Obama The Destroyer

[DarrinS]

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/15/obama-the-destroyer




If somebody were deliberately trying to undermine the very fabric of these United States, he would first vow not just to change its policies but to completely "change America," and then would do just about everything Barack Obama already has begun to do as president.

To undermine this nation, he would attack the essential sanctity of contracts -- exactly as Obama has done. Never mind the "contracts" clause of the Constitution -- who needs to get hung up on the Constitution's actual language when empathy is more important?

For that matter, he would denigrate the whole notion of equal justice under the law by criticizing the whole notion of a judge as a neutral umpire. And he would employ, as a senator, outrageous and unprecedented means -- the filibusters of judicial nominees -- to block judges who don't agree with his own choices of who deserves more "justice" than whom.

To undermine this nation, he would selectively release only those portions of intelligence memos that make his nation look bad, but not those that provide context and reasonable motivations for the subject of the memos. And he would selectively edit memos from his own intelligence director to eliminate his statements in support of the effectiveness of the policies discussed in those other memos -- and his statements supporting the motives of those who adopted those policies in protection of their fellow citizens. And he would leave open the possibility of prosecuting earlier administration's lawyers merely for giving legal advice he disagrees with.

To undermine this nation, a president would go on a spending binge so incredibly wild that annual deficits and national debt would reach frightening
proportions before most Americans could even absorb the arithmetic of it all.

He would be utterly reckless with our grandchildren's tax money, but would turn around and achieve savings -- minor savings at that -- only by cutting or even gutting defense forces.

He would stop paying for missile defenses. He would stop planning for forces strong enough to handle two regional wars at once, and would concentrate only on counterinsurgency needs while hollowing out our conventional forces.

He would repeatedly insult our closest ally (Great Britain) while kowtowing to enemies such as Iran, Venezuela, and Nicaraguan communists. He would travel the world repeatedly apologizing for supposed American sins while failing to defend the USA from verbal assaults from tinpot dictators.

He would submit budgets that would eliminate funding for an already authorized border fence, and nominate as top lawyer of the State Department a man who openly mocks the legal underpinnings of American sovereignty.

He would propose raising taxes on corporations, on soft drinks, on investors, on savers, on the grieving families of dead people, on small businesses, and on every family that uses public energy sources.

And worst of all, he would propose unprecedented and underhanded use of a parliamentary maneuver called "reconciliation" to ease the way to an irrevocable government takeover of an entire major sector of the economy -- health care -- without adequate debate and with firm knowledge that the takeover could lead to serious health care rationing and even government-determined decisions on life and death.

To undermine this nation, he would throw out more than two centuries of economic freedom in favor of a modern-day version of Mussolini's economic fascism.

He would refuse to prosecute vote fraud or even guard against it, while repeatedly awarding financial grants to organizations such as ACORN that have been accused of vote fraud on multiple occasions in multiple states. He would stack his Justice Department with highly politicized left-wingers. He would fail, until put directly on the spot, to offer the slightest rebuke to his hand-picked, ethically compromised Attorney General when said AG calls his fellow citizens "a nation of cowards."

In short, to undermine the United States, the president would, as fast as possible, create a massively debt-ridden, tax-ridden, regulation-ridden government whose prosecutors play political favorites but whose stances on the world stage are marked by weakness, self-criticism, and solicitousness towards one's enemies.

Surely this president has other motives. But even if his intentions are good, we all know the substance of the pavement on the road to perdition.

[Blue Jew]

eAaQNACwaLw

[Marcus Bryant]

Would he not also posit the notion of an unchecked unitary executive power lurking somewhere in the dark recesses of our Constitution and seek to extend the notion of a national emergency throughout much of his term?

And ROFL:


He would be utterly reckless with our grandchildren's tax money, but would turn around and achieve savings -- minor savings at that -- only by cutting or even gutting defense forces.

"Defense"? We can adequately defend this nation without military outposts in 80 countries across the globe. At least Obama is exposing the fake conservatives.


