Thomas Massie opposes military strikes in Iraq

[tsai3904]

Ky Congressional delegation split on U.S. airstrikes in Iraq

Members of Kentucky and Indiana's congressional delegations are expressing a wide variety of reactions to U.S. airstrikes in Iraq.

...

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky 4th Congressional District) argues that President Obama should have sought congressional approval for the airstrikes against militants in northern Iraq.

"Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress—not the President—the power to declare war," Massie said in a statement to WHAS11. "These air strikes require congressional authorization, and the American people deserve open debate by their elected officials."

Massie contends that America's national security interests in Iraq are unclear, because Iraq poses no imminent threat.

"And, because the President has not articulated a long term strategy, I would vote against authorizing the use of military force in Iraq," Massie added.

...

More:
http://www.whas11.com/news/politics...es-warns-against-ground-troops-270498331.html

 

[Christian Liberty]

Good for Massie

I haven't heard anything from Rand yet, is he opposed?

 

[Brett85]

Massie is the best we have in Congress on foreign policy. He's pretty close to Ron on foreign policy.

 

[Brett85]

You don't have to guess where Ron stands on this.

https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/ph...6.277590.6233046685/10153313130336686/?type=1

BTW, the comments are surprisingly bad. Not a good sign.

 

[CaptUSA]

BTW, the comments are surprisingly bad. Not a good sign.

WOW! You're not kidding! And on Ron Paul's page! The media has really done a number on the American public.

 

[Brett85]

WOW! You're not kidding! And on Ron Paul's page! The media has really done a number on the American public.

I'm seeing comments from people calling themselves libertarians on Facebook and other forums who are all in favor of the air strikes in Iraq. It almost seems like the movement is being coopted to me.

 

[CaptUSA]

I'm seeing comments from people calling themselves libertarians on Facebook and other forums who are all in favor of the air strikes in Iraq. It almost seems like the movement is being coopted to me.

They are just responding to the dog whistle. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?457517-Iraq-ISIS-Terrorists-Still-Killing-Christians-Beheading-Children&p=5611340#post5611340

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm seeing comments from people calling themselves libertarians on Facebook and other forums who are all in favor of the air strikes in Iraq. It almost seems like the movement is being coopted to me.

Indeed. More and more I'm considering ditching the libertarian label.

 

[Brett85]

Indeed. More and more I'm considering ditching the libertarian label.

I never accepted it. I just don't think that using our military to police the world is a conservative position. The conservative position is to have a strong military and use them for deterrence, to scare off any country that's considering attacking us.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I never accepted it. I just don't think that using our military to police the world is a conservative position. The conservative position is to have a strong military and use them for deterrence, to scare off any country that was considering attacking us.

I understand. We aren't the same on all our positions but we're more or less the same here (we probably disagree on the concept of a standing army, and obviously I don't believe taxation should exist so any military would have to be voluntarily funded, but that's a long way off anyway.) But really, its not people like you that are making me consider ditching the label. I'm fine with the various levels of extremes in libertarianism. If clarification is needed, I'll say I'm an ancap and/or a voluntarist, while you'd be some variation of minarchist or classical liberal. My issue is the fact that "libertarian" is rapidly becoming more of a socially liberal, fiscally somewhat conservative movement. When gay marriage is getting more attention in "libertarian" circles than ending social security or bringing our troops home, something is wrong.

 

[Brett85]

My issue is the fact that "libertarian" is rapidly becoming more of a socially liberal, fiscally somewhat conservative movement. When gay marriage is getting more attention in "libertarian" circles than ending social security or bringing our troops home, something is wrong.

Exactly. The media believes that anyone who's "fiscally conservative" and supports gay marriage is a libertarian. By that standard, you could say that John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, Rob Portman, and many others are "libertarians."

 

[Christian Liberty]

Exactly. The media believes that anyone who's "fiscally conservative" and supports gay marriage is a libertarian. By that standard, you could say that John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, Rob Portman, and many others are "libertarians."

This is why I'm seriously considering just saying I'm a voluntarist and letting that be the end of it. The term "libertarian" is becomming utterly useless. "Anarcho-capitalist" is a good one as well, albeit somewhat misleading in the sense that when most people hear "anarcho-anything" they assume chaos and lawlessness. But at least that type of label gets people asking questions. The last thing I want is to identify myself as libertarian and have some stupid Republican be like "OK he supports abortion and gay marriage but agrees with us on the important stuff*"

*Anti-abortion is important to me, but not to the neocons.

 

[Warlord]

the 2003 authorization is still on the books. Like or not the prez has the authority to do this until Congess deauthorizes

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

You don't have to guess where Ron stands on this.

https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/ph...6.277590.6233046685/10153313130336686/?type=1

BTW, the comments are surprisingly bad. Not a good sign.

I'm seeing comments from people calling themselves libertarians on Facebook and other forums who are all in favor of the air strikes in Iraq. It almost seems like the movement is being coopted to me.

Happened a while ago. People - myself included - warned about this in 2009. We were mocked, called purists, etc. It's only going to get worse.

 

[Warlord]

Happened a while ago. People - myself included - warned about this in 2009. We were mocked, called purists, etc. It's only going to get worse.

The media and its propaganda are very powerful tools

 

[osan]

Mr. Goodmoney, allow me to introduce you to your predecessor, Mr. Badmoney.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

 

[TaftFan]

WOW! You're not kidding! And on Ron Paul's page! The media has really done a number on the American public.

No, genocide is just a very unique foreign policy scenario. I'm not looking to start a debate on the specifics, but I don't think hypothetically that stopping genocide should be outside the realm of a libertarian-minded foreign policy, and neither do all of the supporters on his page.

 

[Christian Liberty]

the 2003 authorization is still on the books. Like or not the prez has the authority to do this until Congess deauthorizes

The 2003 authorization wasn't a declaration of war, and thus unconstitutional.

I know you don't like it either, but we are constitutionally in the right here as well.

Happened a while ago. People - myself included - warned about this in 2009. We were mocked, called purists, etc. It's only going to get worse.

I know.

No, genocide is just a very unique foreign policy scenario. I'm not looking to start a debate on the specifics, but I don't think hypothetically that stopping genocide should be outside the realm of a libertarian-minded foreign policy, and neither do all of the supporters on his page.

*VOMIT*

You're a (mod edit) to, TaftFan. I've known that since the beginning. And I believe I'm on the record for saying so before. People like you are

No, genocide is not a unique situation for libertarian foreign policy, and there is not a single libertarian anywhere that believes it is the job of the US government to stop genocide.

 

[Brett85]

I don't see how genocide is a unique foreign policy scenario. It happens all the time all around the world. If stopping genocide is now the criteria for supporting overseas intervention, we're going to have non stop military interventions all around the world.