ron Paul as well? He supports my views (or I support his views).
> 
> *Ron Paul Supports Having a Standing Army for National Defense, Is he wrong?*
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...se-Is-he-wrong


Don't be ridiculous, Frank.  That was a campaign ad.  Of course he's not going to say in a campaign ad that constitutionally, we should only have a standing Navy.  But, he has talked about it before.  When I get a chance, I'll try to google it and find it.  Have you honestly not heard him discuss it?

----------


## cajuncocoa

http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8893

----------


## phill4paul

> Sorry for the delay, I haven't checked this thread in a few hours.  There are some people who are anti-American and anti-military.  Not anyone specific, but they do exist among those who call themselves libertarian.  The type of folks that say America is evil and the cause of all the world's problems and that soldiers are nothing more than blood thirsty murderers.  You know the "Code Pink" language so to speak. Some folks who came from the anti-war left into the libertarian movement "cut their teeth" and were heavily influenced by the radical anti-war left who want to see a total weakening of America.
> 
> When you take that viewpoint, add a whole lot of pacifism and of course being non-interventionists as well, the flirt with isolationism. On the contrary, there are plenty of people who are non-interventionists, but still believe in a strong national defense.


  What a crock of Hannity-Limbaugh double speak.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Frank, what is your own view on this thorny matter?

I personlly support a sitting army.  And no NFL approved Freezer bags at NFL games.

----------


## FrankRep

> http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8893


I read it and Ron Paul said nothing about Disbanding the Military, Ron Paul pointed out the misuse of Military.

I agree. The Military is for National Defense.

----------


## AuH20

> *Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus* 
> 
> “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient for I mean to reduce its size,” the book proclaimed. “I do not undertake to promote welfare for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.”
> 
> *Yet Goldwater also proposed to expand the state*. *His book urged the U.S. government to summon the will and the means to take the initiative against the Russians.* Later, in the sort of rhetoric that would lead to his defeat, he was to advocate atom-bombing North Vietnam — a far cry from the limited government theory that had set his movement in motion."
> 
> .


Yes, because the Russians were so warm and cuddly.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What a crock of Hannity-Limbaugh double speak.


I'm glad you said this...I was thinking the same but usually get ATTACKED when I make such a claim!

----------


## FrankRep

> Frank, what is your own view on this thorny matter?
> 
> I personlly support a sitting army.


I support having a Standing Army for National Defense. I reject the idea of Disbanding the Military. I'm pointing out that Ron Paul agrees.

----------


## FrankRep

> Yes, because the Russians were so warm and cuddly.


Agreed. The Communists were pretty damn evil. 


*(1966) Shocking Statement from Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture*






*Ezra Taft Benson*, former Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower Administration.


Ezra Taft Benson met with USSR's Nikkita Khrushchev in 1959 and relates this present day warning:


"As we talked face-to-face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under Communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his, and all other grandchildren, would live under freedom, he arrogantly declared, in substance:


'You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you'll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won't have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.' "

- Ezra Taft Benson "Our Immediate Responsibility." Devotional Address at Brigham Young University

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

Yes, if you or Ron translates "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" as "standing" or "permanent", then you are guilty of ignoring the plain language of the constitution.

You're also guilty of ignoring the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment which is that only the people themselves are a safe defense of a free state.

You're also guilty of ignoring the plain language of the state bills of rights that were ratified in 1776--all of which prohibit government standing armies.

The fact that Ron and most libertarians almost NEVER cite these very important constitutional protections proves that they would rather pander to modern day conservatives who believe that the constitution is too old fashioned (ironically) than remain true to the principles that the constitution was written to preserve.




> "a bill of rights [must] secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, [and] freedom from a permanent military..." --Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Hopkinson (March 13, 1789)

----------


## FrankRep

> Yes, if you or Ron translates "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" as "standing" or "permanent", then you are guilty of ignoring the plain language of the constitution.


Every two years Congress will just Appropriation more money for the Military. There's nothing Unconstitutional about that.

----------


## phill4paul

> Would you like to Attack Ron Paul as well? He supports my views (or I support his views).
> 
> *Ron Paul Supports Having a Standing Army for National Defense, Is he wrong?*
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...se-Is-he-wrong


  Dept. of the NAVY.


*



"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."


*  RON PAUL.

----------


## presence

> [...]remain true to the principles that the constitution was written to preserve.


BANG!

+rep


I don't need a standing army; I need free armed patriots.  





> *"I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till  actual invasion,*
> 
>  and for such a naval force only as may protect our  coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and  not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public  sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal  wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens  and sink us under them." 
> *--Thomas Jefferson*
> 
>   What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the  establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever  governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they  always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon  their ruins.
> *Elbridge Gerry* 
> 
> 
> ...









> June 13 2001 - Conscription Policies _
>  — assuming the country needs any army at all —_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> October 12, 2007 Washington Post
> *
> ...

----------


## FrankRep

> "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons." - Ron Paul


I see nothing about Disbanding the Military.

----------


## 69360

`The constitution does not prohibit a standing army. It prohibits funding a standing army more than 2 years without congressional approval. The intent of that was to prevent the military from getting unlimited, unending funding. Every 2 years congress can decide how much to spend on the military.

There is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about having standing army for defense. We got in trouble when we started posting troops all over the world in peacetime.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Sorry for the delay, I haven't checked this thread in a few hours.  There are some people who are anti-American and anti-military.  Not anyone specific, but they do exist among those who call themselves libertarian.  The type of folks that say America is evil and the cause of all the world's problems and that soldiers are nothing more than blood thirsty murderers.  You know the "Code Pink" language so to speak. Some folks who came from the anti-war left into the libertarian movement "cut their teeth" and were heavily influenced by the radical anti-war left who want to see a total weakening of America.
> 
> When you take that viewpoint, add a whole lot of pacifism and of course being non-interventionists as well, the flirt with isolationism. On the contrary, there are plenty of people who are non-interventionists, but still believe in a strong national defense.


All of this is a lot of "code-speak" for the Hannity-ite, militarist, pro foreign military interventionist "right".  You "flirt" with interventionism, and want to see a powerful, militaristic America.  You know, the "neocon" language, so to speak.  There are some people in this movement who are hyper-pro-military.  People who call soldiers who do the bidding of a vicious, militant, imperial government "heroes".  People who shake their heads at other people who dare speak truth about the reality of the US governments foreign policy.  These kind of war pigs do exist among those who call themselves libertarians.

----------


## Anti Federalist

The horse has already escaped this barn.

The standing army the founders were justly concerned about is not the standing US military.

It is the one million plus standing army of cops and various "law enforcement" all around us.

When was the last time you heard of an active duty Marine shooting someone's dog in a law enforcement role?

An Airman tasering granny for "Contempt of the Air Force"?

An Army corporal shooting and killing a 95 year old man using a walker for "non compliance"?

Yes, I am well aware that many LEOs are ex-military.

Many more are not...and they'll kill a vet just as quick as they will any run of the mill Mundane.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Note the verb "respond." Respond with military force. Not INITIATE. I don't think you know that you're arguing with someone who believes that the CIA should be dissolved and the U.S. should withdraw from both NATO & the UN.


I'm debating what you've had to say in this thread; not what you supposedly stand for otherwise.  

I'd have to seriously question your sincerity if you want me to believe these are positions you actually take.  If they are, congrats to you, but I'd question the mental gymnastics you'd have to perform to take the positions you've taken here.

----------


## pcosmar

> I support having a Standing Army for National Defense. I reject the idea of Disbanding the Military. I'm pointing out that Ron Paul agrees.


Well that takes a bit of an imagination to put words in his mouth.

Accepting the present military and wishing to restrict it,,  is by no means supporting it.

And he has voiced support for the Militia.

----------


## phill4paul

> I see nothing about Disbanding the Military.


  Shuffle left.

  The Navy IS "military", no?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Pretty easy job on this particular continent.





> Dept. of the NAVY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."
> 			
> ...


Exactly what I was getting at with the above.  Also when I asked AuH2O if he's ever looked at a map.  :thumbs:

----------


## FrankRep

> `The constitution does not prohibit a standing army. It prohibits funding a standing army more than 2 years without congressional approval. The intent of that was to prevent the military from getting unlimited, unending funding. Every 2 years congress can decide how much to spend on the military.
> 
> There is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about having standing army for defense. We got in trouble when we started posting troops all over the world in peacetime.


That is correct. 

I'm surprised that LE got this fact wrong and continues to attack me on it. Even Ron Paul supports having a Military -- Yes, for National Defense.

----------


## FrankRep

> Well that takes a bit of an imagination to put words in his mouth.
> 
> Accepting the present military and wishing to restrict it,,  is by no means supporting it.
> 
> And he has voiced support for the Militia.


Ron Paul supports having a Military for National Defense. No words are being put into Ron Paul's mouth.

----------


## FrankRep

> Shuffle left.
> 
>   The Navy IS "military", no?



*From the Constitution:*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...rs_of_Congress

Congress's legislative power:

*To raise and support Armies*, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> All of this is a lot of "code-speak" for the Hannity-ite, militarist, pro foreign military interventionist "right".  You "flirt" with interventionism, and want to see a powerful, militaristic America.  You know, the "neocon" language, so to speak.  There are some people in this movement who are hyper-pro-military.  People who call soldiers who do the bidding of a vicious, militant, imperial government "heroes".  People who shake their heads at other people who dare speak truth about the reality of the US governments foreign policy.  These kind of war pigs do exist among those who call themselves libertarians.


Pro-defense, non-interventionists make up the majority of real world libertarians. Having been involved in this for decades I can attest to that. Massie, Rand, Amash, Sanford, Davis, Ron, et al all fit into this category. The pacifist, anti-military types exist solely online and on college campuses.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> I support having a Standing Army for National Defense. .


How can a Standing (or sitting) Army defend against things like 9/11 attacks 
on WTC buildings , building 7?
By attacking places like Iraq?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Every two years Congress will just Appropriation more money for the Military. There's nothing Unconstitutional about that.


NO ONE is buying your dissembling, and ignoring the rest of his post.  You're desperate to preserve your modern "conservative" credentials and you HATE that this movement has moved WELL past this nonsensical, militaristic, mindlessly "patriotic" viewpoint.  

There's a helluva lot more to "patriotism" than waving the flag and "supporting the troops", Frank.  I don't know your social circle, but I feel relatively confident that you're intelligent enough to get past it and stand on your own two feet.

----------


## Michael Landon

> Agreed. The Communists were pretty damn evil. 
> 
> 
> *(1966) Shocking Statement from Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See my previous post regarding the 10 planks of the communist manifesto and you'll see that Nikkita Khrushchev was correct.

- ML

----------


## phill4paul

> *From the Constitution:*
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...rs_of_Congress
> 
> Congress's legislative power:
> 
> *To raise and support Armies*, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


  Shuffle right...

Please, Frank, I have read the clauses of Article 1 section 8. I do not refute that clause 12 was written. How it is interpreted is a different matter unless you include clause 13. Again you do not cite the 13th clause to put the 12th in context. Until you address this then there is nothing much more I can add.

----------


## Contumacious

> I'm being attacked on RPFs for supporting the *Proper Use of Military* and opposing the Disbanding the Military. Yes, I'm being told that I'm an Unconstitutional Statist.
> 
> 
> I'm told that I'm "twisting the Constitution" by quoting Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...."


Your position is the correct one.


*The Anti-Federalists on Standing Armies*

The Anti-Federalist who called himself "Centinel" wrote a series of letters that appeared in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer in late 1787 and early 1788. He referred to standing armies in his second letter as *"that grand engine of oppression."*

The "Federal Farmer" wrote a series of letters that were published in the Poughkeepsie Country Journal in late 1787 and early 1788. In his third letter, he lamented that under the new Constitution Congress "will have unlimited power to raise armies, and to engage officers and men for any number of years." He then voiced his objection to standing armies:

"Cato" wrote a series of letters that appeared in the New York Journal between September 1787 and January 1788. One of his complaints against the proposed new government was that "standing armies may be established, and appropriation of money made for their support, for two years."

They objected to a standing army because

A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes, and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power.

.

----------


## FrankRep

> How can a Standing (or sitting) Army defend against things like 9/11 attacks in WTC nuildings , building 7?


I'm just pointing out that Ron Paul supports having a Military for National Defense.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> And Congress chooses to pass the Military Appropriations bill every two years, thus making it constitutional.


An NDAA is passed every year, with funding going to the military each year.




> Isolationism doesn't require it, but I think as a generalization those who are pacificsts, non-interventionists and anti-American (and I can add anti-military) are so close to being isolationists it is hardly recognizable.  The only thing that doesn't make them true isolationists is their desire for open borders and unrestricted trade.


What? That's like saying the only thing that doesn't make someone a rapist is the lack of desire to force themselves on another person.




> Rothbard wasn't always an anarchist, you realize, and the fact of the matter is that it was disgruntled Paleocons who founded the Libertarian Party.  "Libertarians" do not have the corner on libertarianism, as much as they want to believe they do.


Rothbard became an anarchist in the winter of 1949-50, in his own words.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *From the Constitution:*
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...rs_of_Congress
> 
> Congress's legislative power:
> 
> *To raise and support Armies*, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


*From the Constitution:*

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

Congress's legislative power:

*To provide and maintain a Navy;*

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Please, Frank, I have read the clauses of Article 1 section 8. I do not refute that clause 12 was written. How it is interpreted is a different matter unless you include clause 13. Again you do not cite the 13th clause to put the 12th in context. Until you address this then there is nothing much more I can add.


Trollish behavior on Franks part.  He knows better.

----------


## FrankRep

> Your position is the correct one.
> 
> 
> *The Anti-Federalists on Standing Armies*
> 
> The Anti-Federalist who called himself "Centinel" wrote a series of letters that appeared in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer in late 1787 and early 1788. He referred to standing armies in his second letter as *"that grand engine of oppression."*
> 
> The "Federal Farmer" wrote a series of letters that were published in the Poughkeepsie Country Journal in late 1787 and early 1788. In his third letter, he lamented that under the new Constitution Congress "will have unlimited power to raise armies, and to engage officers and men for any number of years." He then voiced his objection to standing armies:
> 
> ...


I agree that we need to be aware of the Dangers of Standing Armies, but Standing Armies are Constitutional. 

Ron Paul supports having a Standing Army for National Defense.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Frank, what do you think the original intent behind limiting Army appropriations to two years was, and why did the Framers not create a similar limitation for the Navy?

----------


## FrankRep

> Frank, what do you think the original intent behind limiting Army appropriations to two years was, and why did the Framers not create a similar limitation for the Navy?


To make Congress decide if they want to continue funding the Army or not. Congress, however, chooses to continue Army appropriations.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Pro-defense, non-interventionists make up the majority of real world libertarians. Having been involved in this for decades I can attest to that. Massie, Rand, Amash, Sanford, Davis, Ron, et al all fit into this category. The pacifist, anti-military types exist solely online and on college campuses.


"Real world". LOL  People like you have murdered more people in the "real world" than "pacifist, anti-military types" like me.

For the record, I'm not a pacifist, nor anti-military.  I'm against the sort of militaristic adventurism your viewpoint implicitly allows.  

I'm a real world libertarian.  I understand that your kind of creeping imperialism has real-world consequences.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That is correct. 
> 
> I'm surprised that LE got this fact wrong and continues to attack me on it. Even Ron Paul supports having a Military -- Yes, for National Defense.


Bullcrap, Frank.  

Ron Paul has also spoken about the Navy being the only entity that should stand in perpetuity.  Sure, the federal government can reauthorize the Army every 2 years, but that was not what our Founders intended.

Surely, you realize that national defense can be provided by the Navy and also be provided by calling up the militia from the states, right?

But, I suppose this is one of the differences between a federalist and an anti-federalist.  I have never seen it so clearly before now.  Thanks for bringing this to light, Frank.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> NO ONE is buying your dissembling, and ignoring the rest of his post.  You're desperate to preserve your modern "conservative" credentials and you HATE that this movement has moved WELL past this nonsensical, militaristic, mindlessly "patriotic" viewpoint.  
> 
> There's a helluva lot more to "patriotism" than waving the flag and "supporting the troops", Frank.  I don't know your social circle, but I feel relatively confident that you're intelligent enough to get past it and stand on your own two feet.


Just out of curiosity, how do you respond  to the "Support the troops" mantra?  I mean, I know how on here, but how do you respond when you hear it IRL?




> I'm just pointing out that Ron Paul supports having a Military for National Defense.


A military.  Not necessarily a standing army.  The Founders supported the navy, believing that it could not be used to squash our rights since it is located in the water.

If Ron Paul supports a standing army, I respectfully disagree, and agree with James Madison instead.

----------


## FrankRep

> *From the Constitution:*
> 
> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html
> 
> Congress's legislative power:
> 
> *To provide and maintain a Navy;*


Yes, that is Another power of Congress.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> "I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." --Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> "There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." -Thomas Jefferson


Its fun watching them twist to negate every thing they think is too old fashioned:

For "no appropriation shall be for a term longer than 2 years", no problem they'll just "structure" consecutive payments for permanent projects.  Try structuring 10 consecutive $9,000 transactions that way with the IRS.

For the 2nd Amendment's "a militia being necessary security" somehow a government army as the security is just dandy.

For the state prohibitions on standing government armies and state constitutional declarations that government armies are "unsafe", we just get more irony as conservatives tell us that the state constitutions don't mean $#@! apparently trumped by the penumbras they see in the federal constitution.  

All because they think the idea that the government shouldn't have guns is too old fashioned.  Ironic isn't it?  "Conservatives" complaining about the constitution being too old fashioned?

----------


## TaftFan

I have no issue with standing armies, in fact the modern world necessitates it. In this day and age, you don't have weeks to train before the enemy arrives on their sailboats.

If the government wants to impose tyranny, it doesn't matter when they decide to raise their army. What matters is whether the soldiers will resist. That is why Oathkeepers are important.

----------


## AuH20

> Pro-defense, non-interventionists make up the majority of real world libertarians. Having been involved in this for decades I can attest to that. Massie, Rand, Amash, Sanford, Davis, Ron, et al all fit into this category. The pacifist, anti-military types exist solely online and on college campuses.


Murray Rothbard actually voted for Lyndon Baines Johnson (a far worse "warmonger" and despicable human being)  in the 1964 presidential election. He didn't even abstain in fact, which was the logical choice if he was appalled by Goldwater. This illustrates the wide disconnect you are referring to.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I agree that we need to be aware of the Dangers of Standing Armies, but Standing Armies are Constitutional. 
> 
> Ron Paul supports having a Standing Army for National Defense.


Again, NO ONE is buying your dodge.  

This is a sad display.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Trollish behavior on Franks part.  He knows better.


I'm usually the guy defending him, but yeah he is being the artful dodger today.






> Like Nitpick, Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When faced with an attack he can't rebuff he manoeuvres the discussion into an area where he feels he occupies the high ground. If, for example, in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him as a "sonofa*****", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for his sainted mother, but will launch into a long harangue about the sanctity of motherhood. Knowing full well that to stay on topic will assure his defeat, he is utterly impervious to counterattacks like, "that has nothing to do with this discussion".


http://www.politicsforum.org/images/...iors/index.php

----------


## FrankRep

> Bullcrap, Frank.  
> 
> Ron Paul has also spoken about the Navy being the only entity that should stand in perpetuity.  Sure, the federal government can reauthorize the Army every 2 years, but that was not what our Founders intended.
> 
> Surely, you realize that national defense can be provided by the Navy and also be provided by calling up the militia from the states, right?
> 
> But, I suppose this is one of the differences between a federalist and an anti-federalist.  I have never seen it so clearly before now.  Thanks for bringing this to light, Frank.


LibertyEagle: "Sure, the federal government can reauthorize the Army every 2 years"

Thank you. Even LibertyEagle admits that a Standing Army is Constitutional. 

Yes, we need to be aware of the dangers associated with Standing Armies.