To undermine this nation, a president would go on a spending binge so incredibly wild

LMAO. Because the last one didn't?

Maybe Bush was the true Manchurian Candidate.

[MannyIsGod]

It is defense. Defense of the American Empire, on which the sun never sets.

[Winehole23]

For that matter, he would denigrate the whole notion of equal justice under the law by criticizing the whole notion of a judge as a neutral umpire. And he would employ, as a senator, outrageous and unprecedented means -- the filibusters of judicial nominees -- to block judges who don't agree with his own choices of who deserves more "justice" than whom.If you think the Dems have the corner on this, you're not paying attention.


To undermine this nation, he would selectively release only those portions of intelligence memos that make his nation look bad, but not those that provide context and reasonable motivations for the subject of the memos. And he would selectively edit memos from his own intelligence director to eliminate his statements in support of the effectiveness of the policies discussed in those other memos -- and his statements supporting the motives of those who adopted those policies in protection of their fellow citizens. And he would leave open the possibility of prosecuting earlier administration's lawyers merely for giving legal advice he disagrees with.Cherrypicking is exclusive to one party? Dream on.


To undermine this nation, a president would go on a spending binge so incredibly wild that annual deficits and national debt would reach frightening
proportions before most Americans could even absorb the arithmetic of it all.
2000-2008. It fits there, too.


He would be utterly reckless with our grandchildren's tax money, but would turn around and achieve savings -- minor savings at that -- only by cutting or even gutting defense forces.Obama increased defense 4% overall in the current budget. It's one big happy war party.


He would stop paying for missile defenses. He would stop planning for forces strong enough to handle two regional wars at once, and would concentrate only on counterinsurgency needs while hollowing out our conventional forces. Obama cut needless new systems in order to increase the number of troops. The Spectator hates that Obama wants to spend for more troops. I do too, but for different reasons.


He would repeatedly insult our closest ally (Great Britain) while kowtowing to enemies such as Iran, Venezuela, and Nicaraguan communists. He would travel the world repeatedly apologizing for supposed American sins while failing to defend the USA from verbal assaults from tinpot dictators.Britain is a 19th century power. We don't need their help. We'll see if Obama really kowtows to commies. It seems he prefers not to dignify them with a response.


He would submit budgets that would eliminate funding for an already authorized border fence, and nominate as top lawyer of the State Department a man who openly mocks the legal underpinnings of American sovereignty.Explain this, Darrin. I bet you can't.


He would propose raising taxes on corporations, on soft drinks, on investors, on savers, on the grieving families of dead people, on small businesses, and on every family that uses public energy sources.Taxes are going up., no matter who's in the White House. Structural deficits, debt, empire, finance sector bailout and entitlements require it. If we don't start raising taxes and cutting benefits with a quickness, we'll never get out of the hole.


And worst of all, he would propose unprecedented and underhanded use of a parliamentary maneuver called "reconciliation" to ease the way to an irrevocable government takeover of an entire major sector of the economy -- health care -- without adequate debate and with firm knowledge that the takeover could lead to serious health care rationing and even government-determined decisions on life and death.How were the Bush tax cuts passed? It's not unprecedented. Darrin and the Spectator have ADD.


To undermine this nation, he would throw out more than two centuries of economic freedom in favor of a modern-day version of Mussolini's economic fascism.Who started it? Paulson and Bush.


He would refuse to prosecute vote fraud or even guard against it, while repeatedly awarding financial grants to organizations such as ACORN that have been accused of vote fraud on multiple occasions in multiple states. He would stack his Justice Department with highly politicized left-wingers. He would fail, until put directly on the spot, to offer the slightest rebuke to his hand-picked, ethically compromised Attorney General when said AG calls his fellow citizens "a nation of cowards."Politicization of justice isn't a novelty. Bush was notorious for it, as was his predecessor. The GOP strives to restrict voting, because of non-existent voter fraud. Registration fraud does not equal voter fraud. if you disagree, show me the statistically significant fraud at the polls. And I mean prosecution, not paranoia.


