Is it possible to be pro foreign interventions and a Libertarian at the same time?

[Jace]

no, because their facilities will be attacked when they are in the process of developing nukes. so they won't be able to nuke us, if the attack is successful.

Kinda like how we attacked Iraq to get those WMDs to prevent more anthrax attacks and nuclear mushroom clouds over Dallas and Denver and Topeka?

 

[low preference guy]

Kinda like how we attacked Iraq to get those WMDs to prevent more anthrax attacks and nuclear mushroom clouds over Dallas and Denver and Topeka?

no. iraq didn't have nuclear weapons.

 

[Jace]

no. iraq didn't have nuclear weapons.

Does Iran?

 

[Liberty Star]

I was 10 when we invaded Iraq. I supported the war because my parents did. Neither of them support the war now and think it was mistake in the first place. I can barely remember the 2000 Election besides "Bush is the lesser of two evils, we should root for him!"

Psychologists tell us that much of our mental development is done by the age we are 4.

J/k, you got plenty time to know the world and keep developing your thoughts.

 

[low preference guy]

Does Iran?

no.

 

[Bman]

Psychologists tell us that much of our mental development is done by the age we are 4.

J/k, you got plenty time to know the world and keep developing your thoughts.

The last thing that develops is your ability to reason. That part isn't really fully developed to 25 ans new research says that the brain continues in the memory sector that stores facts and relationships.

 

[Jace]

no.

I'm trying to follow you here. Do you agree with Schiff that we should attack Iran to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons?

 

[farrar]

Kinda like how we attacked Iraq to get those WMDs to prevent more anthrax attacks and nuclear mushroom clouds over Dallas and Denver and Topeka?

It scares me somtimes how if it weren't for that, how many tanks might we have faced, or ships, or airplanes, the likes of which we have never seen before... haha I love sarcasam

Very cool that you are doing dual enrollment. I went through a special WA State program called "Running Start" that is very similar to dual enrollment, and I already have my AA degree and have cut two whole years off of my education.

Thats really awesome, seems to have worked out for you then? hopefully this will for me aswell. The state legislature here recently created a program called move on when ready, which redirects the funds that would have paid for my public educaton, to AASU which effectivly gives me a "free" ride on the condition that I go full time. I am very happy.

Also on a side note, Gaster is running to represent my district in the georgia state legislature, and ran unoposed for the republican nomination. Hopefully he will be elected and will be representing me. I don't know if he is a identified liberty candidate, but his issues are spot on.

 

[low preference guy]

I'm trying to follow you here. Do you agree with Schiff that we should attack Iran to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons?

Schiff was given a hypothetical.

IF Iran is on track to develop a nuclear weapons AND
IF there is conclusive evidence of that (not phony like Iraq's), with evidence including the location of the facilities.

Schiff supports bombing the facilities (after announcing it and giving people time to leave the facilities).

I believe it's an scenario not likely to happen. It will be much better to trade with them, which often empowers the middle class to overthrow dictators, in which case a modern government might be installed and it won't be a problem even if they have nuclear weapons.

But if I have to answer the hypothetical unlikely scenario, yes, I support such bombing. And I also agree with Schiff that the action should be limited to bombing the nuclear facilities and nothing else. No invasion of the country, no occupation, and no nation building.

 

[Jace]

Schiff was given a hypothetical.

IF Iran is on track to develop a nuclear weapons AND
IF there is conclusive evidence of that (not phony like Iraq's), with evidence including the location of the facilities.

Schiff supports bombing the facilities (after announcing it and giving people time to leave the facilities).

I believe it's an scenario not likely to happen. It will be much better to trade with them, which often empowers the middle class to overthrow dictators, in which case a modern government might be installed and it won't be a problem even if they have nuclear weapons.

But if I have to answer the hypothetical unlikely scenario, yes, I support such bombing. And I also agree with Schiff that the action should be limited to bombing the nuclear facilities and nothing else. No invasion of the country, no occupation, and no nation building.