----------


## Brett85

I've gotten involved in a lot of arguments about this as well.  The proper position is to have a strong military for legitimate defense here at home, to use them as a deterrent against other countries that may wish to attack us.  We just shouldn't have our troops stationed all over the world like we do now.

----------


## phill4paul

Ron Paul supports a deterrent military.....

*"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."*

  Did you actually have to start another thread before finishing a debate in the first? Or was your intent to deflect. Hoping that others would not follow the discussion here?

----------


## FrankRep

> Again, NO ONE is buying your dodge.  
> 
> This is a sad display.


What dodge? Standing armies are Constitutional.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> To make Congress decide if they want to continue funding the Army or not. Congress, however, chooses to continue Army appropriations.


So you think the original intent behind the two year appropriations rule was to give Congress more control over the appropriations of a standing army, despite all of the Federalist Papers, Antifederalist Papers and the State Constitutions to the contrary?

----------


## FrankRep

> Ron Paul supports a deterrent military.....
> 
> *"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."*
> 
>   Did you actually have to start another thread before finishing a debate in the first? Or was your intent to deflect. Hoping that others would not follow the discussion here?


I still see nothing about Ron Paul wanting to Disband the Military.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Just out of curiosity, how do you respond  to the "Support the troops" mantra?  I mean, I know how on here, but how do you respond when you hear it IRL?


Pretty much the same way I do here, online.  Except that when I discuss it here, I (perhaps mistakenly) take for granted that my audience has at least a basic understanding of the history of the US government and contemporary international relations.

----------


## phill4paul

> Again, NO ONE is buying your dodge.  
> 
> This is a sad display.


 Too obvious.

----------


## Contumacious

> I agree that we need to be aware of the Dangers of Standing Armies, but Standing Armies are Constitutional. 
> 
> *Ron Paul supports having a Standing Army for National Defense.*




Understood.

But that has not prevented presidents since Wilson to deploy them all over the $#@!ing creation including Waco, Texas.

.

----------


## phill4paul

> I still see nothing about Ron Paul wanting to Disband the Military.


  OK so I will say it in TWO frikken threads.....

  The NAVY is military., no?

----------


## FrankRep

> I've gotten involved in a lot of arguments about this as well.  The proper position is to have a strong military for legitimate defense here at home, to use them as a deterrent against other countries that may wish to attack us.  We just shouldn't have our troops stationed all over the world like we do now.


Thank you Traditional Conservative.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes, that is Another power of Congress.


Which, of your argument was correct, would have also had a limitation on appropriations.  It did not.  The Framers wanted a standing Navy, and did not want a standing Army.  We are talking about _original intent_ here. The fact that the text can be loop-holed and twisted to avoid original intent is immaterial.  The fact that the text gets loop-holed and twisted to avoid original intent is in and of itself an indictment against those who are violating original intent.  If they were fulfilling original intent, there would need to be no loop-holing or twisting to be done.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So you think the original intent behind the two year appropriations rule was to give Congress more control over the appropriations of a standing army, despite all of the Federalist Papers, Antifederalist Papers and the State Constitutions to the contrary?


Frank knows the intent behind the Framers' position on a standing army.

It's as if he's trying to maintain cred with an establishment GOP community or something.

----------


## phill4paul

I'm calling for a mod to combine threads. This slight of hand is ridiculous. I'm not going to repeat myself in two threads.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> The horse has already escaped this barn.
> 
> The standing army the founders were justly concerned about is not the standing US military.
> 
> It is the one million plus standing army of cops and various "law enforcement" all around us.
> 
> When was the last time you heard of an active duty Marine shooting someone's dog in a law enforcement role?
> 
> An Airman tasering granny for "Contempt of the Air Force"?
> ...


I agree that the standing armies in our midst is a much bigger issue than the armies on the empire's frontiers.  Both violate the constitutional prohibitions against standing armies in the state and federal bills of rights.

----------


## TaftFan

I believe state militias should not be federalized. Congress can call up its own militia, not those belonging to the states.

This would serve as a check on federal military power.

----------


## FrankRep

> OK so I will say it in TWO frikken threads.....
> 
>   The NAVY is military., no?


Show me explicitly where Ron Paul has called for Disbanding the Army.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LibertyEagle: "Sure, the federal government can reauthorize the Army every 2 years"
> 
> Thank you. Even LibertyEagle admits that a Standing Army is Constitutional. 
> 
> Yes, we need to be aware of the dangers associated with Standing Armies.


Cheap shot, Frank, with your selective edit.  For a long time Congress has twisted the Constitution to their ends; just as with the "general welfare" clause, eh Frank?  The only reason a country would need a standing army (ie. 365 days a year, in perpetuity) is if they are constantly warmongering.  

You and I both want a strong national defense.  The idea was to decentralize the Army function and push it down to the militia (the people).  If needed, they could be called up by the federal government.  So, it doesn't mean the function wouldn't exist; it just wouldn't be with the federal government.  The Navy would be standing at the federal level.

----------


## phill4paul

> Show me explicitly where Ron Paul has called for Disbanding the Army.


  Deflection. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...24#post5180824

----------


## TaftFan

> Which, of your argument was correct, would have also had a limitation on appropriations.  It did not.  The Framers wanted a standing Navy, and did not want a standing Army.  We are talking about _original intent_ here. The fact that the text can be loop-holed and twisted to avoid original intent is immaterial.  The fact that the text gets loop-holed and twisted to avoid original intent is in and of itself an indictment against those who are violating original intent.  If they were fulfilling original intent, there would need to be no loop-holing or twisting to be done.


Their opinion was personally against standing armies, however their original intent in terms of the law allows for them.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Show me explicitly where Ron Paul has called for Disbanding the Army.


He hasn't, that I know of.  What he has talked about was what it would look like if we were strictly following the Founders' intent.

----------


## phill4paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...24#post5180824

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Their opinion was personally against standing armies, however their original intent in terms of the law allows for them.


That's not unfair.  It's also a pretty good point to the fact that the constitution is a flawed document; as Lysander Spooner pointed out, it either allows for the government we have today, or it was powerless to prevent it.

----------


## klamath

> But it did authorize a Navy.  It wasn't possible to fly at the time of the Constitution, so it's not a far stretch to assume they would be in favor of having an Air Force of some kind to guard against invasions.


And it is a far lesser stretch to say congress in modern times decides it is necessary to maintain a standing army. Why would there be an airforce if it isn't in the constitution or a naval air wing?

----------


## oyarde

> The horse has already escaped this barn.
> 
> The standing army the founders were justly concerned about is not the standing US military.
> 
> It is the one million plus standing army of cops and various "law enforcement" all around us.
> 
> When was the last time you heard of an active duty Marine shooting someone's dog in a law enforcement role?
> 
> An Airman tasering granny for "Contempt of the Air Force"?
> ...


 I think so.

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## klamath

> The Congress does all kinds of things to twist the Founders' intent, Frank.  This should not come as a surprise to you.  Surely, you are not arguing that the Founders' intent was NOT to have an Army except in times of war, are you?


 And the founders intent was to have slavery as well. And the majority of the founders also didn't fight in the war.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And it is a far lesser stretch to say congress in modern times decides it is necessary to maintain a standing army. Why would there be an airforce if it isn't in the constitution or a naval air wing?


Sure, Klamath.  They also decided the general welfare clause meant they could stick their fingers into just about everything.  It doesn't mean that was what our Founders intended.

----------


## FrankRep

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovk5qOYwHb0


Ron Paul did Not call for Disbanding the Army.

----------


## phill4paul

> Ron Paul did Not call for Disbanding the Army.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...24#post5180824

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ron Paul did Not call for Disbanding the Army.


No one said he did, Frank.  He has, however, talked about the intent of the Founders.  It is that issue that you seem to have a problem with, so you changed the subject.

----------


## TaftFan

> Sure, Klamath.  They also decided the general welfare clause meant they could stick their fingers into just about everything.  It doesn't mean that was what our Founders intended.


LE, I distinguished above between their personal intent and constitutional original intent. It is a big difference and makes standing armies constitutional.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ron Paul did Not call for Disbanding the Army.


Clearly he is in favor of a constitutionally correct army, meaning a naval force with Marine Corps contingents.

But I posted that to buttress my point: that even having this argument is just a bunch of us sitting around giving each other Dutch Rudders.

*The standing army is here, it is oppressing and killing people daily and what are we going to do about it, eh?*

----------


## phill4paul

> And the founders intent was to have slavery as well. And the majority of the founders also didn't fight in the war.


 Shuffle left...

Slavery is not at issue here. Nor whether or not the founders fought in the war.

----------


## pcosmar

> Ron Paul did Not call for Disbanding the Army.


Not that I have heard directly.. But he does favor puttin' a damn leash on it.

----------


## FrankRep

> No one said he did, Frank.  He has, however, talked about the intent of the Founders.  It is that issue that you seem to have a problem with, so you changed the subject.


The intent of the founders was to make the Congress decide if the Government wanted to keep or disband the Army and they made that decision every two years.

I stand by my statements.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> LE, I distinguished above between their personal intent and constitutional original intent. It is a big difference and makes standing armies constitutional.


lol there's the rub, isn't it?

----------


## phill4paul

> Their opinion was personally against standing armies, however their original intent in terms of the law allows for them.


  The original intent, in terms of law, would equally call for disbandment.

----------


## FrankRep

> Ron Paul did Not call for Disbanding the Army.





> Not that I have heard directly.. But he does favor puttin' a damn leash on it.


I agree with this and that's why I keep making a distinction between the Proper Use of Military and Abusing Power.

----------


## FrankRep

> The original intent, in terms of law, would equally call for disbandment.


Congress has the power to keep the Army or to Disband the Army, either way is Constitutional.

----------


## TaftFan

> The original intent, in terms of law, would equally call for disbandment.


No, hence the reauthorization provision.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I stand by my statements.


No you don't.  You stand by half-quoting people, dodging, deflecting, and ignoring salient points.

You're either hopelessly wedded to the MIC, or you're deathly afraid of admitting to a misstep.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've gotten involved in a lot of arguments about this as well.  The proper position is to have a strong military for legitimate defense here at home, to use them as a deterrent against other countries that may wish to attack us.  We just shouldn't have our troops stationed all over the world like we do now.


Can you understand why some of us might disagree with you regarding standing armies?

For the record, I support a strong military.  I support a strong navy and air force, (Which could be part of the navy) and I support a heavily armed populace.  I don't support a traditional standing army.  Although, I didn't come to that conclusion until reading the Founders relatively recently.




> Ron Paul supports a deterrent military.....
> 
> *"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."*
> 
>   Did you actually have to start another thread before finishing a debate in the first? Or was your intent to deflect. Hoping that others would not follow the discussion here?


That doesn't necessarily necessitate a standing army.




> Pretty much the same way I do here, online.  Except that when I discuss it here, I (perhaps mistakenly) take for granted that my audience has at least a basic understanding of the history of the US government and contemporary international relations.


I think MOST of us lean in the same general direction, although I understand that some here are more where Rand Paul is than Ron Paul is.  I don't have a problem with that, at least as such, except when some here decide to attack Ron Paul.  Its hard to say what divides a personal attack from mere disagreement, but I think we know it when we see it.

I think there are a few here who are shills for the establishment and people like Ted Cruz.  And to be clear, I'm not saying that everyone who supports Ted Cruz is a shill for Ted Cruz.

----------


## klamath

> Frank, what do you think the original intent behind limiting Army appropriations to two years was, and why did the Framers not create a similar limitation for the Navy?


If the founders feared a standing army why  the hell did they have a marine corp? The citizens that fear a standing army because they fear it will be used against them yet the marines train to be even more ruthless and also can be used against them. TJ also was the first president to go to war in Libya without a declaration of war using the marine corp as you pointed out. He set the precedent.

----------


## FrankRep

> No you don't.  You stand by half-quoting people, dodging, deflecting, and ignoring salient points.
> 
> You're either hopelessly wedded to the MIC, or you're deathly afraid of admitting to a misstep.


What exactly am I dodging and deflecting? 

I said that Standing Armies are Constitutional.

----------


## phill4paul

> Congress has the power to keep the Army or to Disband the Army, either way is Constitutional.


  You DO admit, then, that the ARMY could be disbanded? Therefore, the Army is NOT a Constitutionally guaranteed entity. The Navy IS. No?

----------


## klamath

> Sure, Klamath.  They also decided the general welfare clause meant they could stick their fingers into just about everything.  It doesn't mean that was what our Founders intended.


 What they intended was to defend the nation.  If congress believes it is necessary to maintain a standing army to defend the nation that follows the framers intent.

----------


## Contumacious

> What exactly am I dodging and deflecting? 
> 
> I said that* Standing Armies are Constitutional*.


Because of the markedly detrimental effect of misuse , standing armies are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

I would be willing to re-considered IF(a)  the so-called seventeenth amendment was abolished , (b) Congress could NOT delegate the function to the deploy the SA to the executive  and (3) all federal regulations concerning our right to bear arms were abolished.

.

----------


## FrankRep

> You DO admit, then, that the ARMY could be disbanded? Therefore, the Army is NOT a Constitutionally guaranteed entity. The Navy IS. No?


I printed out the Constitution many times.

*Powers of Congress:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;*

Congress can decide to keep the Standing Army or Disband the Standing Army.

Either way is Constitutional.

I have a problem with LE saying that keeping a Standing Army is "twisting the Constitution." No, you can have an Army as long as you're willing to keep passing Appropriations.

----------


## FrankRep

> Because of the markedly detrimental effect of misuse , standing armies are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
> 
> I would be willing to re-considered IF(a)  the so-called seventeenth amendment was abolished , (b) Congress could NOT delegate the function to the deploy the SA to the executive  and (3) all federal regulations concerning our right to bear arms were abolished.
> 
> .


I've pointed out many times before that I support Proper Use of the Army/Military for National Defense.

----------


## klamath

> What they intended was to defend the nation.  If congress believes it is necessary to maintain a standing army to defend the nation that follows the framers intent.


 Why would the founders even give congress the right to raise armies at all?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> What exactly am I dodging and deflecting? 
> 
> I said that Standing Armies are Constitutional.


Oh, no doubt.  Liberal, conservative... nothing is unconstitutional if you _really_ don't want it to be!  Hell, you can just about make it say whatever you want!  In fact, feel free to cite the necessary and proper clause if this line of argument ever (inevitably) backs you into a corner!

----------


## phill4paul

> Clearly he is in favor of a constitutionally correct army, meaning a naval force with Marine Corps contingents.
> 
> But I posted that to buttress my point: that even having this argument is just a bunch of us sitting around giving each other Dutch Rudders.
> 
> *The standing army is here, it is oppressing and killing people daily and what are we going to do about it, eh?*


  I'm not splitting hairs over a "standing Army." The military branch is stationed off shore. The civilian branch is alive and well and here and now and you point is acknowledged.

----------


## Contumacious

> I've pointed out many times before that I support* Proper Use of the Army/Military for National Defense*.


As do I.

The problem is that "power corrupts , absolute power corrupts absolutely".


Since you nor I can predict how a future president will exercise power, then standing armies are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

.

.

----------


## FrankRep

> As do I.
> 
> The problem is that "power corrupts , absolute power corrupts absolutely".
> 
> Since you nor I can predict how a future president will exercise power, then standing armies are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


No. Standing Armies are Constitutional, the ACTIONS of the Standing Armies could be Unconstitutional. Big Difference.

----------


## TaftFan

Some people are just saying Constitution without understanding it.

----------


## FrankRep

So am I an Evil, Freedom-hating, Statist for saying that a Standing Army, for National Defense, is Constitutional? Am I even more terrible for pointing out that Ron Paul has taken the same position?

I'm just curious because I've never been attacked this much before on this forum. It's very eye opening to me about the so-called "Liberty Movement."

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm not splitting hairs over a "standing Army." The military branch is stationed off shore. The civilian branch is alive and well and here and now and you point is acknowledged.


Yes, it is, and also clearly out of control from a Constitutional standpoint, _Wickard v. Filmore_ be damned.

The only question that remains is: what, if anything, are we gonna do about it?

Right now, outside of a small, ragtag band of refuseniks, the answer seems to be: "nothing".

----------


## Contumacious

> So am I an Evil, Freedom-hating, Statist for saying that a Standing Army, for National Defense, is Constitutional? Am I even more terrible for pointing out that Ron Paul has taken the same position?
> 
> I'm just curious because I've never been attacked this much before on this forum. *It's very eye opening to me about the so-called "Liberty Movement."*




The Founding Fathers didn't trust anybody. Neither do we.

They adopted a Constitution which has been $#@!ing ignored. Now we are being governed by  a behemoth welfare/warfare state.

'nuff said.

.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh, no doubt.  Liberal, conservative... nothing is unconstitutional if you _really_ don't want it to be!  Hell, you can just about make it say whatever you want!  In fact, feel free to cite the necessary and proper clause if this line of argument ever (inevitably) backs you into a corner!


Technically I think he's correct, but its obviously a loophole and an exploit.  The Founders obviously didn't support a standing army during peacetime.




> Yes, it is, and also clearly out of control from a Constitutional standpoint, _Wickard v. Filmore_ be damned.
> 
> The only question that remains is: what, if anything, are we gonna do about it?
> 
> Right now, outside of a small, ragtag band of refuseniks, the answer seems to be: "nothing".


Education, and civil disobedience when necessary.

----------


## FrankRep

> Technically I think he's correct, but its obviously a loophole and an exploit.  The Founders obviously didn't support a standing army during peacetime.


It's not an exploit or loophole. Congress can decide to keep the Army or not, they keep choosing to have an Army every two years. They have the authority to do so.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> It's not an exploit or loophole. Congress can decide to keep the Army or not, they keep choosing to have an Army every two years. They have the authority to do so.


NDAA is passed every year, not every two years.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's not an exploit or loophole. Congress can decide to keep the Army or not, they keep choosing to have an Army every two years. They have the authority to do so.


They are ignoring the Founders' intent, which was how this whole thing started.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Why would the founders even give congress the right to raise armies at all?


If we were attacked.

----------


## phill4paul

> So am I an Evil, Freedom-hating, Statist for saying that a Standing Army, for National Defense, is Constitutional? Am I even more terrible for pointing out that Ron Paul has taken the same position?
> 
> I'm just curious because I've never been attacked this much before on this forum. It's very eye opening to me about the so-called "Liberty Movement."


  No, Frank. I don't believe that you are an Evil, Freedom-hating, statist any more than I believe as I am, some might label me, an anti-American anti-military code pink-er. 

  But honestly you sum it up here...




> a Standing Army, for National Defense, is Constitutional


  What national defense do we need? Ron Paul has rightfully pointed out that our Navy is quite capable of defending our homeland. Without any NEED for an Army. It has been pointed out that we are unique. Our geological position is such that we do not need a standing Army.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So am I an Evil, Freedom-hating, Statist for saying that a Standing Army, for National Defense, is Constitutional? Am I even more terrible for pointing out that Ron Paul has taken the same position?
> 
> I'm just curious because I've never been attacked this much before on this forum. It's very eye opening to me about the so-called "Liberty Movement."


You are not being attacked.  Some of us just do not agree with some of the things you have said and have said so.  You seem to be taking it personally.

----------


## Pericles

> The Continental Army was founded in 1775 and disbanded in 1783.  But in 1792 the Legion of the United States was formed which eventually (by 1796 IIRC) became the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th US Infantry Regiments.  So from the period of 1783 to 1792 we did not have a standing Army.


Close, but not entirely correct. Congress ordered the Continental Army discharged on June 2. 1784, except for 80 men and the accompanying officers - this unit, now D Battery, 5th Artillery is the only link of the United States Army with the Continental Army. Two days later on June 4th the Congress authorized the raising of 700 troops for one year. This regiment, designated the First American Regiment (today's 3rd Infantry Regiment) started the building of the US Army. 