In short, to undermine the United States, the president would, as fast as possible, create a massively debt-ridden, tax-ridden, regulation-ridden government.Again. this is nothing new. Where was this criticism when GWB was doing the same?


Surely this president has other motives. But even if his intentions are good, we all know the substance of the pavement on the road to perdition.We do, because we were already well along this path before Obama ever took office.

[Rogue]

It seems the american people still consider Obama as an immigrant rather than a native, it's undeniable truth that Barack wasn't born to be an american. He was born in Hawaii before that tourist palace joined the US fed, to make it precise, Obama immigrated to the US along with his hometown-Hawaii.

However, the background should never act as a stuff that may be used by some nosy guys in descrimination. There is no doubt Barack Obama has a crystal pure love for the US, in fact, the immigrants generally have more love than native americans do. It can't be any more common for a native american to be a american, native americans just take it granted to be born in america and to get a US citizenship natuarally.

But the way for immigrants to earn a place in US is quite rocky. With a strong insistancy and tons of efforts, Barack finally got a place he deserves in US, or even in the White House preceedingly. I suspect many americans don't like their country, but Barack Obama is definitely the last one I can throw any suspection on.

Barack has an elephant big love for the US, which doesn't need any stuff to prove, but he just lacks some feasible measures. That guy has been emphasizing the importance of education, of the efficiency of energy use, or the importance of new kinds of energy. He promised tons of dollars to make those projects happen, as if there were still numorous green pieces of paper in the central bank. The left-handed president has a huge and very dangerous tendency to becoming a left-wing politician, that's what I concern most.

--- MR

[Marcus Bryant]

Who started it? Paulson and Bush.



Well, the latest go 'round. It's amazing/interesting/disturbing how much the fascist characteristics of the federal government pre-Bush43 are somehow non-fascist. Perhaps it's a matter of degree, no?

At least I didn't see mentioned anything about the current president's lack of evangelism.

[boutons_deux]

dubya and dickhead indebted and committed the US to $3T+ with their bogus war-for-oil, doubling the national debt interest IN THEIR TERM, but the wrongies are just fine with that.

[exstatic]

It seems the american people still consider Obama as an immigrant rather than a native, it's undeniable truth that Barack wasn't born to be an american. He was born in Hawaii before that tourist palace joined the US fed, to make it precise, Obama immigrated to the US along with his hometown-Hawaii.

However, the background should never act as a stuff that may be used by some nosy guys in descrimination. There is no doubt Barack Obama has a crystal pure love for the US, in fact, the immigrants generally have more love than native americans do. It can't be any more common for a native american to be a american, native americans just take it granted to be born in america and to get a US citizenship natuarally.

But the way for immigrants to earn a place in US is quite rocky. With a strong insistancy and tons of efforts, Barack finally got a place he deserves in US, or even in the White House preceedingly. I suspect many americans don't like their country, but Barack Obama is definitely the last one I can throw any suspection on.

Barack has an elephant big love for the US, which doesn't need any stuff to prove, but he just lacks some feasible measures. That guy has been emphasizing the importance of education, of the efficiency of energy use, or the importance of new kinds of energy. He promised tons of dollars to make those projects happen, as if there were still numorous green pieces of paper in the central bank. The left-handed president has a huge and very dangerous tendency to becoming a left-wing politician, that's what I concern most.

--- MR

Hawaii statehood: August 21, 1959
Barack's birthday: August 4, 1961


FAIL

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, said we should draw back our influence abroad, and never get involved as nation building, and wanted to become more fiscally responsible.
He got voted in to do these things, and he did the complete opposite of all of these things, to the extreme, yet right wingers said we were supposed to blindly support him doing the opposite of what he got elected to do.
Obama said he'd spend, got voted to do it, and is doing it. Idiocracy.