I believe this is how they will sell the bombing of Iran, if it ever happens. There will be plenty of evidence, no doubt. It will be a bipartisan sale possibly coached in reasonable sounding words like you stated above. Obama will sell it to the Demos. McCain will sell it to the Repubs. Schiff will sell it to us. Everyone will be expected to hold hands for the national interest (just not our national interest).

Or they could fall back on another catalyzing event.

And Ron Paul will be the lone voice in Congress speaking out against it, and ridiculed for it.

 

[low preference guy]

I believe this is how they will sell the bombing of Iran, if it ever happens.

If by bombing of Iran you mean the bombing of its nuclear facilities, yes, it might happen, if they have real evidence.

 

[Knightskye]

Of the people here who would be okay bombing the "nuclear facilities" in Iran, do you think the Iranian citizens would appreciate that?

 

[low preference guy]

Of the people here who would be okay bombing the "nuclear facilities" in Iran, do you think the Iranian citizens would appreciate that?

in the hypothetical scenario that is not likely to happen... no, i don't think iranians will appreciate that.

the question is, when it comes to nuclear attacks, should we wait to be attacked first? i don't think so, so i'd rather live with knowing the iranians don't appreciate the U.S. bombing its nuclear facilities over seeing a nuke dropped in the U.S.

 

[RM918]

in the hypothetical scenario that is not likely to happen... no, i don't think iranians will appreciate that.

the question is, when it comes to nuclear attacks, should we wait to be attacked first? i don't think so, so i'd rather live with knowing the iranians don't appreciate the U.S. bombing its nuclear facilities over seeing a nuke dropped in the U.S.

If they had proof they were making nukes and planned to use them, sure. Then war should be declared.

 

[anaconda]

I think if the Chinese were progressively putting increasing numbers of armed troops on the Canadian border we might, under certain circumstances, be inclined to intervene. Our current intervention abroad is corporatist racketeering and should be prosecuted. With our military might the need for intervention should be almost zero.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Call me crazy, but I think the main reason we have to meddle with countries trying to acquire nukes is because it's considered political suicide to raise the simple concept of deterrence. If Iran builds one atomic bomb, does that really mean they could destroy us or would ever attack us? If our leaders are politically motivated, YES -- because they can just threaten to do x, y, and z with the bomb & their paltry military and everyone is afraid of them. If our leaders are principled, absolutely not -- due to the use of our strength as deterrence. Ron Paul pointed this out in the '08 debates: "If Iran attacked us, it'd be over in 15 minutes." Iran should be left alone and offered our friendship, but also made to understand; if they drop one atomic bomb in our viscinity somehow, whether it goes off or not or hits a target or not, Iran will be a radioactive parking lot 45 minutes later. Hence, no attack will come. But going over there and fighting a protracted police battle with conventional weapons, bribes & weapons-trading for ten years would not produce the peaceful result that a strong, defense-only posture can.

 

[Soca Taliban]

If they had proof they were making nukes and planned to use them, sure. Then war should be declared.

So Iran doesn't have the right to produce weapons for their own defense and deterrence?

 

[MelissaWV]

in the hypothetical scenario that is not likely to happen... no, i don't think iranians will appreciate that.

the question is, when it comes to nuclear attacks, should we wait to be attacked first? i don't think so, so i'd rather live with knowing the iranians don't appreciate the U.S. bombing its nuclear facilities over seeing a nuke dropped in the U.S.

You said earlier no one would attack a nuclear power, though, because that nuclear power would attack back.

If Iran developed a "nuke," they'd have to get it delivered to the US somehow. If all they wanted to do was sneak a "dirty bomb" into the US, they wouldn't need all this development. If they want a more sophisticated, rocket-delivered weapon, then that means the weapon would have to travel from their airspace to ours. If not launched from our airspace, it would need to come from a base or submarine that would give us some warning and some idea of where it came from. This would mean swift retaliation or interception of the projectile. If it is a "traditional" large bomb, it needs to be delivered by an incredibly slow-flying bomber.

Iran's most immediate target, if it decided to have one, would be Israel because of proximity, size, and general history between the nations. Even then, Israel would proceed to retaliate as well. The only "advantage" in that scenario for Iran is that other nations in the region would then possibly proceed to attack Israel for retaliating against Iran.