After Shay's rebellion, Congress expanded the size of the Army to just over 2000, and the 2nd regiment of the United States was formed.. By 1792, the regiment organization was abandoned, and the Army was organized into the Legion with two sub legions and companies of Artillery, while Congress authorized the recruitment of the third through 5th sub-legions. Disaster struck on November 4th, 1792 as the Miami Indians put the Army to flight, the attached militia running away, the 2nd Regiment slaughtered, and the First American staging a fighting withdrawl. The loss of 40% of the infantry strength of the entire US Army in this one battle is the worst defeat suffered by the US Army.

Revolutionary War MG "Mad" Anthony Wayne (see Avatar to left) was brought out of retirement to rebuild the Army.By 1794, Wayne had built up four sub-legions, and the accompanying Artillery and Dragoon companies, and took out to the frontier, defeating the Miami Indians at the battle of Fallen Timbers. The defeat was so decisive, that the British Army then evacuated the forts they still held in the Northwest Territory, and the terms of the treaty ending the Revolution were finally fulfilled by the British.

As a side note, this activity meant that he regulars were not available to put down the Whiskey Rebellion .... and Jefferson discontinued the Legion organization, and reduced the regulars to two regiments..

----------


## Pericles

> They are ignoring the Founders' intent, which was how this whole thing started.


Actually, they were copying British practice, which by law, Parliament may only fund the Army for no more than one year.

----------


## Pericles

> Jumping back in on the standing Army topic.  While there are several quotes you can find out there from the Founders warning about a standing Army, I have a hard time finding anything post 1792 when the Founders reassembled the Army and left it standing.  I'm just making some broad assumptions here, but could it be that they warned against it, then later realized the need for it?  And since the Constitution did provide for a means to have a standing Army there was no issue for them to be concerned with?  Please anyone feel free to shed some insight on that point because the timeline of the Army's history seems to suggest that.


This is much the case. Every officer of the Continental Army supported the ratification of the constitution as did the overwhelming majority of militia officers who served with the Continental Army, The overwhelming majority of militia officers who never saw service outside of their states during the Revolution opposed the ratification of the Constitution. One could reasonable conclude that those who had actually fought in a war saw how well, or poorly, the system of Congress having to obtain resources via the states worked in reality.

----------


## Pericles

> So you think the original intent behind the two year appropriations rule was to give Congress more control over the appropriations of a standing army, despite all of the Federalist Papers, Antifederalist Papers and the State Constitutions to the contrary?


Yes, and the MIC is very happy about that.

----------


## Brett85

> Can you understand why some of us might disagree with you regarding standing armies?
> 
> For the record, I support a strong military.  I support a strong navy and air force, (Which could be part of the navy) and I support a heavily armed populace.  I don't support a traditional standing army.  Although, I didn't come to that conclusion until reading the Founders relatively recently.


If you're opposed to a standing army because you think they might possibly turn against the American people, then why do you support having an air force?  It seems to me like an air force could do a lot more damage to the American people if the government turned bad then a standing army could do.  Also, the army is at least specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution doesn't even mention the Air Force.

----------


## Pericles

> That's not unfair.  It's also a pretty good point to the fact that the constitution is a flawed document; as Lysander Spooner pointed out, it either allows for the government we have today, or it was powerless to prevent it.


Which is a cheap shot, because the same is true for any political form of organization. Anyone who considers that to be a profound statement would fail a logic course.

----------


## Brett85

> What national defense do we need? Ron Paul has rightfully pointed out that our Navy is quite capable of defending our homeland. Without any NEED for an Army. It has been pointed out that we are unique. Our geological position is such that we do not need a standing Army.


Ron Paul has never once advocated abolishing the army.

----------


## phill4paul

> Ron Paul has never once advocated abolishing the army.


  Deflection. Please catch up on the conversation.

----------


## TaftFan

> If you're opposed to a standing army because you think they might possibly turn against the American people, then why do you support having an air force?  It seems to me like an air force could do a lot more damage to the American people if the government turned bad then a standing army could do.  Also, the army is at least specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution doesn't even mention the Air Force.


An airforce, or a navy for that matter (although it is distinguished in the constitution) only relates to equipment that armies use.

----------


## Pericles

> They are ignoring the Founders' intent, which was how this whole thing started.


The founders ignored the founder's intent. The Army was too useful in chasing Indians out of the Northwest Territory, exploring the Louisiana Purchase, building roads, killing more Indians, another War with England .....

----------


## Brett85

> If we were attacked.


So if we were attacked, you think that we could afford to wait 6 months to a year to respond to the attack while we put together an army and trained the members of the army?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you're opposed to a standing army because you think they might possibly turn against the American people, then why do you support having an air force?  It seems to me like an air force could do a lot more damage to the American people if the government turned bad then a standing army could do.  Also, the army is at least specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution doesn't even mention the Air Force.


They could carpet bomb, but could they truly RULE, without a standing army?

That said, I get that its kind of a lose/lose.  A government that wants to rule over us will just build a standing army anyway.  I don't see any way we can "Win."

That said, I'll continue to oppose a standing army, because it can  easily be used to start wars overseas (A militia, by contrast, would not want to deploy overseas) and because it can be used to impose martial law.

An airforce could indiscriminately destroy, but I don't see how it could truly be used to RULE.  Which is ultimately what the tyrants want.  They don't care whether they kill a lot of people or only a few people, what they care about is their power.

Regarding Article 1, section 8, you're completely right.  I'd support amending the constitution to clarify that, if needed.

----------


## mad cow

First,I think every single American Military employee should be brought home from overseas tomorrow save for military attaches and Marine guards at embassies.
It is ridiculous that we still have troops in Japan,Korea and Germany generations after those wars ended.

However,I think a much,much smaller standing Army and Air Force,stationed and trained and kept in the USA makes sense in this day and age.
You can't teach someone to fly a helicopter or an F-15 or operate a modern tank or anti-tank weapon overnight.

You need some core of highly trained individuals on call to at least train others in modern warfare if we had to go to war for legitimate reasons.

Thomas Jefferson,a noted Anti-Federalist,recognized this over 200 years ago when he called for and established our tax-funded U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

Of course,as Frank has pointed out,Congress could disagree with me tomorrow and defund the Army and I assume,the Air Force.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So if we were attacked, you think that we could afford to wait 6 months to a year to respond to the attack while we put together an army and trained the members of the army?


With a powerful navy, maybe.  But that's not what I advocate.  I'd advocate a situation in which every American is encouraged to be trained regarding how to use a military caliber firearm.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Which is a cheap shot, *because the same is true for any political form of organization*. Anyone who considers that to be a profound statement would fail a logic course.


That's Spooner's argument.

----------


## klamath

> If we were attacked.


 When several corps of enemy airborne troops land on American soil in 24 hours, after congress debates whether to raise an army tell me how you would train corps level Command and  control? I have been federalized three time in the national guard. One commander would have been fragged, one would have been relieved of command if the regular army brigade commander could have found a way around MSC regs, and the last one WAS relieved of command. They were not bad people they just could not be trained in a few months to assume command in any large combat operation. It take almost continuous training to be top combat ready. Many activated reserve unit commanders were relieved for exactly this reason.
Yes I know the founding fathers were suspicious of standing armies but if you ask the original American citizens who they feared the worse to be ruthless it was the local militias. Nearly every brutal man woman and child massacre was committed by militia. The founding fathers INTENT above whether to have standing armies or not was to defend the nation and modern warfare does not allow time the raise and train a effective army. 
There is a lot of fear around here against standing armies, yet they think the Airforce and navy and marine corps would be different? If you REALLY want to FEAR something fear Airforce and Navy drones.  If we cannot trust our government to not kill us and the no standing army is the ONLY original intent the government follows we are still F*****

----------


## Pericles

> So if we were attacked, you think that we could afford to wait 6 months to a year to respond to the attack while we put together an army and trained the members of the army?


Actually, several years - it takes 24 months to order all of the parts and build a tank, about 7 years to build an aircraft carrier. about 2 years for fighters (probably going to stretch longer with the f-35 mess), and for example, if we needed to build more than 4 tanks oer day, we need to build another factory, which may take some time.

This is the central problem for today's military planner. If I need an armored division, I have to order one, three years in advance, or already have the equipment on hand. If the equipment is on hand, do the militia guys keep it maintained in their spare time?

----------


## Pericles

> When several corps of enemy airborne troops land on American soil in 24 hours, after congress debates whether to raise an army tell me how you would train corps level Command and  control? I have been federalized three time in the national guard. One commander would have been fragged, one would have been relieved of command if the regular army brigade commander could have found a way around MSC regs, and the last one WAS relieved of command. They were not bad people they just could not be trained in a few months to assume command in any large combat operation. It take almost continuous training to be top combat ready. Many activated reserve unit commanders were relieved for exactly this reason.
> Yes I know the founding fathers were suspicious of standing armies but if you ask the original American citizens who they feared the worse to be ruthless it was the local militias. Nearly every brutal man woman and child massacre was committed by militia. The founding fathers INTENT above whether to have standing armies or not was to defend the nation and modern warfare does not allow time the raise and train a effective army. 
> There is a lot of fear around here against standing armies, yet they think the Airforce and navy and marine corps would be different? If you REALLY want to FEAR something fear Airforce and Navy drones.  If we cannot trust our government to not kill us and the no standing army is the ONLY original intent the government follows we are still F*****


Well into the 19th Century, you could build and train an infantry regiment in 90 days. Once communications and full time artillery support entered the picture (think WWI), the scope and amount of training had to increase in order to integrate those capabilities into the tasks that an infantry regiment had to perform. The number of things to know how to operate and the amount of integration of other activities - air support, intel systems, etc. greatly add to the complexity of warfare, and the training required (more especially experience) of commanders to defeat an opponent. The days of gifted amatuers being able to put together armies and win wars are drawing to a close.

----------


## klamath

> Well into the 19th Century, you could build and train an infantry regiment in 90 days. Once communications and full time artillery support entered the picture (think WWI), the scope and amount of training had to increase in order to integrate those capabilities into the tasks that an infantry regiment had to perform. The number of things to know how to operate and the amount of integration of other activities - air support, intel systems, etc. greatly add to the complexity of warfare, and the training required (more especially experience) of commanders to defeat an opponent. The days of gifted amatuers being able to put together armies and win wars are drawing to a close.


 I think we could have a way smaller regular army  but full on combat ready to stop and hold an airborne invasion until reserve units could be trained.
Come on give me a weekend for training and I could lead a army group across the American west to defeat and out maneuver Patton.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So if we were attacked, you think that we could afford to wait 6 months to a year to respond to the attack while we put together an army and trained the members of the army?


Why do you think that the federal government has the corner on training troops?   Why couldn't they be primarily with the state, in addition to the militias?

----------


## klamath

> Why do you think that the federal government has the corner on training troops?   Why couldn't they be primarily with the state, in addition to the militias?


 because you would end up with 50 different doctrines in 50 different armies that would not be able to work together in an effective army when called upon.

----------


## Brett85

> Why do you think that the federal government has the corner on training troops?   Why couldn't they be primarily with the state, in addition to the militias?


The federal government has the authority to provide for the national defense of our country.  It's an enumerated power in our Constitution.  If our country was attacked, the federal government would have to coordinate the response to the attack.  If we didn't have an existing army already prepared to respond to the attack, it would take a lot of time for the federal government to coordinate all 50 state militias and get them together, train them, get all of the necessary equipment, and then finally use military action and respond to the attack.  It's just not possible to do that in the 21st century.  If we get attacked, the response has to be immediate.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> because you would end up with 50 different doctrines in 50 different armies that would not be able to work together in an effective army when called upon.


Do you oppose socialism?

----------


## Pericles

> Why do you think that the federal government has the corner on training troops?   Why couldn't they be primarily with the state, in addition to the militias?


I'm a fan of the militia system, so don't get me wrong.

Militia training has limitations - if the resources were there, it could be effective up to platoon level. The problem is that the officers need more and better experience than the militia based system can provide. And it is the officers and larger unit staffs that the make an army function.

The other issue is resources. In today's dollars, a WWII infantryman outfitted would cost about $1500 to $2000 - a bit expensive for an individual, but achievable over a period of a few years. Today's infantryman is outfitted with some $15.000 to $20,000 of gear (body armor, night vision, weapon optics, etc.) Need some volume discounters to help out.

And being around the current militia movement, I can tell you there are even more obstacles to unit effectiveness when the task has to be accomplished solely via private means.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If you're opposed to a standing army because you think they might possibly turn against the American people, then why do you support having an air force?  It seems to me like an air force could do a lot more damage to the American people if the government turned bad then a standing army could do.  Also, the army is at least specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution doesn't even mention the Air Force.


If?

IF??

*IF???*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm a fan of the militia system, so don't get me wrong.
> 
> Militia training has limitations - if the resources were there, it could be effective up to platoon level. The problem is that the officers need more and better experience than the militia based system can provide. And it is the officers and larger unit staffs that the make an army function.
> 
> The other issue is resources. In today's dollars, a WWII infantryman outfitted would cost about $1500 to $2000 - a bit expensive for an individual, but achievable over a period of a few years. Today's infantryman is outfitted with some $15.000 to $20,000 of gear (body armor, night vision, weapon optics, etc.) Need some volume discounters to help out.
> 
> And being around the current militia movement, I can tell you there are even more obstacles to unit effectiveness when the task has to be accomplished solely via private means.


I was assuming that there would be a complement of trained officers at the federal level.  I wouldn't even mind a very small group of troops at the federal level.  But, I think the vast majority of them should be with the states.

----------


## klamath

> I'm a fan of the militia system, so don't get me wrong.
> 
> *Militia training has limitations - if the resources were there, it could be effective up to platoon level. The problem is that the officers need more and better experience than the militia based system can provide. And it is the officers and larger unit staffs that the make an army function.*
> 
> The other issue is resources. In today's dollars, a WWII infantryman outfitted would cost about $1500 to $2000 - a bit expensive for an individual, but achievable over a period of a few years. Today's infantryman is outfitted with some $15.000 to $20,000 of gear (body armor, night vision, weapon optics, etc.) Need some volume discounters to help out.
> 
> And being around the current militia movement, I can tell you there are even more obstacles to unit effectiveness when the task has to be accomplished solely via private means.


You got that right. You weren't an army officer by chance were you? As a young green private I thought Guard units were the best of the best. With a few years of real life experience it is funny what one can learn.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The days of gifted amatuers being able to put together armies and win wars are drawing to a close.


The days of real live people, of *men*, doing this, are drawing to a close.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The federal government has the authority to provide for the national defense of our country.  It's an enumerated power in our Constitution.  If our country was attacked, the federal government would have to coordinate the response to the attack.  If we didn't have an existing army already prepared to respond to the attack, it would take a lot of time for the federal government to coordinate all 50 state militias and get them together, train them, get all of the necessary equipment, and then finally use military action and respond to the attack.  It's just not possible to do that in the 21st century.  If we get attacked, the response has to be immediate.


You are talking about military invasion of our country, right?  Isn't that the reason for the Navy?  If you are talking about someone nuking us, we would still have our own nukes to respond with as a deterrent.

Question though, since most of our military is overseas right now, tell me, how long would it take to get them, and their equipment, back here?

----------


## klamath

> I was assuming that there would be a complement of trained officers at the federal level.  I wouldn't even mind a very small group of troops at the federal level.  But, I think the vast majority of them should be with the states.


 Officers at that level NEED the training of actually commanding field excercises. Book learning alone will not cut it.

----------


## Pericles

> The days of real live people, of *men*, doing this, are drawing to a close.


It is very easy for ignorant people to think that success in war may be gained by the use of some wonderful invention rather than by hard fighting and superior leadership. - GEN Patton

----------


## Anti Federalist

A lot of this is all based on "if".

A lot of the "if" will go away, once having adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The rest of the "if" can be dealt with by a naval/marine/airborne force held at arm's length.

I repeat myself, but *this* is the standing Army of oppression:

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You are talking about military invasion of our country, right?  Isn't that the reason for the Navy?  If you are talking about someone nuking us, we would still have our own nukes to respond with as a deterrent.
> 
> *Question though, since most of our military is overseas right now, tell me, how long would it take to get them, and their equipment, back here*?


And BOOM goes the dynamite.

LE wins the thread for exposing the whole farce for what it is.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It is very easy for ignorant people to think that success in war may be gained by the use of some wonderful invention rather than by hard fighting and superior leadership. - GEN Patton


I wish I could say George was right, but in every endeavor, our clever inventions are rendering *us*, superfluous.

----------


## Pericles

> I was assuming that there would be a complement of trained officers at the federal level.  I wouldn't even mind a very small group of troops at the federal level.  But, I think the vast majority of them should be with the states.


The only way I can se it working is by cycling the officers from active duty to state militias and back - somewhat defeats the idea of state control of the militia via officer selection - but the current National Guard system does that anyway.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Officers at that level NEED the training of actually commanding field excercises. Book learning alone will not cut it.


Ok.  Klamath, please don't get frustrated with me on this.  I'm honestly trying to understand.  Why is it that the troops couldn't have field exercises but still belong to the individual states?

----------


## klamath

> You are talking about military invasion of our country, right?  Isn't that the reason for the Navy?  If you are talking about someone nuking us, we would still have our own nukes to respond with as a deterrent.
> 
> Question though, since most of our military is overseas right now, tell me, how long would it take to get them, and their equipment, back here?


How many carrier groups operate in the bering sea while frozen? How about the Pole? Ask the countries of the middle east whether a country on the other side of the world can land enough troops to kick their ass?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> How many carrier groups operate in the bering sea while frozen? How about the Pole? Ask the countries of the middle east whether a country on the other side of the world can land enough troops to kick their ass?


I wasn't aware that the countries in the Middle East had a Navy.  Am I wrong on this?

----------


## Pericles

> I wish I could say George was right, but in every endeavor, our clever inventions are rendering *us*, superfluous.


Another one from George:

Despite the oceans of ink and years of thought which have been devoted to the elucidation of war, it's secrets still remain shrouded in mystery. Indeed, it is due largely to the very volume of available information that the veil is so thick. War is an art and as such it is not susceptible to explanation by fixed formulae. Yet, from the earliest time there has been an unending effort to subject it's complex and emotional structure to dissection, to enunciate rules for it's waging, to make tangible it's intangibility. One might as well attempt to isolate the soul by the dissection of a cadaver as to seek the essence of war by the analysis of it's records.

----------


## Pericles

> I wasn't aware that the countries in the Middle East had a Navy.  Am I wrong on this?


Had a look at the number of non Mexican citizens picked up by the Border Patrol lately? The route to invasion of the US is via Mexico. Do we drop commercial airlines out of the sky? Sink cargo ships not bound for US ports?

----------


## mad cow

> And BOOM goes the dynamite.
> 
> LE wins the thread for exposing the whole farce for what it is.


I think the number of people in this thread in favor of having *any* of our military overseas,let alone most of them,is smaller than you think.

----------


## Pericles

> Ok.  Klamath, please don't get frustrated with me on this.  I'm honestly trying to understand.  Why is it that the troops couldn't have field exercises but still belong to the individual states?


time commitment - when I was an officer in the National Guard, we started with a max of 40 training days per year (one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer). As our unit got a higher priority for follow on to regular Army unit, we went to 60 days per year ( three weeks in the summer, and sometimes two weekends per month).

Officer trainng consists of the following (A) basic course 6 months, after about 4 years of service (B) Captain's Career Course - 6 months. Thus, in my forst 5 years in the Guard, an officer will have i year of courses, and another 5 to 6 months of unit drills, then the combined arms staff course (most of it can at least be done remotely),, if selected for senior command, potentially a two year course at Command and General Staff. And after all of this, there were still commanders that sucked, because of no real experience leading a unit day in and day out where you really get good at what you do, or get fired.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Had a look at the number of non Mexican citizens picked up by the Border Patrol lately?


Good point.




> The route to invasion of the US is via Mexico.


Again, aren't most of the troops and their equipment, overseas?  I'm having a hard time seeing how our current military is being used for the defense of our own country.




> Do we drop commercial airlines out of the sky? Sink cargo ships not bound for US ports?


