An open letter from Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark to Sen. Rand Paul

[Deborah K]

Their job is to destroy documents, and prevent capture of personnel; not hold ground.



http://www.mcesg.marines.mil/

The moment a military guard threatens a target outside of the "the facility" it is no longer a conveyed-and-granted-in-trust-by-the-host embassy; at that moment it becomes an occupied-by-colonial-power base.

In my flea-bitten opinion, based on what happened in Benghazi, that protocol needs to be reviewed.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Does Rand REALLY want a new war? That's really hard to believe, so I don't understand his recent rhetoric.

The war is already underway.

As things stand, it is a limited war, but that could change on a dime if the POTUS orders escalation.

What Rand is trying to do is keep it limited, by explicitly laying out what powers the POTUS has and doesn't have to fight this war.

As per usual, the choice here is between bad (expanded war) and less-bad (limited war); good (no war at all) is not on the menu.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The libertarian party demonizing Rand should help him in the republican primaries.

When asked "if you lose the primaries, will you run as a libertarian like your dad" he has a great comeback: "of course not, they keep writing open letters on how Im not libertarian enough"

Agreed. Everyone has a role to play in all of this.

 

[Virgil]

In my flea-bitten opinion, based on what happened in Benghazi, that protocol needs to be reviewed.

I believe that's why he mention's it in the first place, a very indirect pun at Hillary.

-virgil

 

[satchelmcqueen]

"long shot"?? really? how so?? they didnt even read the damn thing.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Their job is to destroy documents, and prevent capture of personnel; not hold ground.



http://www.mcesg.marines.mil/

The moment a military guard threatens a target outside of the "the facility" it is no longer a conveyed-and-granted-in-trust-by-the-host embassy; at that moment it becomes an occupied-by-colonial-power base.

OK, you'd better let Obama know about this.

 

[twomp]

We are just 1 downed helicopter away. 1 marine being beheaded on video away from the Declaration of War that Senator Paul wants. The only question is how much of this Declaration will be butchered by the new GOP senate and the GOP house by the time it gets to Obama's desk. War is already here and it will be expanding. Those who said the new GOP senate would not expand the war are delusional.

 

[Vanguard101]

All they basically said was, we know ur playing the political game, but we don't really want you to

 

[presence]

In my flea-bitten opinion, based on what happened in Benghazi, that protocol needs to be reviewed.

No. Absolutely not.

What happened in Benghazi is simple:

Benghazi was NOT an embassy,
it was a gun running operation
to overthrow a foreign government
with a colonial "National Transitional Council"
that supported Libyan oil trade in western fiat currency.

Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars —
demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) —

was the real cause.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

the implications for Libya will be a complete re-colonization

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7886.shtml

Libya’s al-Qadhafi was killed because he bypassed International Monetary Fund rules.

http://www.youshouldbuygold.com/2011/10/end-of-african-gold-standard-the-oil-gold-relationship/

 

[jmdrake]

lol shows they didnt even read his declaration language..

^This. I've never heard of a declaration of war that ends two wars first. Rand did a boss move and the LP didn't figure it out. Or at least this so called "leader" of it.

 

[Deborah K]

No. Absolutely not.

What happened in Benghazi is simple:

Benghazi was NOT an embassy,
it was a gun running operation
to overthrow a foreign government
with a colonial "National Transitional Council"
that supported Libyan oil trade in western fiat currency.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar


http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7886.shtml



http://www.youshouldbuygold.com/2011/10/end-of-african-gold-standard-the-oil-gold-relationship/

I wrongly assumed it was an embassy since our ambassador was killed there. I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss this, therefor I concede your points.

 

[jmdrake]

Ground troops should never be used and CAN NEVER BE used to protect a diplomatic mission. The moment you hold ground to protect a diplomatic mission, it is no longer a diplomatic mission: their presence becomes a colonial court; the base of an occupying force.

The facility in Baghdad is NOT and never has been a "US embassy"; it is the Iraqi Embassy FOR the United States:

THEIR embassy for OUR diplomatic mission.

Their place where our people are honored and welcomed.