[ChumpDumper]

Elephant big love?

[Yonivore]

Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, said we should draw back our influence abroad, and never get involved as nation building, and wanted to become more fiscally responsible.
He got voted in to do these things, and he did the complete opposite of all of these things, to the extreme, yet right wingers said we were supposed to blindly support him doing the opposite of what he got elected to do.
September 11 changed a whole lot of things.


Obama said he'd spend, got voted to do it, and is doing it. Idiocracy.
He didn't say he'd be making marketing decisions for Chrysler or nationalizing the banks and that's got some of his most ardent (read wealthy) supporters pretty pissed at him.

He also said he would reverse most of the Bush-era anti-terrorism policies and has completely changed that -- almost 100%. This has the rest of his lunatic base just livid.

[Duff McCartney]

He would repeatedly insult our closest ally (Great Britain) while kowtowing to enemies such as Iran, Venezuela, and Nicaraguan communists. He would travel the world repeatedly apologizing for supposed American sins while failing to defend the USA from verbal assaults from tinpot dictators.


When the United States imports millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil, then they aren't our enemies. Venezuela is in the top 5 countries of the world that the United States gets its oil from. The others being Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria.

And what the fuck is that last sentence about? This person is acting like a fucking kid. Waaa tinpot dictators are making fun of the United States and our President doesn't tell them anything back. Like a bunch of children.

[ChumpDumper]

"Don't you talk bad about the US, or we'll buy more of your oil!"

[exstatic]

"Don't you talk bad about the US, or we'll buy more of your oil!"

Bush's Venezuela policy, in a nutshell.

[Marcus Bryant]

September 11 changed a whole lot of things.


Yes it did. Should it have?




He didn't say he'd be making marketing decisions for Chrysler or nationalizing the banks and that's got some of his most ardent (read wealthy) supporters pretty pissed at him.

They're just pissed he's going to raise their tax rates. And I guess we're supposed to pretend that the GOP doesn't seem inclined to accept some kind of temporary nationalization. Of course, when the GOP engages in socialism, it's a temporary fix to a national emergency. When the Dems do it it's turning the American Eagle into a Soviet Duck.




He also said he would reverse most of the Bush-era anti-terrorism policies and has completely changed that -- almost 100%. This has the rest of his lunatic base just livid.

Well, it should have you "livid." If you were a conservative.

[Yonivore]

Yes it did. Should it have?
That's a matter on which reasonable people can disagree. Apparently, it did change things for the president.


They're just pissed he's going to raise their tax rates. And I guess we're supposed to pretend that the GOP doesn't seem inclined to accept some kind of temporary nationalization. Of course, when the GOP engages in socialism, it's a temporary fix to a national emergency. When the Dems do it it's turning the American Eagle into a Soviet Duck.
Nationalizing healthcare isn't temporary. It's yet to be seen if Obama plans to ever let go of the car industry or financial institutions.


Well, it should have you "livid." If you were a conservative.
Well, I'm a libertarian and why should it make me "livid" that the president is doing his constitutional duty to protect this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[Marcus Bryant]

That's a matter on which reasonable people can disagree. Apparently, it did change things for the president.


Nationalizing healthcare isn't temporary. It's yet to be seen if Obama plans to ever let go of the car industry or financial institutions.

Well, nationalization of the banks was the issue.




Well, I'm a libertarian


Bullshit.



and why should it make me "livid" that the president is doing his constitutional duty to protect this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Perhaps because it's not even in the spirit of the Constitution and in general, has greatly expanded the powers of the state. Not to mention the whole perpetual war for perpetual peace gambit.

A virtually unlimited view of the executive branch's powers during a time of "war" goes against everything libertarians believe.

[Yonivore]

Well, nationalization of the banks was the issue.
And, the jury's still out on what Obama's intentions are. But, current news is not reassuring.


Bullshit.
Nope.


Perhaps because it's not even in the spirit of the Constitution and in general, has greatly expanded the powers of the state. Not to mention the whole perpetual war for perpetual peace gambit.