I guess not, because our big 'ol huge military didn't exactly do a bang up job shooting down the planes on 9-11 before they crashed into the buildings.

----------


## klamath

> Ok.  Klamath, please don't get frustrated with me on this.  I'm honestly trying to understand.  Why is it that the troops couldn't have field exercises but still belong to the individual states?


Money. States don't have the money to train their armies full time. Why is a state standing army any safer than a federal army? My God I live in California! I already pointed out that militias were the most ruthless in the indian wars.
To answer a point you made earlier. Most of our army is NOT overseas right now.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> time commitment - when I was an officer in the National Guard, we started with a max of 40 training days per year (one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer). As our unit got a higher priority for follow on to regular Army unit, we went to 60 days per year ( three weeks in the summer, and sometimes two weekends per month).
> 
> Officer trainng consists of the following (A) basic course 6 months, after about 4 years of service (B) Captain's Career Course - 6 months. Thus, in my forst 5 years in the Guard, an officer will have i year of courses, and another 5 to 6 months of unit drills, then the combined arms staff course (most of it can at least be done remotely),, if selected for senior command, potentially a two year course at Command and General Staff. *And after all of this, there were still commanders that sucked, because of no real experience leading a unit day in and day out where you really get good at what you do, or get fired.*


Ok, but if we stopped being the policemen of the world and only used our military for our own defense, I'm not seeing where that particular training is going to come from.  Because I don't see a whole lot of people invading our country, especially if we stopped invading theirs.  So, we'll have this lack of experience situation regardless, right?

----------


## klamath

> I wasn't aware that the countries in the Middle East had a Navy.  Am I wrong on this?


small ones. How ever they weren't just invaded from the sea.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Money. States don't have the money to train their armies full time. Why is a state standing army any safer than a federal army? My God I live in California! I already pointed out that militias were the most ruthless in the indian wars.
> To answer a point you made earlier. Most of our army is NOT overseas right now.


The federal government gets its money to spend on the military from the states.  So, I guess I'm not seeing why the states wouldn't have the money, if the federal government stopped extracting the money and instead left it with the states to spend.

----------


## Pericles

> Ok, but if we stopped being the policemen of the world and only used our military for our own defense, I'm not seeing where that particular training is going to come from.  Because I don't see a whole lot of people invading our country, especially if we stopped invading theirs.  So, we'll have this lack of experience situation regardless, right?


The quality of Army officers currently is bad and our generals suck. Lucky for us that most other militaries in the world suck worse than ours, but that is not the preferred way to achieve success. My assessment is that the Army peaked in 1991, and has been on the downslope since - but I'm the type of dinosaur that today's Army can't stand.

Agree that the best operational experience that the Army could get would be to seal the border with Mexico. If they actually tried to do that, that would take just about the whole Army. Remember that one third of the Army was in Iraq, trying to control a land area and population smaller than Texas.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You DO admit, then, that the ARMY could be disbanded? Therefore, the Army is NOT a Constitutionally guaranteed entity. The Navy IS. No?


Which has been your point that he has been dodging since the start.

----------


## klamath

> Ok, but if we stopped being the policemen of the world and only used our military for our own defense, I'm not seeing where that particular training is going to come from.  Because I don't see a whole lot of people invading our country, especially if we stopped invading theirs.  So, we'll have this lack of experience situation regardless, right?


No argument there and I totally agree that our military can be a fraction of the size it is now and still be effective. As you probably have gathered I am probably more antiwar than just about anyone here. But I strongly subscribe to deterrence. I have never had my home invaded in 45 years, but do you think I don't have a firearm and train with it because of that?

----------


## klamath

> The quality of Army officers currently is bad and our generals suck. Lucky for us that most other militaries in the world suck worse than ours, but that is not the preferred way to achieve success. *My assessment is that the Army peaked in 1991, and has been on the downslope since - but I'm the type of dinosaur that today's Army can't stand*.
> 
> Agree that the best operational experience that the Army could get would be to seal the border with Mexico. If they actually tried to do that, that would take just about the whole Army. Remember that one third of the Army was in Iraq, trying to control a land area and population smaller than Texas.


I agree. Down hill.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If the founders feared a standing army why  the hell did they have a marine corp?


Because Marines != Army

They are supposed to be as different as the Coast Guard is from the Air Force.




> The citizens that fear a standing army because they fear it will be used against them yet the marines train to be even more ruthless and also can be used against them. TJ also was the first president to go to war in Libya without a declaration of war using the marine corp as you pointed out. He set the precedent.


I can use a BBQ grill as a weapon too, but a BBQ grill is not a weapon.  What a Marine Corps is supposed to be, would make their domestic deployment about as effective as using a BBQ grill as a weapon.  Marines != Army.  They are supposed to be wholly different, as I have already said.

The Barbary Pirates expedition was not a war, and the historians calling it a war do it a grave disservice.  The Marines went to Tripoli to retrieve hostages in service to letters of Marque and Reprisal.  The Barbary Pirates expedition was completely Constitutional in part because the Marines were sent and not the Army.  Also because they went in service to Marque and Reprisal.

Thomas Jefferson did do unconstitutional things, such as the Louisiana Purchase.  The Barbary Pirates expedition was not among them.

----------


## LibertyEagle

What percentage of our military would you say is overseas right now?

----------


## klamath

> The federal government gets its money to spend on the military from the states.  So, I guess I'm not seeing why the states wouldn't have the money, if the federal government stopped extracting the money and instead left it with the states to spend.


Part of the reason the south lost is the states wouldn't give up their state armies to join Lee in Virginia. If you have standing armies what difference does it make. Why even have a federal government? Why not 50 sovereign states all adhering to the nonintervention foreign policy. Should I care if NY gets invaded?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So if we were attacked, you think that we could afford to wait 6 months to a year to respond to the attack while we put together an army and trained the members of the army?


We could in fact develop a militia model with a response time just as fast or nearly as fast as a standing Army.  I have already sketched out the model.  Someone in this thread already talked about something called a "sitting army" probably in jest, but it's not far from the model I have developed.

Just because we go to a militia based model does not mean that we have to give up the ability to effectively for a pressing emergency, as well has having an officer corps trained well enough to deal with it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Part of the reason the south lost is the states wouldn't give up their state armies to join Lee in Virginia. If you have standing armies what difference does it make. Why even have a federal government? Why not 50 sovereign states all adhering to the nonintervention foreign policy. Should I care if NY gets invaded?


Congress declares war, and the militias become a standing Army, as the Framers intended.

In the militia-based model I have sketched out elsewhere, they would be absorbed into a skeleton hierarchy fashioning an entire federal Army in the space of hours.

----------


## Pericles

> What percentage of our military would you say is overseas right now?


I can tell you exactly - Regular Army combat strength - 43 Brigades
Europe - 2 Brigades - 2CAV and 173rd AB
MFO - 1 National Guard Brigade Siani / Kosovo "peacekeeping"
Kuwait - 1 Brigade 36CAB
Korea - 1 Brigade 1/2ID
Afghanistan - 13 Brigades (2 of which are national Guard)

Which makes just over one third of the Regular Army currently outside of the territorial US.

----------


## klamath

> Because Marines != Army
> 
> They are supposed to be as different as the Coast Guard is from the Air Force.
> 
> 
> 
> *I can use a BBQ grill as a weapon too, but a BBQ grill is not a weapon.  What a Marine Corps is supposed to be, would make their domestic deployment about as effective as using a BBQ grill as a weapon.  Marines != Army.  They are supposed to be wholly different, as I have already said.
> 
> The Barbary Pirates expedition was not a war, and the historians calling it a war do it a grave disservice.  The Marines went to Tripoli to retrieve hostages in service to letters of Marque and Reprisal.  The Barbary Pirates expedition was completely Constitutional in part because the Marines were sent and not the Army.  Also because they went in service to Marque and Reprisal.*
> ...


Sorry don't agree with your assessment of that at all. 
My son is a marine and what he did and what Army infantry did in Iraq were the same. If the government is of the mind to use troops against domestics the marine corps would do just fine and you full well know this is the case. Nothing in the marine corps training precludes them from kicking American doors in just like my son did in Fallujah Iraq. I think you are showing a little Semper Fi.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Basically, the idea is to reduce the standing army by 2/3 not by disbanding units but by leaving 'skeleton crews' manning and operating most units at 1/4 manpower, officer-heavy.  The 2/3 who have been released go back to their states to form the core of the militia.  The several State militias start off as a hybrid of professional militia and apprentice militia.  Eventually those blend into a local hierarchy of free civilian militia.  We maintain federal training staff at full or near full staffing, and send the members of the free State civilian militia for proper training, so they.  Rotate in and out of the skeleton units for interoperability training also.

Now you have the full-on martial strength invested in the militia, these maintain readiness through training and exercise, and an officer corps who populate a skeleton crew version of the full Army.  In the event of a war or invasion, the militias can be absorbed into the federal command structures nearly instantly.  They have already worked (trained) together so operational familiarity pre-exists.

I have volumes of detailed information, but that is the basic sketch of it for those who are apt to wonder what I mean about a hybrid militia/Army model.

We CAN migrate to a militia based model, which will provide nearly as rapid responsiveness, and significantly more strength than the current standing Army model.  We shouldn't assume that the only militia model that may exist is a rag-tag collection of county based unready and untrained radicals.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Sorry don't agree with your assessment of that at all. 
> My son is a marine and what he did and what Army infantry did in Iraq were the same. If the government is of the mind to use troops against domestics the marine corps would do just fine and you full well know this is the case. Nothing in the marine corps training precludes them from kicking American doors in just like my son did in Fallujah Iraq. I think you are showing a little Semper Fi.


I'm assuming that your son did not serve prior to Korea?

You aren't reading what I am writing, so therefore why am I responding to you if you don't bother to read what I write?

The Marine and Army missions have been conflated since Korea - intentionally - by those who have sought to make them the same in order to argue redundancy in order to disband the Marine Corps.

You can assume what you like about me, it may help you justify some predetermined opinions, but it doesn't change the fact that I am telling the truth.

----------


## Pericles

> Sorry don't agree with your assessment of that at all. 
> My son is a marine and what he did and what Army infantry did in Iraq were the same. If the government is of the mind to use troops against domestics the marine corps would do just fine and you full well know this is the case. Nothing in the marine corps training precludes them from kicking American doors in just like my son did in Fallujah Iraq. I think you are showing a little Semper Fi.


There were never enough light infantry battalions to go around  ( and a peacetime rotation system makes the problem worse), so the guys in the 5 sided rat cage grab infantry battalions wherever they can find them for deployment - mechanized, National Guard, Marines - what difference does it make?

----------


## Pericles

> Basically, the idea is to reduce the standing army by 2/3 not by disbanding units but by leaving 'skeleton crews' manning and operating most units at 1/4 manpower, officer-heavy.  The 2/3 who have been released go back to their states to form the core of the militia.  The several State militias start off as a hybrid of professional militia and apprentice militia.  Eventually those blend into a local hierarchy of free civilian militia.  We maintain federal training staff at full or near full staffing, and send the members of the free State civilian militia for proper training, so they.  Rotate in and out of the skeleton units for interoperability training also.
> 
> Now you have the full-on martial strength invested in the militia, these maintain readiness through training and exercise, and an officer corps who populate a skeleton crew version of the full Army.  In the event of a war or invasion, the militias can be absorbed into the federal command structures nearly instantly.  They have already worked (trained) together so operational familiarity pre-exists.
> 
> I have volumes of detailed information, but that is the basic sketch of it for those who are apt to wonder what I mean about a hybrid militia/Army model.
> 
> We CAN migrate to a militia based model, which will provide nearly as rapid responsiveness, and significantly more strength than the current standing Army model.  We shouldn't assume that the only militia model that may exist is a rag-tag collection of county based unready and untrained radicals.


John C. Calhoun (yes that one) had a similar plan for the Army after the War of 1812. Congress rejected it. It is actually a good plan - easier to train individual troops at the lower ranks when you need them. Even after doing the fill from new soldiers and Irr call ups, it still takes some weeks to get the unit working as as unit, nut that is much easier than building new units, or taking 6 months to get a national Guard / militia somewhat capable.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> There were never enough light infantry battalions to go around  ( and a peacetime rotation system makes the problem worse), so the guys in the 5 sided rat cage grab infantry battalions wherever they can find them for deployment - mechanized, National Guard, Marines - what difference does it make?


Exactly, it was never supposed to be that way.  The whole thing where they tried to make the Marines into a "little Army" basically started in Korea after the battle of Chosin.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> John C. Calhoun (yes that one) had a similar plan for the Army after the War of 1812. Congress rejected it. It is actually a good plan - easier to train individual troops at the lower ranks when you need them. Even after doing the fill from new soldiers and Irr call ups, it still takes some weeks to get the unit working as as unit, nut that is much easier than building new units, or taking 6 months to get a national Guard / militia somewhat capable.


Yes, much of that time needed to get them working as a unit is ameliorated because most of the soldiers in a given unit will have been together in the militia and already accustomed to working together.  Most of the training is already in place because the militia command structures will have access to the same intense federal training that Army soldiers on active duty now have.

I did not know about Calhoun's plan, but I imagine the one I have sketched overcomes many of the weaknesses of it, as the ones you cite I actually account for in the fuller version.

----------


## Pericles

> Exactly, it was never supposed to be that way.  The whole thing where they tried to make the Marines into a "little Army" basically started in Korea after the battle of Chosin.


The Army should have never been stationed in Korea after the war - that should have been a Marine mission.

----------


## Pericles

> Yes, much of that time needed to get them working as a unit is ameliorated because most of the soldiers in a given unit will have been together in the militia and already accustomed to working together.  Most of the training is already in place because the militia command structures will have access to the same intense federal training that Army soldiers on active duty now have.
> 
> I did not know about Calhoun's plan, but I imagine the one I have sketched overcomes many of the weaknesses of it, as the ones you cite I actually account for in the fuller version.


After the War of 1812, Congress wanted to shrink the Army from 44 Infantry regiments (every time the militia would run away, Congress authorized more Regular Army regiments) to 7 regiments, Calhoun as Secretary of War, wh=anted to keep 16 regiments at full compliment of officers and NCOs, but 50% strength of privates.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The Army should have never been stationed in Korea after the war - that should have been a Marine mission.


No kidding, and it also should have ended long ago.  The Army has no business anywhere where there is no Congressional Declaration of War.  Just like the Navy, the Marines have some legitimate operational authority outside of a declaration of war.  The Army has none.

Some legitimate non-war operations would be hostage rescue (Barbary Pirates, Grenada), administering and supporting proper Congressional letters of Marque and Reprisal (what _should_ have happened after 9/11), non-war expeditionary deployments (recovering the bodies of US soldiers in Vietnam like we did in 1991 and 1992), Embassy and mission security (check), ship and naval operation security, to include Seabees (check), and shipborne landing forces and raiding parties under the command of the Fleet Admiral (we don't really do this so much anymore, but the idea was to thwart known imminent attacks while Congress is busy declaring the war to which the Army would follow on).

Whenever the Naval mission calls to project power ashore short of war, that's what the Marines were created for in the first place.  The Marines were never supposed to be a _'little Army'_ it's a total perversion of their main purpose as an expeditionary force under the Navy, and at the direct command of the President.

----------


## Pericles

> No kidding, and it also should have ended long ago.  The Army has no business anywhere where there is no Congressional Declaration of War.  Just like the Navy, the Marines have some legitimate operational authority outside of a declaration of war.  The Army has none.
> 
> Some legitimate non-war operations would be hostage rescue (Barbary Pirates, Grenada), administering and supporting proper Congressional letters of Marque and Reprisal (what _should_ have happened after 9/11), non-war expeditionary deployments (recovering the bodies of US soldiers in Vietnam like we did in 1991 and 1992), Embassy and mission security (check), ship and naval operation security, to include Seabees (check), and shipborne landing forces and raiding parties under the command of the Fleet Admiral (we don't really do this so much anymore, but the idea was to thwart known imminent attacks while Congress is busy declaring the war to which the Army would follow on).
> 
> Whenever the Naval mission calls to project power ashore short of war, that's what the Marines were created for in the first place.  The Marines were never supposed to be a _'little Army'_ it's a total perversion of their main purpose as an expeditionary force under the Navy, and at the direct command of the President.


The President sends in the Marines, the Congress sends in the Army. Which is one of the kinks in the militia plan in that there is no Constitutional authority for Congress or the President to send militia units outside the territory of the US. In the War of 1812, four states refused to call up their militias until the British invaded in 1814, because the Constitutional requirement (invasion, insurrection, execute laws) had not been met. The National Guard was created under the power of Congress to raise and support armies, in order to evade the .restrictions on the use of the state's militias.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> After the War of 1812, Congress wanted to shrink the Army from 44 Infantry regiments (every time the militia would run away, Congress authorized more Regular Army regiments) to 7 regiments, Calhoun as Secretary of War, wh=anted to keep 16 regiments at full compliment of officers and NCOs, but 50% strength of privates.


Similar concept, but I conceive a much more radical implementation.

I would retain _all_ the units of the full Army Branch, staffed to 70% General officers, 60% Field Grade, 50% Company or Line grade, 40% Senior NCO's, 30% Staff NCO's, 20% NCO's, and 15% soldiers.

Maintain training units (ie Airborne School, Ranger School etc) at or near 100%.  Offer student billets to militia commands to send members to attend the high-speed low-drag Army schools.  

The closer the officers are to the men, the more you want to blend officers that come directly from the militia, as the men will trust them more than a stranger.  By cycling them in and out of training they are less likely to face a lack of preparation and readiness.  By having full-time actives they will work with shoulder to shoulder they have process models to adopt and adapt more quickly.  By absorbing militia units into the standing structure mostly intact, the men already know each other and can work as a team from the time they hit the ground.  Having ~2 full-time regulars per mobilized infantry squad, they can liaise and 'plug in' pretty quickly even unfamiliar with the new chain of command.  You don't know what's going on?  Ask PFC Joe who does this crap for a living.  He's in your squad so it's a simple matter of yelling "Hey, Joe!  What the hell are they doing on that wooden platform now?"

Model much of the militia system on some happy medium between the National Guard and the Civil Air Patrol. Take elements of Boy Scouting too.  Set up militia armories and make them even more of a community center than National Guard Armories.  Let hungry and homeless people eat and sleep at the armory in exchange for joining and standing watches or doing cleaning and maintenance as they are able.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The President sends in the Marines, the Congress sends in the Army. Which is one of the kinks in the militia plan in that there is no Constitutional authority for Congress or the President to send militia units outside the territory of the US. In the War of 1812, four states refused to call up their militias until the British invaded in 1814, because the Constitutional requirement (invasion, insurrection, execute laws) had not been met. The National Guard was created under the power of Congress to raise and support armies, in order to evade the .restrictions on the use of the state's militias.


Aye, I could see that as being an issue.  I'll have to think on how to make that work better.  It's not as though it actually _failed_, of course, we won the War of 1812, but we took more of a beating than we should have, and if _all_ the States refused to mobilize until the enemy was already marching regiments into Capitols there would be a real problem.




> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


So Congress calls up the militia, I'm not sure that Governors can countermand that outside of the Nullification path.  Anyway, maybe say if the Governor's wont send their militias, then explicitly authorize militia Company Commanders to respond to the Congressional Call on a voluntary basis.  You'll probably get half the units of a noncompliant State, when when the crisis erupts (like the 1814 invasion) will massively increase the readiness of the follow-on units from that State.

----------


## Weston White

> We had an assistance pact with South Vietnam that was tested years before the manufactured Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The main problem with the Vietnam War was that it went on aimlessly for 20 years after previous bungling by the state departments in the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations. It should been 8-12 months and out. But the MIC and the global community never wants brief resolutions to conflicts.


I would like to add that:

1.  A pact or treaty cannot ever overrule our U.S. Constitution—and such goes doubly for any presidential policy or decree.  America’s involvement in Vietnam was unconstitutional and moreover they did not want us there.  Ergo, our government cannot commence pacts or treaties to cover what are really but acts of orchestrating government sanctioned genocide.