If we put boots in Iraq it should be to assist in evacuating our mission and securing our documents and belongings until the Iraqi government can provide a secure location for our mission to reside with dignity.

Diplomats are, at all times, OBLIGED TO RETREAT.

Thank you for that bit of information. With that in mind that underscores what I thought about Bengazi. The minute Libya became a failed state all our people should have been removed.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

No. Absolutely not.

What happened in Benghazi is simple:

Benghazi was NOT an embassy,
it was a gun running operation
to overthrow a foreign government
with a colonial "National Transitional Council"
that supported Libyan oil trade in western fiat currency.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar


http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7886.shtml



http://www.youshouldbuygold.com/2011/10/end-of-african-gold-standard-the-oil-gold-relationship/

I'm glad I'm not the only one bringing up what an embassy is anymore, or that embassies are not territory of the visiting nation. +rep

Also of note - here is Ron Paul, from 1983, after the attack in Lebanon:



Every single one of Ron's points are only enhanced after 31 years of technological advances. Want to advance liberty? Take Ron's position, one of less intervention and greater peace, not Rand's, which facilitates more militarism, interventionism, and antagonism.

 

[Crashland]

Even if you don't support a war within Rand's proposed framework, Rand's framework is still better than what is bound to happen without it. Rand's bill has the following excellent qualities:
(1) puts politicians on the record
(2) is constitutional, and helps put the constitution back into the public mindset
(3) is limited in scope
(4) expires after a year, which specifically requires Congress to re-authorize and go on the record again if they want the war to continue
(5) ends the previous war

NONE of those 5 things will happen under the status quo. Here is one thing that will happen regardless:
(6) The US engaging in acts of war for no good reason for the next year

So, would you rather have (6), or would you rather have (1)-(6)? Easy choice

 

[presence]

Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838

...the rest were CIA, the exact people Ron warned should never be in an Embassy in the speech posted above

 

[presence]

So, would you rather have (6), or would you rather have (1)-(6)? Easy choice

I don't choose between shades of evil.

I would rather our staff in Baghdad and Erbil be recalled.

 

[Crashland]

I don't choose between shades of evil.

I would rather our staff in Baghdad and Erbil be recalled.

And if the bill is voted on and does not pass, then even better for us.

 

[rich34]

Don't forget about the Libertarian Party 2008 VP candidate who called Ron Paul a pacifist and wrote this.

"One action by voters can go a long way to preventing future wars under any circumstances. Electing a Libertarian as President can certainly promote policies that will dramatically reduce, though not eliminate, our risk of being attacked by other nations. That will only happen however if a tough-talking, patriotic Libertarian like myself is the Presidential candidate. No weak-sounding pacifist Libertarian will ever break the 1% of the electorate barrier, let alone wage a credible, realistic campaign to actually win the White House."

Where was the Libertarian Party purists at when there flag bearers were neo-cons. The Libertarian Party cares about PR and votes not philosophy or policy.

http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/oldblog/index.php?m=04&y=08&entry=entry080428-194148

This guy is ignorant and obviously doesn't understand "strategy" knowing damn well congress will never vote for something like this while at the same time Rand is laying the the ground work to hedge off the "Rand is to weak on foreign policy" strategy which is no doubt going to be a big dagger used against him. Rand is playing chess while they're playing checkers. It's unfortunate the brilliant ones running the LP fail to see this. Kinda makes one wonder if the.establishment from both sides haven't already started throwing them money. Two words for their hypocrit asses BOB BARR!

 

[rich34]

Do you also fail to see what Rand is doing? In a republicam primary you can't be viewed as being weak on foriegn policy. Rand is derailing their primary method of attack before it even happens and he'll have this to point back to when it no doubt gets thrown at h!im. The man is a political genuis

 

[cajuncocoa]

The libertarian party demonizing Rand should help him in the republican primaries.

When asked "if you lose the primaries, will you run as a libertarian like your dad" he has a great comeback: "of course not, they keep writing open letters on how Im not libertarian enough"

This makes me so excited to scrimp and sacrifice so I can donate mega bucks to his campaign.






Not.