I think if the Chinese were progressively putting increasing numbers of armed troops on the Canadian border we might, under certain circumstances, be inclined to intervene. Our current intervention abroad is corporatist racketeering and should be prosecuted. With our military might the need for intervention should be almost zero.

This would, in theory, be a good time for a pre-emptive strike, but it would not come without consequences. Would an attack on those Chinese troops assembling at the border kill Canadian citizens by accident? What would Canada's reaction to that be? Are the Chinese there with Canada's permission? Are we having to liberate Canada as well? There are a bunch of questions to be answered, but this is one of those extremely unlikely scenarios that would make one say "Okay, fine, I'd consider some military action in that case."

The thing, though, is that military technology has evolved. Actions like this, if they were to take place, should be fast and decisive and that's all. I doubt there'd be any excuse for posting sentries and military bases on the Canadian side of the border, citing the potential for a repeat of the same situation. I doubt we'd occupy Canada, or even a chunk of it, for 10 or 20 or 100 years.

It's only when we get into "missions" like the ones we're in now that we get mired as a nation. Think about it. We went into Iraq to get all the WMDs. Well? We haven't really found any alarming caches of WMDs. So either we should take our troops out, or dedicate the ones there to finding WMDs. Even though this latter option seems incredibly futile, I'd at least have some respect for it since it would mean they were still trying to carry out the stated mission objective.

In Afghanistan we are "hunting down the terrorists who masterminded 9/11." That is a moronic objective. It's not like we have definitive authorship on a set of plans or documents (assuming no conspiracy, just for the sake of argument here). Is there a distinct list of people we are killing, and then we're out? Do we just hang around in Afghanistan until we stumble across Bin Laden? Does anyone in their right mind think that's likely to happen? Even with all of that known, the troops in Afghanistan are not spending all day looking for Bin Laden or whoever. They are "securing." Secure this place, and that place, and then someone gets "lucky" and a drone attack kills someone that, we are assured back home, was Al Qaeda's #3 in command. That job has an awful turnover rate.

* * *

There seems to be no really good standard for evidence that you can apply for a pre-emptive "national action," which is what a war like we're discussing would be. When Bush talked about WMDs, a LOT of people believed it. It didn't even matter that they weren't the people behind 9/11, either; people were convinced Iraq was a terrorist haven and needed to be flattened. To some, it wasn't even pre-emptive! It was "revenge and justice." One has to be very careful going down that slippery slope of pre-emptive war based upon good evidence. Good evidence for a pre-emptive action is also, by its very nature, incredibly urgent... which can also mean that the benefit of hindsight will reveal it wasn't really as reliable or urgent as it seemed at the time.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Is it possible to be pro foreign interventions, pro pre emptive attacks on countries that do not attack us, pro elective wars and be a Libertarian at the same time?

I do not believe that a person can be a neocon and libertarian at the same time. Having libertarian mindset is way more than just loving porn, pot, abortion or same sex activities. It includes a firm belief in certain liberties and rights for all people and not just for people of ones own race.

What is your take?

My take is that this is not a good promo for libertarianism to mainstream America. Especially considering a whole lot of libertarians disagree on these issues.

 

[Jace]

Ron Paul is not for pre-emptive strikes on any nation -- not Iran, North Korea or anyone else.

Schiff's talk of a pre-emptive attack on Iran just shows the depth of his allegiance toward Israelis, not to American citizens. Anyone on this site who imagines hypotheticals that would justify an attack on Iran is missing the point of Ron Paul's message. Similar hypotheticals were used to sell us on a war with Iraq.

We should never pre-emptively attack Iran. We should butt out of the Middle East. Iran is a Third World nation on the other side of the world that is a fraction of our size. Iran and its people are no threat to us if we just butt out and mind out own business.

North Korea has talked about boiling American babies in a lake of fire and nuking Guam, yet all these people calling for pre-emptive strikes on Iran don't give a hoot about North Korea and their nukes except on how it affects the balance of power for the Israelis.

I am dismayed to read justifications for a pre-emptive attack on Iran on this site.