2.  It is never proper, under any circumstance for any nation to interfere with another nation’s civil war.

3.  The entire Vietnam War (i.e., American War) was a shame-upon-shams of multiple puppet governmental bait-and-switching involving interference from Japan, to France, to America controlling a newly divided North and South Vietnam.

4. There is a reason why the Vietnamese do not call it the “Vietnam War”, they call is the American War.

5. Vietnam could have ended early if not by the treasonous actions of that madman known as Henry Kissinger.

6.  The same underlying agenda that was allowed to play out in Vietnam is now being permitted to play out in the Mideast.  A mentality that is now beginning to direly infect Egypt.

----------


## Brett85

> Question though, since most of our military is overseas right now, tell me, how long would it take to get them, and their equipment, back here?


I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.  When have I ever advocated having troops overseas?

----------


## FrankRep

> I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.  When have I ever advocated having troops overseas?


For some reason LibertyEagle just went anti-army/military.
She must think that if you support the military/army then you must automatically support policing the world.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> For some reason LibertyEagle just went anti-army/military.
> She must think that if you support the military then you must automatically support policing the world.


We have enough Marxists and Neocons lying about us we don't have to lie about each other.

----------


## FrankRep

> We have enough Marxists and Neocons lying about us we don't have to lie about each other.


I was attacked for supporting the Military/Army for National Defense. I will not forget that.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> For some reason LibertyEagle just went anti-army/military.
> She must think that if you *support the military* then you must automatically support policing the world.


What does that mean?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I was attacked for supporting the Military/Army for National Defense. I will not forget that.


LOL ok sure.  LE attacked you for supporting the military.   

Pretty much every poster on this board knows LE is more hawkish than the average bear around here.

I watched with my own eyes in this thread how you twisted dodged and side-stepped points in order to torture concepts to fit preconceptions.

What you do not seem to get is that 

1) opposing the existence of a standing Army is not the same as opposing the existence of the military

You have (intentionally?) conflated the two in order to falsely color people on the other side of the debate.  Even after phill4paul laid it out as clearly as it can be laid, how that even without a standing Army we still have the Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, and Militia, you were still equivocating as though anyone who opposes a standing Army must necessarily oppose all military.  Hell, you are STILL doing it even now!

2) making a principled point on the Founder's Intent for a militia-based continental defense is not an attack on you or the military...or even the Army itself for that matter.  It does not follow from "I think the Framers were correct to oppose standing armies" that "I hate the US Army."  That was a leap of your imagination.

What you are doing, by trying to frame anybody who thinks we can do better than the status quo as though they are military-hating anarchists, is pretty much the same thing the other side does when they try to frame all veterans and people who do not hate the military as bloodthirsty baby-killers.  Not only is it a non-sequitur, it's a false accusation, a lie, and offensive to boot.

.

I'm starting to think someone has dumped something in the water around here.  We used to be a movement that prided ourselves on embracing the truth even when it hurt.  Now we have people abandoning the truth at the drop of a hat to engage in propaganda in support of petty and personal causes that have nothing to do with issues of principle.

We either stand for the truth even when it hurts, or we do not stand for truth at all and are as bad as the politicians we oppose.  Supporting truthfulness only when it supports your conclusions, but abandoning truthfulness when it is unhelpful is not integrity.

You picked a bad target to go apoplectic on.  Nobody is going to believe that LE has decided to derogate the military, because it's not in her to do such a thing and we all know it.  If you aren't intentionally spinning things, then I would caution you that your perceptions are out of order.  However, trying to accuse anybody who opposes a standing Army as if they oppose/hate the military, sure seems to have the color of intent from here.

----------


## FrankRep

> I watched with my own eyes in this thread how you twisted dodged and side-stepped points in order to torture concepts to fit preconceptions.


I have not side-stepped or dodged anything, I have maintained from the beginning that having an Standing Army *is Constitutional* and *I'm well aware* that the Founding Fathers have *issued warnings* that a Standing Army can be abused. I continue to point out that Ron Paul has not called for the Standing Army to be Disbanded. 

This is my stance and will continue to be my stance. LibertyEagle and others can continue to attack my stance, but I'm not going to budge.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I have not side-stepped or dodged anything, I have maintained from the beginning that having an Standing Army *is Constitutional* and *I'm well aware* that the Founding Fathers have *issued warnings* that a Standing Army can be abused. I continue to point out that Ron Paul has not called for the Standing Army to be Disbanded. 
> 
> This is my stance and will continue to be my stance. LibertyEagle and others can continue to attack my stance, but I'm not going to budge.



The regulation of interstate commerce is constitutional too, but what we have today is certainly not according to original intent.  And when Ron Paul said we could defend the country without foreign adventurism, he specifically cited the capabilities of the Navy to do so, because he is plugged in to original intent.

Also, what you cite here is a completely different charge than you made against LE, that she attacked you because you supported the military.  If you have to keep moving the goalposts, you probably aren't on solid ground.

----------


## FrankRep

> The regulation of interstate commerce is constitutional too, but what we have today is certainly not according to original intent.  And when Ron Paul said we could defend the country without foreign adventurism, he specifically cited the capabilities of the Navy to do so, because he is plugged in to original intent.
> 
> Also, what you cite here is a completely different charge than you made against LE, that she attacked you because you supported the military.  If you have to keep moving the goalposts, you probably aren't on solid ground.


I do support the Military, but I'm a non-interventionist and I only support the Military for National Defense. I don't support the ACTIONS of the Military overseas.

I've made this point over and over again.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I do support the Military, but I'm a non-interventionist and I only support the Military for National Defense. I don't support the ACTIONS of the Military overseas.
> 
> I've made this point over and over again.


That's awfully annoying isn't it?  It's annoying for others when you do it to them, too.  Like when you accuse someone who opposes a standing army of opposing the military.  We are a lot less likely to have to deal with that kind of thing when we don't also do it ourselves.

----------


## FrankRep

> That's awfully annoying isn't it?  It's annoying for others when you do it to them, too.  Like when you accuse someone who opposes a standing army of opposing the military.  We are a lot less likely to have to deal with that kind of thing when we don't also do it ourselves.


I take issue when someone says I'm exploiting the "original intent" of the Constitution by saying that a Stand Army is Constitutional as long as Congress keeps passing appropriations every two years.

The Founding Fathers warned about the dangers of a Standing Army, but it's not exploiting the Constitution to have a Standing Army.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I take issue when someone says I'm exploiting the "original intent" of the Constitution by saying that a Stand Army is Constitutional as long as Congress keeps passing appropriations every two years.
> 
> The Founding Fathers warned about the dangers of a Standing Army, but it's not exploiting the Constitution to have a Standing Army.


Clearly the people who actually wrote the Constitution didn't want a standing army, spoke wrote and taught about not wanting it extensively, and they specifically created the two year appropriation clause in the US Constitution in order to discourage it.  The original intent of the Framers there is pretty clear.  You can take issue if you want to, but the man you'll have an issue with is James Madison.  Good luck rustling him up to yell at though.

----------


## FrankRep

> Clearly the people who actually wrote the Constitution didn't want a standing army, spoke wrote and taught about not wanting it extensively, and they specifically created the two year appropriation clause in the US Constitution in order to discourage it.  The original intent of the Framers there is pretty clear.  You can take issue if you want to, but the man you'll have an issue with is James Madison.  Good luck rustling him up to yell at though.


I'd rather thank the founding fathers for warning us about the dangers of a Standing Army. I agree with you that the 2-year appropriations help to discourage a Standing Army, but having a Standing Army does not exploit the original intent of the Constitution.

----------


## osan

> This is something that really pisses me off.  Barry Goldwater is often referred to as a Libertarian Republican and freedom-minded philosophically.  I don't understand why anyone would consider him such, He seems to me like the father of the NeoCon movement.
> 
> He advocated for nuclear weapons to be used as conventional weapons, suggesting that they be used in Vietnam to defoliate trees (saying this while 'Nam was still under French occupation).  I would prefer Lyndon Johnson, or even George W. Bush than this guy.  If he had won I believe that a nuclear WWIII would have taken place.
> 
> (John McCain adored him btw).


What the hell?  Are you nuts or just trolling?

Buy a book for Christ's sake, and a clue if you have any change thereafter.

This has got to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen posted here.  I'm no expert on Goldwater by any means and even I know that what you have written here is a load of bull$#@!.  What's up with that?

----------


## osan

> We could in fact develop a militia model with a response time just as fast or nearly as fast as a standing Army.  I have already sketched out the model.  Someone in this thread already talked about something called a "sitting army" probably in jest, but it's not far from the model I have developed.
> 
> Just because we go to a militia based model does not mean that we have to give up the ability to effectively for a pressing emergency, as well has having an officer corps trained well enough to deal with it.



This is RIGHT thinking.  Kudos and keep at it.  If you need any help at all with this, you have but to say something and I am at your disposal.  No $#@!, either.

----------


## osan

> The regulation of interstate commerce is constitutional too, but what we have today is certainly not according to original intent.  And when Ron Paul said we could defend the country without foreign adventurism, he specifically cited the capabilities of the Navy to do so, because he is plugged in to original intent.
> 
> Also, what you cite here is a completely different charge than you made against LE, that she attacked you because you supported the military.  If you have to keep moving the goalposts, you probably aren't on solid ground.


Commerce clause should be stricken from the Constitution.  It was placed there to appease certain powerful interests who would have acted against adoption were it not put there.  Google "Panda's Thumb" or just go here:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/vi...context=wmborj

----------


## klamath

Oh well now it is ok to blockade and invade a country  without a declaration of war, IF the right branch of the military is used. I will have to watch Rand. If he holds these views I am outta here.

----------


## Contumacious

> As do I.
> 
> The problem is that "power corrupts , absolute power corrupts absolutely".
> 
> 
> Since you nor I can predict how a future president will exercise power, then standing armies are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
> 
> .
> 
> .


*Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team*

Contumacious rests his case.

.

----------


## klamath

A rather well researched post on FR in 2001. How the twisting and reshaping to fit ideas almost reaches the forth dimension.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/575174/posts




> What We Have Been Told About the Declaration Of War On The Barbary Pirates Appears To Be Wrong
> 
> One of the more frustrating debates about this “war on terrorism” being discussed on the forum has been the legitimacy of Bush’s recent actions in light of the fact that Congress has not formally issued a “Declaration of War”. It is argued by a large contingent of libertarians and paleo-conservatives that all military actions and presidential powers exercised as the Commander in Chief in war time require this formal declaration by Congress to meet Constitutional muster. The other side, the “Bushies” for lack of a better term, argue that this is a different circumstance from any we have ever faced and that we are at “war” with a virtually faceless enemy and we have no idea from one day to the next where and in what country he will rear his ugly head and in which country we will be forced to assert military power in order to stop future terrorist activity.
> 
> The pro-formal DOW side and many media reports point to the “War on the Barbary Pirates” as the precedent we should be using. That has become the conventional wisdom and has been used to point out the model that Bush and Congress should be using. It does appear to be a very strong and compelling case and has had many of us, even some of us “Bushies” scratching our heads and wondering. It started me wondering about how the wording of the formal “declaration of war” on the Barbary Pirates read and so I started doing a search. The results were that the conventional wisdom appears incorrect. 
> 
> From my research I have found that indeed war was declared on the Barbary Pirates, it was declared by President Jefferson, just as President Bush has declared war on terrorism. However; the Congress never formally declared war on the BP, in fact no lesser person than Alexander Hamilton stated outright that a formal declaration of war was NOT required when the nation was attacked by a foreign enemy and it was that interpretation that Congress embraced at the time. The Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing Jefferson to act much in the same way as the Terrorism Joint Resolution authorized President Bush to assume war footing as Commander In Chief.
> 
> I am attaching several references to this research. I think honest debate requires accuracy in the references we use to make our cases. I also know that this could be wrong on my part and if there is information to the contrary I am sure that many on the forum will correct the error. I hope this helps to do that.
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Oh well now it is ok to blockade and invade a country  without a declaration of war, IF the right branch of the military is used. I will have to watch Rand. If he holds these views I am outta here.


I never expected _you_ to twist $#@! into lies for some agenda, but if that's how you are going to act, then buhbye.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The Barbary Pirates expedition was not a war, no matter what some people call it, it was a hostage rescue.  And yeah, I've got no problem with the President and Congress levying _letters of Marque and Reprisal_ to go in and _free American captives_ using elements of the Navy and Marine Corps. Not only it is Constitutional, it's the right thing to do.  If you don't like it, _tough_.  That doesn't give you the right to make up lies about my position to try and paint me as a warmonger.

WTF going on around here lately?  I still think someone put something in the water.

----------


## T.hill

> Defending previous foreign military interventions provides the framework for future conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbs:


No one is defending past events, but what I tend to do is objectively analyze history in context with the times. Theres Nothing wrong with that and it doesn't make you philosophically inconsistent, as a historian you have to examine the cause of an event and how it later effects the future.

----------


## klamath

> The Barbary Pirates expedition was not a war, no matter what some people call it, it was a hostage rescue.  And yeah, I've got no problem with the President and Congress levying _letters of Marque and Reprisal_ to go in and _free American captives_ using elements of the Navy and Marine Corps. Not only it is Constitutional, it's the right thing to do.  If you don't like it, _tough_.  That doesn't give you the right to make up lies about my position to try and paint me as a warmonger.
> 
> WTF going on around here lately?  I still think someone put something in the water.


Sorry but I never thought I would see the day that you would twist the meaning of a war. Sorry but a declaration of war by a foreign leader, Blockades, land invasions captured cities,  and going on for 4 years and nearly EVERY historical account calls it the Barbary War. As I posted earlier you are using every last argument that Bush did for the GWOT. GW got exactly the same kind of authorization as TJ did. The Barbary war was  was NOT an in and out operation of a matter of months to rescue some hostages. It was a long term Congressional funded operation. I have always argued that sanctions are not an act of war but a blockade is an act of war.
I don't care what the hell you want to call it, I call it a war and most historians call it a war. If it happened today I sure as hell would be condemning any president that tried to call it otherwise and slide around getting a declaration of war.
I never said you were a warmonger but I sure am questioning you definition of what you want to call a war. 
I say what the hell happened to the water in NC?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Sorry but I never thought I would see the day that you would twist the meaning of a war. Sorry but a declaration of war by a foreign leader, Blockades, land invasions captured cities,  and going on for 4 years


The sea campaign went on for 4 years, mostly via privateers through Marque and Reprisal.  The land campaign was less than a year, we went in, freed our people, and went home.




> and nearly EVERY historical account calls it the Barbary War.


I don't care what people who are trying to justify the growth of the state call it.  Nearly every 'Journalist' in America calls Ron Paul and isolationist.  Just because something is popular doesn't make it correct.




> As I posted earlier you are using every last argument that Bush did for the GWOT. GW got exactly the same kind of authorization as TJ did.


That's simply not true.  TJ had letters of Marque and Reprisal.  Do you not remember that M&R was a bill introduced by Ron Paul to go after Al Qaeda after 9/11 and it was explicitly rejected?




> The Barbary war was  was NOT an in and out operation of a matter of months to rescue some hostages.


Yes, it was.  Apparently you have never actually studied it in great depth as I have.  It took them longer to do in 1804 what we can do today, and the mere handful of Marines had to distribute their letters of Marque and Reprisal to build an army of locals on their way to Tripoli. 




> It was a long term Congressional funded operation. I have always argued that sanctions are not an act of war but a blockade is an act of war.
> I don't care what the hell you want to call it, I call it a war and most historians call it a war. If it happened today I sure as hell would be condemning any president that tried to call it otherwise and slide around getting a declaration of war.


So are you condemning Ron Paul then for seeking Letters of Marque and Reprisal against Al Qaeda for 9/11?




> I never said you were a warmonger but I sure am questioning you definition of what you want to call a war. 
> I say what the hell happened to the water in NC?


Hey, my position is the same as Ron Paul's.  I made this argument in 2008 and 2012, and you didn't hate me for it then, so I'm baffled why you hate me for it now.  The US Constitution provides for Marque and Reprisal for operations short of war.  The Barbary Pirates expedition was an operation short of war, we issued Marque and Reprisal, and our only ground operation in that campaign was something like a single platoon of _eight_ Marines went in to administer the Marque and Reprisal to build up a local Army and free our hostages from Tripoli.

If you don't like Marque and Reprisal, klamath, perhaps you should start a movement to repeal that clause from the Constitution.

..

ETA -- corrected incorrect information.  We did not send a platoon of Marines to Tropoli, we sent eight Marines.

----------


## Victor Grey

> I never expected _you_ to twist $#@! into lies for some agenda, but if that's how you are going to act, then buhbye.


I do have to say though, Gunny. A hostage rescue, or any other "expedition" as it were, is itself pretty war-like. The question of it being justifiable is an aside to that. Klamath does have somewhat of a point, gross mis-characterizations of a support for the concept, as well being aside.

I can't see the strong difference between one from the other, other being a formal war declaration. They're both acts of aggression if you use the term as connotative. Both I assume, involve governmental approval. Both are attacks on foreign soil.

I honestly can't see how to argue a large, realistic difference between what the actions a marque of reprisal sums up to, and a modern day drone strike in actual practice actually accomplishes in effect and itself sums up to. Outside of practical considerations such examples involving hostage rescues of course; can't particularly use drones or bombardment there, granted.

If you'd like to explain in how they are especially different, I'd be fine with that. I can't see it though. To me a marque is still indeed an act of war, without a war declaration. Limits in their goal or not. Unless we're honestly going to say an amphibious assault couldn't be label an act of war.

What's more, who's to say a government couldn't simply have a long line of such marques of reprisal? a declaration-less war being the effect.

Also, who will make the case that a marque of reprisal shouldn't be seen as aggression, if this were enacted upon their own country? Say for example, the UK sending royal marines into the Bronx to apprehend some hypothetical IRA fundraising organization.

It's clear the international treaties on letters of marque were signed for a reason.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I do have to say though, Gunny. A hostage rescue, or any other "expedition" as it were, is itself pretty war-like. The question of it being justifiable is an aside to that. Klamath does have somewhat of a point, gross mis-characterizations of a support for the concept, as well being aside.
> 
> I can't see the strong difference between one from the other, other being a formal war declaration. They're both acts of aggression if you use the term as connotative. Both I assume, involve governmental approval. Both are attacks on foreign soil.


Not necessarily.  Marque _may_ involve action on foreign soil, but it usually does not.  Marque is almost exclusively levied against stateless criminals, and usually for piracy on the high seas.  This was an unusual case because the Bey of Tripoli held a fortified land base (nevertheless still stateless) from which operations were directed and in which captives were held.

Also, you don't fight a 'war' with eight troops.  Not eighty, not eighteen, eight.  And one may argue technology can multiply troop strength, but we aren't even talking about two tanks, this was 1804, when war was fought according to the attrition of tens of thousands in any one given batle.

We are talking about _eight_ Marines.  That's less than a single _squad._




> I honestly can't see how to argue a large, realistic difference between what the actions a marque of reprisal sums up to, and a modern day drone strike in actual practice actually accomplishes in effect and itself sums up to. Outside of practical considerations such examples involving hostage rescues of course; can't particularly use drones or bombardment there, granted.


Marque and Reprisal is a Congressional instrument directly authorised in the US Constitution, and levying privateers to accomplish justice against international (usually stateless) criminals.  Executive drone strikes bypass Congress, are not authorized in the Constitution, rely exclusively official US Government resources and personnel, and are allegedly intended to accomplish justice against international (usually stateless) criminals, but without Congressional oversight usually end up being simply an executive pick-list with untold collateral damage.




> If you'd like to explain in how they are especially different, I'd be fine with that. I can't see it though. To me a marque is still indeed an act of war, without a war declaration. Limits in their goal or not. Unless we're honestly going to say an amphibious assault couldn't be label an act of war.