A virtually unlimited view of the executive branch's powers during a time of "war" goes against everything libertarians believe.
That's a whole bunch of leftist rhetoric.

On the matter of the foreign policy and national security policies, adopted in the Bush Administration and, now being reaffirmed by President Obama -- I don't think we're even approaching any "virtual unlimited view" of presidential powers.

Now, if you want to talk about Obama usurping the rule of law in the car manufacturer's bankruptcies, that's a kind of bold departure from constitutional principle.

[Marcus Bryant]

Further, when will the state of emergency ever end? As long as the threat is from 19 guys with box cutters, perhaps never. Not to mention that there can always be nasty sounding hypothetical threats to dream up that would be used as justification of this permanent emergency.

Libertarians disdain war. Not only for the genuine human desire for peace, but also because it is far often used to expand state powers (which never seem to disappear) through appeals to nationalistic sentiment. Libertarianism is not some kind of nationalistic offshoot. It is ultimately individiualism.

[Marcus Bryant]

Nope.


Yes.




That's a whole bunch of leftist rhetoric.


The fact that you find it "leftist" shows that you are yet another neo-progressive attempting to cloak yourself as something else.




On the matter of the foreign policy and national security policies, adopted in the Bush Administration and, now being reaffirmed by President Obama -- I don't think we're even approaching any "virtual unlimited view" of presidential powers.

Now, if you want to talk about Obama usurping the rule of law in the car manufacturer's bankruptcies, that's a kind of bold departure from constitutional principle.

I've yet to see you repudiate the Bush's administration's extreme unitary executive views.

[Yonivore]

Further, when will the state of emergency ever end? As long as the threat is from 19 guys with box cutters, perhaps never. Not to mention that there can always be nasty sounding hypothetical threats to dream up that would be used as justification of this permanent emergency.

Libertarians disdain war. Not only for the genuine human desire for peace, but also because it is far often used to expand state powers (which never seem to disappear) through appeals to nationalistic sentiment. Libertarianism is not some kind of nationalistic offshoot. It is ultimately individiualism.
I'm sorry, I disagree with your whole premise so, I'm not sure we can have a discussion on the matter of how my libertarianism meshes with your world view.

I just don't see it that way.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm sorry, I disagree with your whole premise so, I'm not sure we can have a discussion on the matter of how my libertarianism meshes with your world view.

I just don't see it that way.


Sure you don't. Because you are not a libertarian.

[Yonivore]

Yes.
Nope.


The fact that you find it "leftist" shows that you are yet another neo-progressive attempting to cloak yourself as something else.
Okay, whatever.


I've yet to see you repudiate the Bush's administration's extreme unitary executive views.
Because I agree with them in the context of the Article II powers granted the president.

[Marcus Bryant]

Nope.


Okay, whatever.


No, it's not "whatever" and it's not "leftist." You don't agree with a fundamental tenet of libertarianism. Everything you post in here is nothing more than the bullshit neoprogressive view of the federal government which is directly traced back to Theodore Roosevelt through Woodrow Wilson and FDR. You are perfectly fine with the permanent military establishment which still sees American bases in Europe protecting the Old World from the Soviets and bases in Asia which are still fighting the Korean War. Your political views are most certainly not libertarian or even paleoconservative. It's amusing seeing yourself paint Obama as a fascist since you are the same. Just because he wants to expand the state in other areas does not make him a fascist and you a libertarian.




Because I agree with them in the context of the Article II powers granted the president.

ROFL. Precisely.