An amphibious assault certainly could be labeled an act of war.  Normandy, Inchon, there are plenty of examples.  However, there was no amphibious assault on the Barbary Pirates.  There were a grand total of eight...*EIGHT* US Marines.  They landed peacefully in....Egypt?....and made their way across the countryside delivering letters of Marque and Reprisal to local mercenaries until they had a band of 400-500 troops.  Marched onto Tripoli and demanded the release of our hostages and the end of holding our fleets at ransom.




> What's more, who's to say a government couldn't simply have a long line of such marques of reprisal? a declaration-less war being the effect.


There is a difference between international crime by stateless actors and actual nation-on-nation war.  If we just will-nilly issued Marque against people/nations we didn't like, then WE are the international criminals.  Also, M&R requires that the action be almost exclusively privateer based.  US Military Personnel can act in a support and direction role (hence the total of 8 US Marines) but are not the primary actors in any engagement.  M&R is a Congressional instrument for privateers.




> Also, who will make the case that a marque of reprisal shouldn't be seen as aggression, if this were enacted upon their own country? Say for example, the UK sending royal marines into the Bronx to apprehend some hypothetical IRA fundraising organization.


To be comparable, it would have to be 8 Royal Marines for 500 American Citizens, and the American Citizens would have to do all the work, fighting, and apprehending.  And it wouldn't be fundraising, it would be to free British hostages, and to end the practice of ransom for press gang.  If that were a real situation in the US, then those 500 American Citizens would probably be police of some kind, and I would cheer their success.




> It's clear the international treaties on letters of marque were signed for a reason.


It's clear that many nations were deeply abusing them.  We were not.

----------


## klamath

> The sea campaign went on for 4 years, mostly via privateers through Marque and Reprisal.  The land campaign was less than a year, we went in, freed our people, and went home.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what people who are trying to justify the growth of the state call it.  Nearly every 'Journalist' in America calls Ron Paul and isolationist.  Just because something is popular doesn't make it correct.
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply not true.  TJ had letters of Marque and Reprisal.  Do you not remember that M&R was a bill introduced by Ron Paul to go after Al Qaeda after 9/11 and it was explicitly rejected?
> ...


 So all these countries  that we have special ops in building armies that the US has been doing from at least Vietnam are exempt from DOW? So if we send marines as long as it is not too many to build as big of army as we would like of locals to fight a war for our interests it is ok?
Since you bring it up I would repeal the letters of marque and reprisal. I merchants want to hire a private army to protect their shipping more power to them. I do not want to pay taxes to subsidize private ships in hostile waters by hiring mercenaries to protect them. If we feel it is the national defense of the US, congress can declare war and the president can direct it. I do not want killing overseas done in my name removed one more step from my control. If our government is paying for the killing our country will receive the blowback whether it is marines training and leading an army of mercenaries or the US army. Tell me what hostages were freed by the battle of Derne?  


> In 1804, the former Consul to Tunis, William Eaton, returned to the Mediterranean with the title of Naval Agent to the Barbary States. *Eaton had been granted permission from the United States government to back the claim of Hamet Karamanli. Hamet Karamanli was the rightful heir to the throne of Tripoli and had been deposed by his brother Yussif Karamanli. Upon his return to the area, Eaton sought out Hamet Karamanli who was in exile in Egypt. Upon locating him, Eaton made a proposal to reinstate him on the throne. The exile agreed to Eaton's plan*


And if you do not like the fact that the constitution gives congress the ability to fund a standing army continuously every two years start a movement to change the constitution to strictly prohibit a standing army until AFTER a declaration of war.
Yes I find lots of flaws in the constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers.

----------


## klamath

> Not necessarily.  Marque _may_ involve action on foreign soil, but it usually does not.  Marque is almost exclusively levied against stateless criminals, and usually for piracy on the high seas.  This was an unusual case because the Bey of Tripoli held a fortified land base (nevertheless still stateless) from which operations were directed and in which captives were held.
> 
> Also, you don't fight a 'war' with eight troops.  Not eighty, not eighteen, eight.  And one may argue technology can multiply troop strength, but we aren't even talking about two tanks, this was 1804, when war was fought according to the attrition of tens of thousands in any one given batle.
> 
> We are talking about _eight_ Marines.  That's less than a single _squad._
> 
> 
> 
> Marque and Reprisal is a Congressional instrument directly authorised in the US Constitution, and levying privateers to accomplish justice against international (usually stateless) criminals.  Executive drone strikes bypass Congress, are not authorized in the Constitution, rely exclusively official US Government resources and personnel, and are allegedly intended to accomplish justice against international (usually stateless) criminals, but without Congressional oversight usually end up being simply an executive pick-list with untold collateral damage.
> ...





> *In 1804, the former Consul to Tunis, William Eaton, returned to the Mediterranean with the title of Naval Agent to the Barbary States. Eaton had been granted permission from the United States government to back the claim of Hamet Karamanli. Hamet Karamanli was the rightful heir to the throne of Tripoli and had been deposed by his brother Yussif Karamanli. Upon his return to the area, Eaton sought out Hamet Karamanli who was in exile in Egypt. Upon locating him, Eaton made a proposal to reinstate him on the throne. The exile agreed to Eaton's plan*


Funny you left this little bit of information off on why the marines and mercenaries were marching from Egypt to libya.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So all these countries  that we have special ops in building armies that the US has been doing from at least Vietnam are exempt from DOW?


No, that's nonsense.




> So if we send marines as long as it is not too many to build as big of army as we would like of locals to fight a war for our interests it is ok?


That, too is nonsense.  Without Congress following the procedures laid out in the Constitution, all of your examples are blatantly unconstitutional.




> Since you bring it up I would repeal the letters of marque and reprisal. I merchants want to hire a private army to protect their shipping more power to them.


That's even more absurd than M&R.  Say Matson decides Sinotrans is a commercial threat, and hires Academi to run about and sink or pirate Sinotrans shipping.  The US of course turns a blind eye because 'that's just how things are done' but China gets pissed because their ships are getting sunk and their crews are getting killed.  China tells Washington to get this crap under control, and Washington says "hey, free market man, there is nothing we can do."  

So China says F-U and lands three regiments of troops on top of the old Blackwater compound, drops missiles on top of Matson shipyards, and _now_ Washington freaks out and so we go to war with China.  Brilliant! 

The reason M&R were given to the national level, was because nations take the brunt of misconduct, so they are more accountable to see that M&R is used appropriately instead of just randomly on a whim.




> I do not want to pay taxes to subsidize private ships in hostile waters by hiring mercenaries to protect them.


So you do not feel that it is a legitimate function of the US government to stop piracy against US Flagged vessels, or to stop the murder, kidnapping and impressment of US Citizens upon those vessels?  Really?




> If we feel it is the national defense of the US, congress can declare war and the president can direct it.


Declare war against _whom?_  A stateless band of roguish thugs?  A tactic?  War is something nations do against nations.  If there is not another nation involved, then there cannot be a 'war.'  Without M&R what do you suggest, just roll over and take it?  Like the liberals tell the women, piss yourself and maybe they won't rape you?




> I do not want killing overseas done in my name removed one more step from my control. If our government is paying for the killing our country will receive the blowback whether it is marines training and leading an army of mercenaries or the US army.


We never got blowback from the Barbary Pirate Expedition. As long as you are ACTUALLY using M&R properly to take down criminals and thugs, you won't get jeers you will get cheers.  Remember how much the world supported us after 9/11 and we had to go all full retard and piss on that support?  Had we done M&R, sent a platoon of Marines or Seals into Afghanistan to operate Marque and cause the locals to pick up Bin Laden and bring him to us to stand trial, with rewards for his lieutenants, not only would justice have been done for 9/11, the whole thing would have been over in a year, but the entire world (Including the Arab States!) would have supported us.

You don't seem to understand the definition of 'blowback.'  You get blowback when you do evil crap.  You get blowback when you let commercials run rampant and unrestrained with mercenaries like you suggest.  You get blowback when you march in with four divisions and kill indiscriminately.  You don't get blowback from surgically removing the mastermind and the team who attacked you in the first place without harming the people and places who were not involved.




> Tell me what hostages were freed by the battle of Derne?


William Bainbridge and the crew of the USS Philadelphia, 300 souls.




> And if you do not like the fact that the constitution gives congress the ability to fund a standing army continuously every two years start a movement to change the constitution to strictly prohibit a standing army until AFTER a declaration of war.


That was not the intent of the Framers.  You did not need a DOW to raise an Army, just the Congressional perception of a threat requiring an Army.  The two year appropriations provision was created to remind Congress that the Framers did not intend for the US to maintain a standing army. 

Remarkably, we mostly followed the practice of standing down the Army when it wasn't needed up until around WW1.




> Yes I find lots of flaws in the constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers.


We clearly differ on _that._

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Funny you left this little bit of information off on why the marines and mercenaries were marching from Egypt to libya.


Thanks for reminding me about that part, I had forgotten that Eaton proposed this as a means of raising the necessary number of troops.  Hamet had a vested interest, so it would cost less money to motivate him to put troops into action.  Problem was we wanted 700 troops, Hamet had promised 600, and Hamet only really had 300.  So we collected another 200 along the way to Tripoli and ended up with 500 -- 200 fewer than Eaton and O'Bannon said they would need to win.  It was actually quite brilliant to leverage an existing injustice to motivate troops to battle at half the cost that it normally would have been.  If Yussif didn't want to be taken down, then he shouldn't have been attacking, killing, kidnaping, and pillaging Americans and American shipping.  Yussif tread on the rattler and got bit.  Oh well.

----------


## klamath

> No, that's nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> That, too is nonsense.  Without Congress following the procedures laid out in the Constitution, all of your examples are blatantly unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> That's even more absurd than M&R.  Say Matson decides Sinotrans is a commercial threat, and hires Academi to run about and sink or pirate Sinotrans shipping.  The US of course turns a blind eye because 'that's just how things are done' but China gets pissed because their ships are getting sunk and their crews are getting killed.  China tells Washington to get this crap under control, and Washington says "hey, free market man, there is nothing we can do."  
> ...


And once again you didn't address the regime change part of the mission. There is a complete and total analogy between afganistan and the Barbary war. We were fighting a stateless enemy, The was no declaration of war because of this but there was the support of congress and money appropriated for the missions. We over threw the Afgan regime using mostly local forces supported by americans and were attempting to do the same in Libya.

----------


## Contumacious

> If you don't like Marque and Reprisal, klamath, perhaps you should start a movement to repeal that clause from the Constitution.
> 
> .


Actually it has been de facto repealed.

The War Profiteers like bloody prolongued wars that use a lot of hardware.

The warmongers get sexually aroused when the US  shock and awe the enemy .

And so it $#@!ing goes.

.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And once again you didn't address the regime change part of the mission. There is a complete and total analogy between afganistan and the Barbary war. We were fighting a stateless enemy, The was no declaration of war because of this but there was the support of congress and money appropriated for the missions. We over threw the Afgan regime using mostly local forces supported by americans and were attempting to do the same in Libya.


Um.  Actually I did.  See post #451.  The mission wasn't 'regime change' the mission was to free the hostages and end the ransom.  They weren't going to be allowed to go at all because they did not have a plan sufficient to raise the manpower, and then some former Army guy, Eaton, comes out of the blue and says "Hey, I know where we can get 600 troops from, so we can do this."  Thus the mission was approved and Marque was issued by Congress.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Actually it has been de facto repealed.
> 
> The War Profiteers like bloody prolongued wars that use a lot of hardware.
> 
> The warmongers get sexually aroused when the US  shock and awe the enemy .
> 
> And so it $#@!ing goes.
> 
> .


Ain't that the disgusting truth 

Ron Paul was right from the start.  He introduced Marque and Reprisal against Afghanistan _Bin Laden and Al Qaeda_ in 2001.  Had we gone that route we'd have been done and gone before 2003, and still had the good will of the planet.

----------


## klamath

> Um.  Actually I did.  See post #451.  The mission wasn't 'regime change' the mission was to free the hostages and end the ransom.  They weren't going to be allowed to go at all because they did not have a plan sufficient to raise the manpower, and then some former Army guy, Eaton, comes out of the blue and says "Hey, I know where we can get 600 troops from, so we can do this."  Thus the mission was approved and Marque was issued by Congress.


It was led by US marines and it was the US flag raised above the Libyan city attempting regime change.

----------


## klamath

> Actually it has been de facto repealed.
> 
> The War Profiteers like bloody prolongued wars that use a lot of hardware.
> 
> The warmongers get sexually aroused when the US  shock and awe the enemy .
> 
> And so it $#@!ing goes.
> 
> .


Yet a navy was specifically built for this so called marque and reprisal war that lasted 4 years. 



> Presley Neville O’Bannon (1776 – September 12, 1850) was an officer in the United States Marine Corps, famous for his exploits in the First Barbary War. In recognition of his bravery, he was presented a sword for his part in attempting to *restore Prince Hamet Karamanli to his throne at Tripoli*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It was led by US marines and it was the US flag raised above the Libyan city attempting regime change.


You can call a mouse an elephant until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make a mouse an elephant.  The purpose of the Barbary Pirates Expedition had nothing to do with regime change.  The fact that they found the guy's brother to help, was simply a means of gathering the troop resources to get the mission approved.  Nobody thought Hamet would be any better than Youssif.  Hamed (supposedly) had the troops, and we needed manpower.  That's all there was to it.  Eaton wasn't even involved in the mission, and the mission was about to be scrapped when Eaton stepped in and said, 'hey, I know where to get the troops to make this happen."

Now, is it possible that _Eaton_ had some sort of relationship with Hamed and wanted to do him a favor?  Sure, Eaton worked over in the region as some kind of ambassador after all, there is no telling what he had going on.  However, there was no US policy of 'regime change' in Tripoli in 1804.  The only US policy towards Tripoli 1801-1805 was "rescue our hostages and stop them from holding us ransome."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yet a navy was specifically built for this so called marque and reprisal war that lasted 4 years.


Presented the sword BY the Ottomans for restoring Tripoli from a rogue pirate outpost back to a part of the Ottoman Empire.  The sword was a gift from the Ottoman Empire, not Congress.  LMAO come on.  This whole exchange has been one big exercise in "do not let the facts get in the way of your preconceptions."

I, for one, still agree with Ron Paul on M&R.  It was never just an excuse to push him past the neocons.  Ron Paul was right in 2001, and he is still right today.  I agreed with Ron Paul before I even knew who he was, and I have not changed...I still agree with him today.

----------


## Saint Vitus

Goldwater was decent, but I don't think he deserves to be deified like a lot of people on here want him to be.   The truth is, he was an interventionist and had some really scary ideas when it came to foreign policy.  That being said, he was extremely good, for his time period, on domestic issues.  If he was alive today, I think he would be closer to Jim Demint than Ron Paul (or even Rand Paul).  For some on this forum, that is good enough.  However, that's not the type of politician that I get excited about.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Goldwater was decent, but I don't think he deserves to be deified like a lot of people on here want him to be.   The truth is, he was an interventionist and had some really scary ideas when it came to foreign policy.  That being said, he was extremely good, for his time period, on domestic issues.  If he was alive today, I think he would be closer to Jim Demint than Ron Paul (or even Rand Paul).  For some on this forum, that is good enough.  However, that's not the type of politician that I get excited about.


I agree that Goldwater was too interventionist for my taste.  I am way more with Robert Taft than Barry Goldwater.  That said, solving the domestic issues would have eventually not left enough budget for foreign adventurism, nor the willingness to incur debt for it; therefore I would have campaigned for him based on the long view that his domestic policies would have eventually limited the foreign policy by necessity.

----------


## Legend1104

Compared to modern day standards of politicians Alexander Hamilton was a libertarian

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Compared to modern day standards of politicians Alexander Hamilton was a libertarian


LOL too right - and he was a statist bastard if there ever was one.

----------


## AuH20

> Goldwater was decent, but I don't think he deserves to be deified like a lot of people on here want him to be.   The truth is, he was an interventionist and had some really scary ideas when it came to foreign policy.  That being said, he was extremely good, for his time period, on domestic issues.  If he was alive today, I think he would be closer to Jim Demint than Ron Paul (or even Rand Paul).  For some on this forum, that is good enough.  However, that's not the type of politician that I get excited about.


But with the tumultuous background of Cold War, he wasn't some lunatic interventionist that many have characterized him as. In 1956, we had the Soviets brutally putting down the Hungarian Revolution. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis almost plunged both nations into a thermonuclear war.  Goldwater wasn't looking for trouble but was simply responding to the prior events that made both the Soviet Union and the U.S. mortal enemies. That's what the revisionists forget. Goldwater ran for office less than 3 YEARS BEFORE THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS. 

I personally would be worried about Ron Paul as POTUS during the height of the Cold War because I think he would have let the Russians deliver and deposit those missiles onto Cuban soil. He's kinda naive like that, as much as I think he's a great man.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis almost plunged  both nations into a thermonuclear war.  Goldwater wasn't looking for  trouble but was simply responding to the prior events that made both the  Soviet Union and the U.S. mortal enemies. That's what the revisionists  forget.


The Cuban Missile Crisis was precipitated & instigated by the United States - NOT by Russia.

You should learn some history before yapping about what "revisionists forget" ... 




> I personally would be worried about Ron Paul as POTUS during the height of the Cold War because I think he would have let the Russians deliver and deposit those missiles onto Cuban soil. He's kinda naive like that, as much as I think he's a great man.


The Russians would have no reason whatsoever to have done any such thing if Ron Paul's FP principles had been followed.
For one thing, Ron Paul would NOT have attempted to overthrow the Cuban regime.
For another thing, he would NOT have parked nukes aimed at Moscow in Turkey.
IOW: Ron Paul is one HELL of a lot less naive than you are.

FTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis



> After the USA had placed nuclear missiles in Turkey, aimed at Moscow, and the failed US attempt to overthrow the Cuban regime (Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose), in May 1962 Nikita Khrushchev  proposed the idea of placing Soviet nuclear missiles on Cuba to deter  any future invasion attempt.

----------


## fr33

> The Russians would have no reason whatsoever to have done any such thing if Ron Paul's FP principles had been followed.
> For one thing, Ron Paul would NOT have attempted to overthrow the Cuban regime.
> For another thing, he would NOT have parked nukes aimed at Moscow in Turkey.
> IOW: Ron Paul is one HELL of a lot less naive than you are.
> 
> FTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis


But but but..... You don't understand the cold war threat. /s



 (just like you don't understand the war on terror mindset)

----------


## AuH20

> The Russians would have no reason whatsoever to have done any such thing if Ron Paul's FP principles had been followed.
> For one thing, Ron Paul would NOT have attempted to overthrow the Cuban regime.
> For another thing, he would NOT have parked nukes aimed at Moscow in Turkey.
> IOW: Ron Paul is one HELL of a lot less naive than you are.
> 
> FTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis


That's all fine and dandy. But the issue was the missiles being shipped to Cuba. Like I said earlier, as POTUS you don't get a blank slate to undo the wrongs of your predecessors or certain agencies. As an isolated event what would have Ron Paul done?

----------


## klamath

> Presented the sword BY the Ottomans for restoring Tripoli from a rogue pirate outpost back to a part of the Ottoman Empire.  The sword was a gift from the Ottoman Empire, not Congress.  LMAO come on.  This whole exchange has been one big exercise in "*do not let the facts get in the way of your preconceptions.*"
> 
> I, for one, still agree with Ron Paul on M&R.  It was never just an excuse to push him past the neocons.  Ron Paul was right in 2001, and he is still right today.  I agreed with Ron Paul before I even knew who he was, and I have not changed...I still agree with him today.


Facts??? No one ever said congress gave the sword which wasn't even the point of the text. It was the fact they were trying to install another leader that supported American interests that made it a war not a hostage rescue. War should have been declared.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> That's all fine and dandy. But the issue was the   missiles being shipped to Cuba.


That is exactly the mealy-mouthed "victims of circumstance" garbage I expected you   trot out. So save your "that's all fine and dandies" (and your   sneering cracks about "revisionism") and just address the goddam point for a change - instead of tap-dancing around it with your usual lame, goal-post moving  dodges.

You do NOT get to invoke the Cuban Missile  Crisis as if it were some  kind of _ex nihilo_ trump card. The Cubam Missile Crisis was NOT an "isolated event." This notion that   the U.S. government was just helplessly reacting to events beyond its  control is complete and utter bull$#@!. In actual fact, the U.S.  government was THE instigator and precipitator of those events. Actions  have consequences. If you don't like the consequences, then stop doing the things that cause them. It is just THAT simple - and there is NO way around it.




> Like I said earlier, as POTUS you don't   get a  blank slate to undo the wrongs of your predecessors or certain    agencies.


WTF is this "predecessors" nonsense?
The Kennedy administration presided over the emplacement of nukes in Turkey.
The Kennedy administration presided over the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
The Kennedy administration poked the Russian bear in the eye.
And when the bear finally got pissed off and reacted to the bear baiting, your response is:
"We ain't had no choice! It's all da predecessors' fault! We wuz jus' victims of circumstance!"

Bull$#@!! 




> As an isolated event what would have Ron Paul done?


I have told you what Ron Paul would have done - or, rather, what he would NOT have done.
He would NOT have put nuclear missiles in Turkey aimed at Moscow.
He would NOT have tried to overthrow the Cuban regime.
If Ron Paul had been President, there would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis.
Demanding to know what he "would have done" as President in a situation that never would have existed if he had been President is just ridiculous.

"Isolated event," my ass. You CANNOT just ignore the Law of Cause and Effect and expect to arrive at any kind of SANE result.

----------


## Contumacious

> Ain't that the disgusting truth 
> 
> Ron Paul was right from the start.  He introduced Marque and Reprisal against Afghanistan _Bin Laden and Al Qaeda_ in 2001.  Had we gone that route we'd have been done and gone before 2003, and still had the good will of the planet.


True, but that would have deprived KBR, Halliburton and other war profiteers of a gazillion dollars.

----------


## Contumacious

> Yet a navy was specifically built for this so called marque and reprisal war that lasted 4 years.


A Letter Of Marquee and Reprisal would have allowed mercenaries to capture ONLY those who were responsible for 09/11.

In the days of fighting sail, a letter of marque and reprisal was a government license authorizing a person (known as a *privateer)* to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a letter of marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy, which was universally reviled.[1] In addition to the term lettre de marque, the French sometimes used the term lettre de course for their letters of marque. "Letter of marque" was sometimes used to describe the vessel used: a "letter of marque" generally refers to a lumbering square-rigged cargo carrier that might pick up a prize if the opportunity arose.[2] A "privateer" was a fast and weatherly fore-and-aft-rigged vessel heavily armed and heavily crewed, intended exclusively for fighting.
*
A "letter of marque and reprisal" would involve permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders.*

.

----------


## AuH20

> That is exactly the mealy-mouthed "victims of circumstance" garbage I expected you   trot out. So save your "that's all fine and dandies" (and your   sneering cracks about "revisionism") and just address the goddam point for a change - instead of tap-dancing around it with your usual lame, goal-post moving  dodges.
> 
> You do NOT get to invoke the Cuban Missile  Crisis as if it were some  kind of _ex nihilo_ trump card. The Cubam Missile Crisis was NOT an "isolated event." This notion that   the U.S. government was just helplessly reacting to events beyond its  control is complete and utter bull$#@!. In actual fact, the U.S.  government was THE instigator and precipitator of those events. Actions  have consequences. If you don't like the consequences, then stop doing the things that cause them. It is just THAT simple - and there is NO way around it.






> WTF is this "predecessors" nonsense?
> The Kennedy administration presided over the emplacement of nukes in Turkey.
> The Kennedy administration presided over the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
> The Kennedy administration poked the Russian bear in the eye.
> And when the bear finally got pissed off and reacted to the bear baiting, your response is:
> "We ain't had no choice! It's all da predecessors' fault! We wuz jus' victims of circumstance!"





> I have told you what Ron Paul would have done - or, rather, what he would NOT have done.
> He would NOT have put nuclear missiles in Turkey aimed at Moscow.
> He would NOT have tried to overthrow the Cuban regime.
> If Ron Paul had been President, there would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis.
> Demanding to know what he "would have done" as President in a situation that never would have existed if he had been President is just ridiculous.
> 
> "Isolated event," my ass. You CANNOT just ignore the Law of Cause and Effect and expect to arrive at any kind of SANE result.


There was a trade embargo set up against Cuba in 1960 after Castro took power and began his reign of terror. 
President Eisenhower had signed off on a covert plan devised by then VP Richard Nixon, but it never went live until Eisenhower's advisors prodded Kennedy. I'm not moving any goalposts. 

This continuity of deceit defines the American Foreign policy structure and one simply can't throw one's hands in the air & claim it's not fair. One can make a compelling argument that there shouldn't have even been a Cold War if it wasn't for Western politicians and industrialists augmenting that nation through lend lease programs and eventual territorial concessions. All I know is if I'm in that chair October 1962, those missiles would have been blockaded, even if it was considered commerce between two nations.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Facts??? No one ever said congress gave the sword which wasn't even the point of the text. It was the fact they were trying to install another leader that supported American interests that made it a war not a hostage rescue. War should have been declared.


No, you talked about the sword as if to imply (confirm your supposition) that restoring Hamet was the mission.  It was not.  The only way that the gift of the sword would indicate that removing Yousif had been a part of their mission would have been if the sword was awarded by Congress.  You don't get to have it both ways.  If the sword was awarded by the Ottoman Empire (it was) then it speaks literally nothing to whether Hamet and Yousif was a part of their mission.

----------


## Pericles

> A Letter Of Marquee and Reprisal would have allowed mercenaries to capture ONLY those who were responsible for 09/11.
> 
> In the days of fighting sail, a letter of marque and reprisal was a government license authorizing a person (known as a *privateer)* to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a letter of marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy, which was universally reviled.[1] In addition to the term lettre de marque, the French sometimes used the term lettre de course for their letters of marque. "Letter of marque" was sometimes used to describe the vessel used: a "letter of marque" generally refers to a lumbering square-rigged cargo carrier that might pick up a prize if the opportunity arose.[2] A "privateer" was a fast and weatherly fore-and-aft-rigged vessel heavily armed and heavily crewed, intended exclusively for fighting.
> *
> A "letter of marque and reprisal" would involve permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders.*
> 
> .


Thanks to the ATF, you can forget about that line of work.

----------


## Contumacious

> Thanks to the ATF, you can forget about that line of work.


*
Blackwater USA*



Blackwater USA was formed in 1997, by Erik Prince in North Carolina, to provide training support to military and law enforcement organizations. In explaining Blackwater's purpose, Prince stated that We are trying to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did for the Postal Service.[7] After serving SEAL and SWAT teams, Blackwater USA received its first government contract after the bombing of the USS Cole off of the coast of Yemen in October 2000. After winning the bid on the contract, Blackwater trained over 100,000 sailors.[8]

.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *
> Blackwater USA*
> 
> 
> 
> Blackwater USA was formed in 1997, by Erik Prince in North Carolina, to provide training support to military and law enforcement organizations. In explaining Blackwater's purpose, Prince stated that ‘‘We are trying to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did for the Postal Service.’’[7] After serving SEAL and SWAT teams, Blackwater USA received its first government contract after the bombing of the USS Cole off of the coast of Yemen in October 2000. After winning the bid on the contract, Blackwater trained over 100,000 sailors.[8]
> 
> .


Truth.  Of course Blackwater/Academi, KBR etc, professional mercenary corporations with favorable government contracts, are not what the Framers had in mind.  Hundreds of millions of dollars later, they have still yet to receive a single letter of Marque, for one thing.  Which would be OK if all they really did was training.  Of course as we all know it is not.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Thanks to the ATF, you can forget about that line of work.


More like thanks to government ignoring the Constitution altogether, but yeah.  It will probably never again be individuals answering a call, but preferred mercenary corporations with licenses and approvals, and plum contracts for those who behave....where 'behave' implies taking the rap for the dirty work that would look bad if they ordered the US Military to do it.

----------


## klamath

> No, you talked about the sword as if to imply (confirm your supposition) that restoring Hamet was the mission.  It was not.  The only way that the gift of the sword would indicate that removing Yousif had been a part of their mission would have been if the sword was awarded by Congress.  You don't get to have it both ways.  If the sword was awarded by the Ottoman Empire (it was) then it speaks literally nothing to whether Hamet and Yousif was a part of their mission.


Good God Gunny, it was part of the mission. I don't give a damn about the sword. Freeing the US sailors was part of the mission, as well as stopping paying ransom was part of the mission as well. The point is it was a long enough, complicated enough mission, WAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED. Congress also was appropriating money for the mission. I could see your point if it was a sudden mission to storm a prison holding American hostages going in and getting out in a matter of weeks, it was not. We had war declared on us, we were blockaging their harbor we ran a warship aground on a Libya shore. The naval was shelling Libyan soil.  We had Marines on Libyan soil we had Marines dying on Libyan soil. If you can convince me that this mission did not require a declaration of war I WILL be reevaluating my stand on all the other undeclared wars in modern times that I believe should have had war declared.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Good God Gunny, it was part of the mission.


Only as an excuse to raise the indigenous troops to accomplish the actual mission.  They projected they would need 700 soldiers, and Hamet allegedly could provide 500-600.  So he was their first stop.




> I don't give a damn about the sword.


Then why did you cite it as though it were proof that that was their purpose for going?




> the US sailors was part of the mission,


I am glad that you have accepted that now.




> as well as stopping paying ransom was part of the mission as well. The point is it was a long enough, complicated enough mission, WAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED.


Wars in 1800-1810 were different than wars today.  We didn't have tanks and aircraft.  What would be a month-long mission today would be a year long mission then.  In 1804, when the ground campaign took place, their mission was neither considered long, nor complicated.




> Congress also was appropriating money for the mission.


As well they must since Marque and Reprisal consisted of cash bounty.  Cash means appropriations.




> I could see your point if it was a sudden mission to storm a prison holding American hostages going in and getting out in a matter of weeks, it was not.


What takes a couple of weeks today, took 8-12 months in 1800.  Military technology and tactics have changed dramatically in the intervening century.  It was a different world.  The ground campaign lasted a total of 9 months.  Translating to 2013 that would be equivalent to 2 weeks.

The sea campaign was a completely separate affair, and Marque on the high seas could last as long as 10 years in that era.  The fact that it went on barely over 4 years was a testament to the fact that it had not crossed the boundary into state on state war.




> We had war declared on us, we were blockaging their harbor we ran a warship aground on a Libya shore. The naval was shelling Libyan soil.  We had Marines on Libyan soil we had Marines dying on Libyan soil. If you can convince me that this mission did not require a declaration of war I WILL be reevaluating my stand on all the other undeclared wars in modern times that I believe should have had war declared.


I cannot think of a single other (major) campaign in American history that did not require a declaration of war.  The Barbary Expedition was unique in that respect.  We have had other expeditions which SHOULD have been done in a similar fashion but were not.  Grenada, for instance, did not require a DOW, but was done incorrectly because it should have been attached to a M&R campaign.  The US Navy Seals sniping the Somali Pirates was probably Constitutional and did NOT require M&R.

We had a variety of purely defensive actions, like fighting French and Spanish privateers in the Gulf of Mexico 1806-1810 that required neither Marque nor War, and a series of offensive actions such as invading Texas, Mexico, and Florida (1806, 1810) which _should_ have required a DOW.

Puerto Rico 1824 should have had a DOW, and the commander was disciplined for prosecuting war without authorization.  A unique moment in history where we recognized our own lack of authority.

Pretty much everything else, 1833 Argentina, 1835 Peru, 1843 China, 1844 Texas/Mexico, 1853 Japan, on and on and on we did it wrong again and again.  We either needed a proper DOW which didn't happen, or a proper issuance of Marque, which didn't happen.

I cite the Barbary Expedition because it's pretty much one of the only times in American history that we used military force short of war properly.

----------


## erowe1

I think it pretty much boils down to his being a libertarian in comparison with Rockefeller.

----------


## klamath

> Only as an excuse to raise the indigenous troops to accomplish the actual mission.  They projected they would need 700 soldiers, and Hamet allegedly could provide 500-600.  So he was their first stop.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you cite it as though it were proof that that was their purpose for going?
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad that you have accepted that now.
> ...


I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree

----------


## robert68

Here's a link leading to Libertarian Party Platforms from the 1990’s. They were watered down after 9/11 in order to be acceptable to right wing conservatives and neocons, as libertarianism became less popular in the US. I haven't yet found any from the 1980's online.

----------


## Contumacious

> Im not a libertarian. Im not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.


I'm not a socialist. I am NOT advocating everyone run around wearing brownshirts and consuming government bromides.

.

----------


## MattRay

Thought I'd bump this since I object to the assessment of Goldwater in the OP. Unfortunately, this is a rather long post, so I'll divide it into 2 posts separating domestic and foreign policy to to make it more readable.

Whether you consider him a libertarian or not, the neocon charge is unjust, imo. It's apparent that his entire philosophy is predicated on freedom as I'll illustrate with quotes; _...for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day's overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom. As he surveys the various attitudes and institutions and laws that currently prevail in America, many questions will occur to him, but the Conservatives first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?"_ He correctly identified rights as individual, rather than collective; _"The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to the ultimate slavery."_ He seemed to believe that people should be free to do as they please provided they don't infringe on anyone else's rights; _The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. H_e recognized that the country was based on individual freedom, not majority rule; _"The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being."_ He was a strict constiutionalist throughout his career, as he stated in 1981; _"Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution._ _We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. We believe, as the founding fathers did, that we 'are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'"_ This is because he rightfully saw government as the biggest threat to liberty; _Throughout history, government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man's liberty."_ He saw the Constitution as thoroughly addressing it, provided it was followed strictly; _"The framers of the Constitution had learned the lesson. They were not only students of history, but victims of it: they knew from vivid, personal experience that freedom depends on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single authority."
_
Goldwater applied these principles to the issues of his day. He was one of the last visible politicians to oppose the very idea of a welfare state on principle; _"If we take from a man the personal responsibility of caring for his material needs, we take from him also, the will and the opportunity to be free."_ Remember, unlike Ronald Reagan for instance, Goldwater was a strong opponent of the New Deal and angered Eisenhower by referring to his policies as a "dime-store New Deal." He viewed Eisenhower the same way Ron Paul views Paul Ryan. Goldwater also recognized personal freedom and economic freedom could not be mutually exclusive; _"...the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he's enslaved politically; conversely, man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State."_ Goldwater stayed true to this principle, even when it wasn't politically expedient. While Reagan's libertarianish rhetoric didn't extend to Social Security, Goldwater campaigned on making Social Security voluntarybecause he insisted people be free throughout their lives to spend their money how and as they see fit.

He opposed all federal aid and grants to states as unconstitutional; _"The tenth amendment is not a 'general assumption', but a prohibitory rule of law."_ This, of course, included Education, where he rightfully identified federal aid to schools was a way of the federal government coercing states to comply with their standards. He famously opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on constitutional grounds, but also because he believed men should be free to serve or not serve who they want on their property, as he repeated later on in the 80's. He took a similarly principled stand on the Kennedy-Ervin "labor reform" bill in 1959 when he was the lone dissenting vote on the bill passed 95-1 in the Senate.

Outside of being unconstitutional, he opposed farm subsidies on free market principles and understood the need for resources to be free to allocate to their most efficient uses; _"The reason government intervention has created more problems than it has solved is quite simple.  Farm production, like any other production is best controlled by the natural operation of the free market. If the nation's farmers are free to sell their produce freely, at price consumers are willing to pay, they will."_ He went on to say; _"The only way to persuade farmers to enter other fields of endeavor is to stop paying inefficient farmers for produce that cannot be sold at free market prices."_ He understood the need to for the market, not unions to set prices; _"Such power hurts the nation's economy by forcing on employers contract terms that encourage inefficiency, lower production and high prices - all of which lower the standard of living for the American people."_ He saw the problem as a libertarian would; _"Freedom of Association.  Here the argument is so plain I wonder why elaboration is necessary. What could be more fundamental than the freedom to associate with other men, or not to associate, as each man's reason dictates?"_ Finally, he laid out what would make unions acceptable, conditions I'm sure most libertarians would agree with; _"We have seen that unions perform their natural function when three condition are observed: association with the union is voluntary; the union confines its activities to collective bargaining; the bargaining is conducted with the employer is conducted with the employer of the workers concerned."

_On taxation; _"We have been led to look upon taxation as merely a problem of public financing: How much money does the government need? We have been led to discount, and often to forget altogether, the bearing of taxationon the problem of individual freedom. We have been persuaded that the government has an unlimited claim on the wealth of the people, and that the only pertinent question is what portion of its claim the government should exercise. The American taxpayer, I think, has lost confidence in his claim to his money."_ Like a libertarian, he viewed this as a property rights issue; _"One of the foremost precepts of the natural law is man's right to the possession and use of his property. And a man's earnings are his property as much as his land and the house in which he lives."_ Granted, he didn't oppose all forms of taxation as he considered taxation used to support the legitimate functions of government (ie; those specifically defined in the Constitution), but he only supported a flat tax and considered progressive taxation to be redistribution of wealth. 

As a bonus, here's a quote on The Fed; _"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside of the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States."_

----------


## MattRay

Certainly any reasonable person will agree that Goldwater's domestic policies and philosophy so most of the objections obviously center on foreign policy. While I wouldn't say Goldwater's foreign policy was typical of a libertarian, I definitely wouldn't he say he lined up with neocons either. His foreign policy revolved solely around defense and his reasoning was consistent with his freedom philosophy because the thing he stressed most was that Communism threatened _freedom_. It's unfair to compare him to PATRIOT ACT neocons when Goldwater explicitly repudiated sacrificing freedom for security. The Soviet Union and Cold War era was different, especially at the height of Goldwater's career, which was around the time the Soviets aimed missiles at us 90 miles off our coast. Goldwater certainly wasn't against peace, but he stressed that peace can't come at any cost; "_Peace, to be sure, is a proper goal for American policy - as long as it is understood that peace is not all we seek. For we do not want the peace of surrender."_ He didn't want war either, but he worried that if we rule it out, it will embolden the Soviets; _"We do not, of course, want to achieve victory by force of arms. If possible, overt hostilities should always be avoided; especially is this so when a shooting war may cause the deaths of many millions of people, including our own. But we cannot, for that reason, make the avoidance of a shooting war our chief objective. If we do that - if we tell ourselves it is more important to avoid shooting than to keep our freedom - we are committed to a course that has only one terminal point: surrender."_

It's worth noting that Ron Paul considered the Soviet Union enemies in the late 70's/early 80's while acknowledging at that time that they were an aggressive nation that didn't want peace, as you can read here along with the other quotes I post http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...t-cold-warrior

While I don't think Dr. Paul was as hawkish as Goldwater on the Soviet Union, they had a number of agreements and this should tell you just how different this era was. Both agreed on the aims of the Soviets and both opposed disarmament and feared the Soviets had closed the gap in military strength. These quotes from each of them illustrating their distrust of the Soviet Union are very similar:*Goldwater:* _"Assume that somehow we achieve an agreement we think advances our interests. Is there any reason for supposing the Communists keep it one moment longer than suits their purpose? We, and they, are different in this respect. We keep our word. The long and perfidious Communist record of breaking agreements and treaties will not keep any agreement that is not to its advantage to keep." 
_*Paul:* _"My primary objection to a nuclear freeze treaty with the Soviet Union is that I am unwilling to trust the freedom and independence of the United States to the promises of the Soviet ruling elite. The Soviets have broken almost every treaty they have ever signed, once it was no longer to their advantage to abide by its terms."