[Yonivore]

No, it's not "whatever" and it's not "leftist." You don't agree with a fundamental tenet of libertarianism. Everything you post in here is nothing more than the bullshit neoprogressive view of the federal government which is directly traced back to Theodore Roosevelt through Woodrow Wilson and FDR. You are perfectly fine with the permanent military establishment which still sees American bases in Europe protecting the Old World from the Soviets and bases in Asia which are still fighting the Korean War. Your political views are most certainly not libertarian or even paleoconservative. It's amusing seeing yourself paint Obama as a fascist since you are the same. Just because he wants to expand the state in other areas does not make him a fascist and you a libertarian.
I'm in favor of closing the European military bases. Doing so in Korea might violate our obligations in the region as well as put us at a disadvantage for probably future conflicts with others in that region.


ROFL. Precisely.
Glad to amuse.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm in favor of closing the European military bases. Doing so in Korea might violate our obligations in the region as well as put us at a disadvantage for probably future conflicts with others in that region.


Hells yeah. We can't ever possibly contemplate giving up the opportunity for future conflicts for the state so that it can usurp more of our rights under the guise of yet another 'national emergency.'

[Yonivore]

Hells yeah. We can't ever possibly contemplate giving up the opportunity for future conflicts for the state so that it can usurp more of our rights under the guise of yet another 'national emergency.'
So, there are no evils out there?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

He didn't say he'd be making marketing decisions for Chrysler or nationalizing the banks and that's got

He didn't? And here I thought you and all your buddies were letting us know that he and his rival were Socialists way back in 2007.
I mean, didn't you tell us thats what he was? And didn't the left vote him in because they wanted that?

[Yonivore]

He didn't?
Nope.


And here I thought you and all your buddies were letting us know that he and his rival were Socialists way back in 2007.
I mean, didn't you tell us thats what he was?
Yep.


And didn't the left vote him in because they wanted that?
I don't know why they voted for him. Stupidity defies explanation sometimes.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Stupidity defies explanation sometimes.

As does hypocrisy.

[Yonivore]

As does hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is fairly easily understood. Well, for me. I can see, however, you're having difficulty both recognizing it (in some) and misidentifying it (in others).

[Wild Cobra]

Sure you don't. Because you are not a libertarian.
There are different types of libertarians. The primary reason why we call ourselves libertarians is because we was as little government as practical. That does not mean we oppose war. We oppose authoritarianism, which means we oppose socialism, fascism, communism, etc.

[mouse]

I knew when Obama lied on Oprah that he was not going to run for president he was a fraud.

But at the time Iknew I rather have Obama than Bush or McCain in office.
But now I am seeing all his flip flopping and back pedaling on almost every issue, I am tempted to join Yonivore's Army.

[Marcus Bryant]

There are different types of libertarians. The primary reason why we call ourselves libertarians is because we was as little government as practical. That does not mean we oppose war. We oppose authoritarianism, which means we oppose socialism, fascism, communism, etc.

The reason you call yourself libertarian is because neoconservative is no longer politically attractive. Libertarianism does not maintain an endorsement of preemptive wars or a standing military empire around the globe.

[E-1101]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/obama-fix.gif

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh shit, the Illuminati are here.

At least credit Dan Brown for the idea.

[Wild Cobra]

The reason you call yourself libertarian is because neoconservative is no longer politically attractive. Libertarianism does not maintain an endorsement of preemptive wars or a standing military empire around the globe.
That may be what the party's statement says, but that doesn't mean all who agree with the ideals of libertarianism agree with all the written points. If everyone had to be in lockstep with the political ideals they state, we'd be a rather boring lot of people.

[Wild Cobra]

The reason you call yourself libertarian is because neoconservative is no longer politically attractive..
I'm in too good of a mood right now, but I'll respond to this anyway. You simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, it's a rather key component of libertarianism. And historically it's been a part of conservatism as well.

[Winehole23]

Usage is king. History is the dustbin. This line of argument never works. WC thinks he's the teacher.

[coyotes_geek]

Well, the latest go 'round. It's amazing/interesting/disturbing how much the fascist characteristics of the federal government pre-Bush43 are somehow non-fascist. Perhaps it's a matter of degree, no?

I'd say it's more about the guy pushing the plan than the plan itself. "My guy" wants to do something? Great idea. "Your guy" wants to do the exact same thing? Horrible idea.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, it's a rather key component of libertarianism. And historically it's been a part of conservatism as well.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national serviceI see nothing saying the party is against taking the war to a valid threat.

link:

National Platform of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/platform), Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado

[Marcus Bryant]

"Aggression" by another state, not "hey, they could do something sometime in the future so let's invade."

And you should notice the use of "defend" which does not condone an offensive military posture with however many bases around the globe. It is actual defense of the homeland against real attacks by states.

[Winehole23]

You know we've gone through the looking glass when you have to explain that pre-emptive attacks aren't defensive.

[Marcus Bryant]

For example:


http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-accuse-obama-of-hawkish-foreign-policy

Press Release

For Immediate Release
Monday, December 22, 2008


Libertarians Accuse Obama of "Hawkish" Foreign Policy
Party Says Obama Following Missteps of Bush Administration


America's largest third-party is accusing Barack Obama of pursuing the same "hawkish" foreign policy of his predecessor George Bush. "What we hoped to see with the incoming Obama administration were plans for a total withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq," says William Redpath, national chairman of the Libertarian Party. "Instead, we're seeing the same missteps of the Bush administration that have kept our troops in the Middle East since 2001."

This past September, the Libertarian National Committee passed a resolution calling for the withdraw of U.S. troops from Afghanistan "without undue delay." However, current Pentagon plans call for potentially doubling the size of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to 60,000 troops.

"Shifting troops from one front to another is not 'bringing them home,' as Democrats promised to do in 2006," says Redpath. "Obama is pursuing a hawkish foreign policy that should worry any advocates of non-intervention. He'll keep us in that region for his entire presidency."

"The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances," reads the Libertarian Party's platform. "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please email Andrew Davis at [email protected], or call (202) 731-0002.

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

[DarrinS]

You know we've gone through the looking glass when you have to explain that pre-emptive attacks aren't defensive.


If Israel takes out Iranian nuclear facilities, is that not for their defense?

[Marcus Bryant]

If Israel takes out Iranian nuclear facilities, is that not for their defense?

ROFL.

Our affair with Israel has caused us enough trouble. The last thing we need is the relationship dragging us into yet another war.

[Winehole23]

If Israel takes out Iranian nuclear facilities, is that not for their defense?Building nuclear plants isn't an attack.

When was the last time Iran started a war with another country?

[Marcus Bryant]

Building nuclear plants isn't an attack.

When was the last time Iran started a war with another country?

The best is when you start a war to convert another nation's government to liberal democracy. "W" stands for Woodrow, I'm convinced.

[DarrinS]

Building nuclear plants isn't an attack.

When was the last time Iran started a war with another country?



Iran is just going "green".


LMFAO


Talk about delusional. WTF was that missle they tested the other day?

[Marcus Bryant]

Well shit, we just created a textbook example of why you better have the real deal next door.

How many Israeli troops were a part of the 'Coalition forces' that invaded Iraq?

[Winehole23]

Talk about delusional. WTF was that missle they tested the other day?You know for a fact they plan to attack Israel?

Iran needs nukes for strategic deterrence. It secures their place at the parley.

Containment worked for the USSR for forty years. Why wouldn't it work for Iran? You think they have a deathwish?

Personally, I think the Guardian Council would rather keep their power than see their country -- and their ancient civilization -- turned to green glass.

[Marcus Bryant]

duplicate post

[Winehole23]

Also, Israel already has nukes, and has declared their intention to attack Iran preventively. What Israel fears isn't destruction IMO, but strategic parity with Iran.

[DarrinS]

Also, Israel already has nukes, and has declared their intention to attack Iran preventively. What Israel fears isn't destruction IMO, but strategic parity with Iran.



So, in your opinion, Iran has just as much right to nukes as Israel? Do I understand you correctly?

[Marcus Bryant]

So, in your opinion, Iran has just as much right to nukes as Israel? Do I understand you correctly?