_In fact, Ron Paul quoted Goldwater in an area of agreement on foreign policy in 1980; _"If North Korea decided to take advantage of the domestic turmoil [in South Korea], and invaded, said Senator Goldwater, our 41,000 troops would take the brunt of the attack. Our men are well-armed and well-trained, said the Senator, but they would not be able to stand off a probable North Korean-Red Chinese human flood."_

On Vietnam, he always opposed Johnson's strategy and repudiated any war that wasn't fought with the sole purpose of winning, yet another thing that sets him apart from the nation-building neocons as this quote makes it apparent he'd oppose their wars in the middle east; _"I told Johnson and old colleagues on Capitol Hill that we had two clear choices. Either win the [Vietnam] war in a relatively short time, say within a year, or pull out all our troops and come."_ But more significant is that it appears he came to believe the Vietnam war was a mistake altogether, at least by the time of his autobiography in 1988; _"Vietnam is halfway around the world from Washington. It's as large as the major European nations, with nearly 130,000 square miles... its ancient recorded history goes back to 111 B.C.... We entered (that country) with considerable ignoracne."_

Goldwater's views on foreign aid also contrasted those held by neocons as he thought it was unconstitutional unless it can be shown to help our defense. He advocated a strict policy of only aiding countries who have shown themselves willing to fight Communism. He rejected the idea of aiding hostile or neutral regimes in hopes of buying friends and believed it only strengthened hostile regimes while being unfair to taxpayers. Certainly not a man who would believe nation-building was our responsibility. He was also a skeptic on the UN fearing it hurt sovereignty; _"I fear that our involvement in the United Nations may be leading to an unconstitutional serender of American sovereignty."_ This continued into the 70's; _"I suggested on the floor of the Senate today that we stop all funds to the United Nations. Now, what that'll do to the United Nations, I don't know. I have a hunch it would cause them to fold up, which would make me very happy at this particular point. I think if that happens, they can well move their headquarters to Peking or Moscow and get 'em the hell out of this country."_

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Barry Goldwater is often referred to as a Libertarian Republican and freedom-minded philosophically.  I don't understand why anyone would consider him such


That is because you have a left-leaning temperament.  And those who consider him an essentially libertarian radical have right-leaning temperaments.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> That is because you have a left-leaning temperament.  And those who consider him an essentially libertarian radical have right-leaning temperaments.


I started this thread when I was new to the Liberty Movement, some things I said in this thread were stupid.

My knowledge of Goldwater then pretty much came from US History class where I watched the daisy girl commercial.  When I made this thread I was actually very right-wing and had paleocon leanings.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That is because you have a left-leaning temperament.  And those who consider him an essentially libertarian radical have right-leaning temperaments.


I don't really consider BG to be 'libertarian' at all, but rather a _real_ paleoconservative...the kind who seeks to conserve the philosophy once called "classic liberalism."  I don't really consider _myself_ to be libertarian either, but a 'strict Constitutionalist.'  

A real paleoconservative would be seen as 'more libertarian' than perhaps a plurality of not a majority of actual 'libertarians' today, so I don't get bothered or annoyed if someone refers to BG as a libertarian, when he was in fact more libertarian than many actual libertarians are today.  I totally understand why someone would take that perspective.

But BG was at heart more paleocon than libertarian, but at this point we are talking some pretty slim distinctions.  This is kind of how I see it:

----------


## NotAnIllegalImmigrant

I didn't think anyone considers Goldwater libertarian?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I didn't think anyone considers Goldwater libertarian?


He sure was _a lot_ more libertarian than Johnson/Weld are.

----------


## NotAnIllegalImmigrant

> He sure was _a lot_ more libertarian than Johnson/Weld are.


So is Ted Cruz. Doesn't make him libertarian, though.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So is Ted Cruz. Doesn't make him libertarian, though.


I have never considered BG a libertarian.  I do not even consider myself a libertarian.  What relevance does the social conservative Ted Cruz have to any of this?

----------


## NotAnIllegalImmigrant

> I have never considered BG a libertarian.  I do not even consider myself a libertarian.  What relevance does the social conservative Ted Cruz have to any of this?


You said Goldwater was more libertarian than Johnson/Weld. I was merely pointing out that it's not difficult to be more libertarian than them. Ted Cruz is far more libertarian than Weld and moderately more libertarian than Johnson.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You said Goldwater was more libertarian than Johnson/Weld. I was merely pointing out that it's not difficult to be more libertarian than them. Ted Cruz is far more libertarian than Weld and moderately more libertarian than Johnson.


A potted plant may be more libertarian than Johnson/Weld.

If you read what I have written, I have in the last hour stated multiple times - in this very thread (including a chart!!) that Goldwater is *not* a libertarian, and yet, he is more "libertarian" than a lot of the members of these forums.

----------


## NotAnIllegalImmigrant

> A potted plant may be more libertarian than Johnson/Weld.
> 
> If you read what I have written, I have in the last hour stated multiple times - in this very thread (including a chart!!) that Goldwater is *not* a libertarian, and yet, he is more "libertarian" than a lot of the members of these forums.


And I'm agreeing with you...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I started this thread when I was new to the Liberty Movement, some things I said in this thread were stupid.
> 
> My knowledge of Goldwater then pretty much came from US History class where I watched the daisy girl commercial.  When I made this thread I was actually very right-wing and had paleocon leanings.


 Well, while we all can change our opinions and alignments (at will, with the greatest of ease), our temperaments are much more difficult to change.

They may be _impossible_ to really change, and simply must be overcome -- transcended -- if one decides the temperament he has is sub-optimal and so chooses.

The fact that you were inclined to be sympathetic to the "daisy girl commercial" indicates some left leaning.  Also that you tended to be anti-war at all (and still do so tend).

Also I have the benefit of your long posting history here to allow me to say with some confidence that you do tend towards the left temperament.  Not that all or even most of your opinions align in any way with the mainstream US left!  Certainly they don't!  You've thought things through too much for that, put in far more intellectual effort into forming your opinions than they would ever dare.  Thought?  Effort?  Honesty?  That might lead to Unacceptable, Politically-Incorrect opinions!  Way too dangerous.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't really consider BG to be 'libertarian' at all, but rather a _real_ paleoconservative...the kind who seeks to conserve the philosophy once called "classic liberalism."  I don't really consider _myself_ to be libertarian either, but a 'strict Constitutionalist.'  
> 
> A real paleoconservative would be seen as 'more libertarian' than perhaps a plurality of not a majority of actual 'libertarians' today, so I don't get bothered or annoyed if someone refers to BG as a libertarian, when he was in fact more libertarian than many actual libertarians are today.  I totally understand why someone would take that perspective.
> 
> But BG was at heart more paleocon than libertarian, but at this point we are talking some pretty slim distinctions.  This is kind of how I see it:


Well, just as your continuum chart shows, these are all on the greater "Libertarianism" team, even if not strict NAP libertarians per se.

----------


## anaconda

> Anyway, I'd rather have a drawn-out war than one where our commander-in-chief supports using tactical nukes as "conventional weapons."
> 
> Had I lived in 1964 I would have either voted Johnson or cast a blank ballot.


As opposed to turning an entire country on its head with acquiescence to the MIC and central bank? Vietnam was yet another U.N. exercise by the bankers. I disagree with your hypothetical choice. LBJ was the poster boy for CFR lackey. To his credit, he grew so weary of it and self-loathing that he quit in 1968.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> As opposed to turning an entire country on its head with acquiescence to the MIC and central bank? Vietnam was yet another U.N. exercise by the bankers. I disagree with your hypothetical choice. LBJ was the poster boy for CFR lackey. To his credit, he grew so weary of it and self-loathing that he quit in 1968.


What I said was stupid, I didn't really know much about LBJ at the time.

----------


## anaconda

> So is Ted Cruz. Doesn't make him libertarian, though.


Ted Cruz is a laughable charlatan.

----------


## anaconda

> What I said was stupid, I didn't really know much about LBJ at the time.


I don't think you're stupid at all. I think you are a well-spoken and brilliantly evolving person. I enjoy reading your posts, and you provide me with opportunities to learn.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I don't think you're stupid at all. I think you are a well-spoken and brilliantly evolving person.


Well thank you.

----------


## anaconda

> Well thank you.


I am evolving as you are.

----------


## NotAnIllegalImmigrant

> Ted Cruz is a laughable charlatan.


True, and despite that he's still more libertarian than Gary Johnson.

----------


## Jesse James

> I don't really consider BG to be 'libertarian' at all, but rather a _real_ paleoconservative...the kind who seeks to conserve the philosophy once called "classic liberalism."  I don't really consider _myself_ to be libertarian either, but a 'strict Constitutionalist.'  
> 
> A real paleoconservative would be seen as 'more libertarian' than perhaps a plurality of not a majority of actual 'libertarians' today, so I don't get bothered or annoyed if someone refers to BG as a libertarian, when he was in fact more libertarian than many actual libertarians are today.  I totally understand why someone would take that perspective.
> 
> But BG was at heart more paleocon than libertarian, but at this point we are talking some pretty slim distinctions.  This is kind of how I see it:


isn't being paleocon kind of like a trump supporter? i used to consider myself one too but they have become the alt right essentially. advocating for higher tariffs and what not

----------


## Jesse James

> True, and despite that he's still more libertarian than Gary Johnson.


eh... how so? nsa spying, wanted pot to be illegal until he flip flopped, let's "carpet bomb" them. i would say they are about equal.

----------


## MattRay

Personally, I think of Goldwater as a Constitutional Conservative first and foremost, but the type of Conservative that's generally an ally of Libertarians and unfortunately, quite rare these days. For instance, Barry Goldwater Jr. is quoted on the back of _The Revolution: A Manifesto_ saying his father would have loved the book. Of course, this all depends on what the individual's criteria is for a Libertarian. Walter Block, for instance, gave a scale for libertarianism a few years back with Rothbard as the standard. Block wrote that if Rothbard was 100% Libertarian than Ron Paul was 96% Libertarian, Johnson was 70% and Rand, 60%. For the record, I disagree with Block that Johnson is more of a Libertarian than Rand(although he wrote this back in 2012 so Block may have changed his mind), but that's not the point I'm making. My point is that for some people, whether someone is or isn't a Libertarian isn't purely a yes or no question. The Libertarian community has fortunately become fairly large and naturally, people have been introduced to libertarianism through different people and will have disagreements, which is a necessary part of individualism. If one was to talk in terms of who is the most "pure" Libertarian, then I may agree with Anarcho-Capitalism as the standard. Personally, I look at whether someone believes in the non-aggression principle for both individuals and government, assuming there is a government at all. To that end, I don't know whether Goldwater was ever aware of the NAP, much less based his philosophy on it, but his belief that each man should be free as long as he doesn't infringe on another man's freedom sounds a lot like the NAP to me.

Like I said, I think of Goldwater as a Constitutional Conservative first and foremost, but I consider principled Constitutional Conservatives to be allies and whether he was a Libertarian or not, I certainly don't consider him irrelevant to libertarianism. This is in stark contrast to Neocons who are some of the biggest opponents of liberty. The father of Neocons seems to be former Trotskyist Irving Kristol, who not surprisingly, was Bill Kristol's father. It seems the apple didn't fall far from the tree. 

The Conservatives of the 50's and 60's who had principles and an intellectual foundation were often on the same side as Libertarians opposing the Republican establishment and Neocons on some key issues during the post-Cold War era over the past 25 years. For example, Russell Kirk opposed the Gulf War at the end of his life and logically, he considered restraint to be a Conservative foreign policy. Similarly, William F. Buckley famously opposed the Bush administration for extravagant domestic spending, the Iraq War and a lack of Conservative ideology in general. Buckley also came out in favor of legalizing Marijuana earlier than most and seemed to oppose the drug war in general. In some cases, Reagan's statement that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism is true. Unfortunately, as I like to say, that means Conservatism suffered heart failure during the Bush years.

And to Tywysog Cymru, that's understandable. Unfortunately, LBJ's smear campaign was effective. Not unlike Dr. Paul, many have a distorted view of Goldwater thanks in large part to political opponents and the mainstream media.

----------


## PierzStyx

> It's called an assistance pact. It's simple to understand. South Vietnam gets attacked and the U.S. is OBLIGATED to Assist. And this subversion from the North happened well before Gulf of Tonkin which was the cherry on top. In 1956, Ho Chi Minh called for a reunification of both South and North Vietnam and the Viet Cong was born. A series of skirmishes and corresponding propaganda campaign preceded the Gulf of Tonkin incident by 8 years. Just come out and say you don't like entangling alliances. That would be fine. But don't say the U.S. had no rightful claim to assist the republic of South Vietnam. Per their treaty they were well within their right.


Bollocks. Your "assistance pact" is just another nicety for an "entangling alliance" that draws us into war after war and endless war. The US was obligated to do _nothing_, which is what it should have done. Stop apologizing for military interventionism and pointless foreign wars.

----------


## MattRay

Here's Goldwater's thoughts on the draft from his book _Conscience of a Majority_: _"The fundamental right of man is the right to life. The use of force against that right-as in the draft law- is clearly wrong. It would be wrong to assume that free men have to be forced to fight for their country."_ Whether Goldwater is a constitutional conservative or a libertarian, his position on the draft and the reasoning behind it is based on libertarian principles whether he called them that or not. Regardless of what you want to call him, I can't help but really like the guy and wish there were more like him!

----------


## Sammy

He was a fiscally conservative...He was wrong about the vietnam war..But in the 80s he wanted to close some military bases..

----------


## oyarde

I read the first page and it gave me the willies with the Johnson talk. glad Twygsog came around .

----------


## Krugminator2

> This is something that really pisses me off.  Barry Goldwater is often referred to as a Libertarian Republican and freedom-minded philosophically.  I don't understand why anyone would consider him such, He seems to me like the father of the NeoCon movement.
> 
> He advocated for nuclear weapons to be used as conventional weapons, suggesting that they be used in Vietnam to defoliate trees (saying this while 'Nam was still under French occupation).  *I would prefer Lyndon Johnson, or even George W. Bush than this guy.*  If he had won I believe that a nuclear WWIII would have taken place.
> 
> (John McCain adored him btw).


That post has not aged well. I'm fine just calling Barry Goldwater a libertarian with no other qualifier.

----------


## osan

> This is something that really pisses me off.  Barry Goldwater is often referred to as a Libertarian Republican and freedom-minded philosophically.  I don't understand why anyone would consider him such, He seems to me like the father of the NeoCon movement.
> 
> He advocated for nuclear weapons to be used as conventional weapons, suggesting that they be used in Vietnam to defoliate trees (saying this while 'Nam was still under French occupation).  I would prefer Lyndon Johnson, or even George W. Bush than this guy.  If he had won I believe that a nuclear WWIII would have taken place.
> 
> (John McCain adored him btw).


You have got to be kidding.

Meth or just ignorance?  I cannot tell.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> You have got to be kidding.
> 
> Meth or just ignorance?  I cannot tell.


This was three years ago.  All I knew about Goldwater was the Daisy ad.

----------


## osan

> This was three years ago.  All I knew about Goldwater was the Daisy ad.


I saw that.

I was just poking the sleeping bear, 'tis all.

----------


## robert68

> That post has not aged well. I'm fine just calling Barry Goldwater a libertarian with no other qualifier.


If you're serious, you're fine being very wrong.

----------


## Krugminator2

> If you're serious, you're fine being very wrong.


Barry Goldwater was a libertarian. Period.

He took a hard line stand on entitlements and wanted government out of social issues.  And he had a rational view on immigration. There is no such thing as libertarian foreign policy other than to do what is thought to be in the rational self interest of the country. And I think Goldwater looked out for what he thought were American interests first.

----------


## robert68

> Barry Goldwater was a libertarian. Period.
> 
> He took a hard line stand on entitlements and wanted government out of social issues.  And he had a rational view on immigration. There is no such thing as libertarian foreign policy other than to do what is thought to be in the rational self interest of the country. And I think Goldwater looked out for what he thought were American interests first.


Nonsense, period. Meanings of words for use in communication arent the personal dictates of individuals.

----------


## otherone

> Barry Goldwater was a libertarian. Period.
> 
> He took a hard line stand on entitlements and wanted government out of social issues.  And he had a rational view on immigration. There is no such thing as libertarian foreign policy other than to do what is thought to be in the rational self interest of the country. And I think Goldwater looked out for what he thought were American interests first.


What is a "paleoconservative"?

----------


## Krugminator2

> Nonsense, period. Meanings of words for use in communication arent the personal dictates of individuals.


Right. I use the actual definition not the religious interpretations of narrow sects of libertarians.

Here is the dictionary 

*1 :*  an advocate of the doctrine of free will*2**a* *:*  a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

Here is Wikipedia. "*Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a collection of political philosophies that uphold liberty. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing the value of political freedom, voluntary association, and the importance of individual judgment."



* Goldwater seems to fit those definitions quite well. Is Ron Paul a libertarian using your definition? You could make a case Goldwater is more libertarian than Ron Paul I wouldn't make that case but you could.

----------


## Jesse James

there is definitely A libertarian foreign policy...

----------


## robert68

> Right. I use the actual definition not the religious interpretations of narrow sects of libertarians.
> 
> Here is the dictionary 
> 
> *1 :*  an advocate of the doctrine of free will*2**a* *:*  a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
> 
> Here is Wikipedia. "*Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a collection of political philosophies that uphold liberty. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing the value of political freedom, voluntary association, and the importance of individual judgment."
> 
> 
> ...


The warfare state, US Empire, and war on drugs, all of which Goldwater supported, don’t uphold individual liberty. Everyone knows Ron Paul's stances are the opposites of those.

----------


## Krugminator2

I don't know what the US Empire or the warfare state even means. I do know Goldwater supported reigning in military spending, opposed AIPAC and wanted to end the draft. He did support Vietnam and supported drug illegality. Bad on him. He was however an early supporter of medical marijuana. Looking at his entire body of views makes it pretty obvious he was for individual liberty. It is easy to nitpick.

----------


## oyarde

Goldwater is the man if you want to compare him to say , todays congress.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> This is something that really pisses me off.  Barry Goldwater is often referred to as a Libertarian Republican and freedom-minded philosophically.  I don't understand why anyone would consider him such, He seems to me like the father of the NeoCon movement.
> 
> He advocated for nuclear weapons to be used as conventional weapons, suggesting that they be used in Vietnam to defoliate trees (saying this while 'Nam was still under French occupation).  I would prefer Lyndon Johnson, or even George W. Bush than this guy.  If he had won I believe that a nuclear WWIII would have taken place.
> 
> (John McCain adored him btw).


Goldwater was around in the middle of the Cold War when everyone feared an attack by the Soviets. He was not a neocon on the military after the Cold War let up.

----------


## MattRay

Interestingly, if you read Robert Taft's _A Foreign Policy for Americans_, the policies he proposes for dealing with the "Soviet Menace", as both Taft and Goldwater called it, were basically the same as Goldwater's with the main difference being Goldwater was less eloquent and his rhetoric was more hard line anti-Communist. But Taft, like any lover of liberty, found Communism repugnant and didn't trust a state that so completely disregarded individual human life. Granted, for this comparison, it must be pointed out that Taft's book came out when Stalin was still leading the Soviet Union and had just successfully tested nukes and despite the erratic Khrushchev cutting his teeth as a mass murderer in the Ukraine under Stalin during the Great Purge, even the "Butcher of Budapest" Khrushchev apparently didn't enjoy killing to the extent Stalin did or at least had _some_ more regard for human life. On a side note, this shows the insanity of intervention even more since we took the backdoor to war after Hitler rises as a result of Wilson's democracy crusade, and we do so to apparently stop Hitler from doing what we helped the even more murderous, ruthless Stalin from doing, which then costs us untold billions in defense. Of course, that's a different story. The main point being, many pretty genuine advocates of liberty during that era did believe Communism was a threat. Larry McDonald is another example. My instincts remain strong defense + non-intervention regardless, but I do view that era as dramatically different from the middle east adventures against 3rd-rate opponents under the 2 Bushes, Clinton and Obama.

----------