Why, nobody could ever have what our lover has.

Based on the last 8 years, Iran could presumably invade another country because it wanted to convert its government to a form the Iranians preferred.

[Winehole23]

So, in your opinion, Iran has just as much right to nukes as Israel? Do I understand you correctly?That's their view. In power politics, there's no such things as rights. Iran is an NPT signatory and as such has the "right " to develop nuclear power.

Are you telling me you cede to international norms?

BTW, what "right" did Israel have to develop nukes? Or anyone else for that matter?

[Winehole23]

BTW, the fixation on (abstract, extra-constitutional) "rights" for this that and everything is a hallmark of liberal paternalism. In the context of geopolitical power politics, they don't make very much sense. Who could ever enforce them?

[DarrinS]

Based on the rationale in the last few posts, I suppose JFK had no right to tell Cuba they couldn't have Russian nukes.

[Winehole23]

Based on the rationale in the last few posts, I suppose JFK had no right to tell Cuba they couldn't have Russian nukes.That supposition would be correct IMO. Rights had nothing to do with it.

Cuba didn't have any *rights* to deploy nukes, and JFK didn't have any *right* to tell them not to. Any such *right* would've been completely ineffective by itself. Diplomacy backed by the threat of force won the day. Rights are a total non-issue here.

[Winehole23]

You tell me Darrin: What *right* did JFK have to constrain Cuba to do anything it didn't want to?

[jack sommerset]

America and Russia should decide who has nukes are not. Which should be NOONE. Attack who ever is trying to build a nuke. No troops, just send some bombs over until they stop. We have plenty of them

[DarrinS]

You tell me Darrin: What *right* did JFK have to constrain Cuba to do anything it didn't want to?


"Right" may be the wrong word.

As Commander-In-Chief, JFK had the responsibility to do what was right for the national security of the US.

So, sure, Iran has every *right* to have nuclear weapons, but it wouldn't be *right* to ever allow that to happen.

[Winehole23]

"Right" may be the wrong word.

As Commander-In-Chief, JFK had the responsibility to do what was right for the national security of the US.

So, sure, Iran has every *right* to have nuclear weapons, but it wouldn't be *right* to ever allow that to happen.That's much clearer, Darrin. But again, there's no *right* to nukes. You either make them or you don't.

[Wild Cobra]

You know we've gone through the looking glass when you have to explain that pre-emptive attacks aren't defensive.
We did start a Pre-Emptive War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emptive_attack). Not a Preventative War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war). Opinion varies on how right it was, but it does fit the defensive criteria.

[Winehole23]

Since when?I'll answer it for you. Since our invasion of Iraq.

Pre-emptive war is a novelty, completely without any philosophical or historical pedigree, and we crafted the criteria to suit the case. Too bad our casus belli (WMD) turned out to be a mirage.

[Wild Cobra]

For example:

Libertarians Accuse Obama of "Hawkish" Foreign Policy (http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-accuse-obama-of-hawkish-foreign-policy)
Like I said, libertarians are not of the same mind, in lockstep. Although I agree more with the libertarian party than any other, I will not register with them. They tend to get some rather unusual characters running for office.

[Wild Cobra]

ROFL.

Our affair with Israel has caused us enough trouble. The last thing we need is the relationship dragging us into yet another war.
I see. You're the type of person that runs away when their friends are in trouble. Yep, I get it.

[Marcus Bryant]

I see. You're the type of person that runs away when their friends are in trouble. Yep, I get it.

At least I get to choose my friends. I see you're the type of person who wants to force others to pay for military action that you don't actually participate in. I get it alright you fucking coward.

[Marcus Bryant]

Like I said, libertarians are not of the same mind, in lockstep. Although I agree more with the libertarian party than any other, I will not register with them. They tend to get some rather unusual characters running for office.

Bullshit. A libertarian position is not preemptive, pre-anything war. Find your nuts and be the neoconservative you are.