Should ISIS be an exception to nonintervention?

[56ktarget]

South Korea, in fact. The entire country would be living in a communist dictatorship if the US hadn't intervened. What's that? Nothing to say about the "destructive effects of American interventionist policy"? Lol, you need to stop seeing the world in black and white. Interventionism is neither all bad nor all good. Obviously it was good in Korea/Kuwait. It was bad in Vietnam/Afghanistan. I suspect it will be good here in Iraq, as long as mission creep doesn't happen.

[56ktarget]

Oh and lets not forget a small matter of ITS $#@!ING UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

//Rant really over this time

Yes it is. War powers act. Next.

[CaptUSA]

South Korea, in fact. The entire country would be living in a communist dictatorship if the US hadn't intervened. What's that? Nothing to say about the "destructive effects of American interventionist policy"? Lol, you need to stop seeing the world in black and white. Interventionism is neither all bad nor all good. Obviously it was good in Korea/Kuwait. It was bad in Vietnam/Afghanistan. I suspect it will be good here in Iraq, as long as mission creep doesn't happen.

Hmmm.... so by your logic, intervention is only good when we never leave? Doesn't that tell you something?

[Christian Liberty]

Neocons always want to paint the guy they want to go after as the next Hitler. Its sad that some people here are falling for it.

I mean, I know ISIS is awful, but they aren't in the same league as Hitler. And even Hitler most likely would never have attacked the US.

[acptulsa]

South Korea, in fact. The entire country would be living in a communist dictatorship if the US hadn't intervened. What's that? Nothing to say about the "destructive effects of American interventionist policy"? Lol, you need to stop seeing the world in black and white. Interventionism is neither all bad nor all good. Obviously it was good in Korea/Kuwait. It was bad in Vietnam/Afghanistan. I suspect it will be good here in Iraq, as long as mission creep doesn't happen.

We cut a country in half and divided countless Korean families. Now who's seeing things as 'all black or all white'? Physician, heal thyself.

And get over your God complex, too. Only the good Lord knows for sure what would have happened in Korea over the last fifty years if we hadn't. If the Communist regime (and here I thought you like overbearing governments) had to keep a larger area and populace under its thumb, and hadn't had a boogeyman so close, could it have maintained itself? Would it have remained as reactionary? The two big communist neighbors that helped it out did not.

As for Kuwait, we fooled Saddam Hussein into attacking with a promise by the George H.W. Bush administration that we didn't care if he took it over or not. Not saying he didn't want to attack, just saying he probably wouldn't have if old man Bush hadn't given him permission. Now we're on our third war there and millions have died, countless irreplaceable antiquities have been destroyed, and the cost has left us in more than half a decade of Great Depression. How the hell is that good? You need to brush up on your history; it might keep you from making an ass of yourself.

Death, destruction and debt can be good. Right. So we should go off half cocked every time the Military Industrial Complex says BOOGITY BOOGITY without ever pausing to ask if it's good or bad. Never give peace a chance. Never assume the little nation would be better off if we respected their rights and their sovereignty. Never miss an opportunity to try to make all the world pure and good like us. Even if we're just going to set up another one of our puppet dictators like Papa Doc Duvalier, Saddam Hussein, The Marcos', Idi Amin Dada, and the rest of the bloodthirsty tyrants that we have set up so they can soak the ground with the blood of the natives.

Excuse us for being too well educated in history to buy your platitudes, dude. But when you're supposed to be the ultimate authority in the most war hungry, killingest empire the world has ever seen, a little ignorance spills one hell of a lot of blood.

Yes it is. War powers act. Next.

All right child. Now tell us, firstly, how that makes imperialism Constitutional, and tell us where in the Constitution that resides. Article and section, please, or at least tell us which Amendment it is. We will be waiting...

[NIU Students for Liberty]

No, the government we pay did. Now we have to fix our mistakes and get a new government.

So once again, your answer is to force everyone to pay the government to repeat the same mistake that you supposedly opposed initially?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

We have different definitions of unjust and immoral war. All war is bad, but not all war is unjust. We have a difference of opinion. You vote your conscience and I'll vote mine.

And I wouldn't force anyone to go to war there, as I made clear only volunteering armed service members would go. So your argument is lacking.

Ok so in your Expendables scenario, who is still paying for that?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

What are you babbling about? You paid for those weapons those barbarians are using to commit genocide. You paid for the bombs dropped on Iraqi homes which killed children. Now you object when you have to pay for the stopping of a holocaust your money helped finance? I'll pay to stop the holocaust and then we can make some great strides in restoring the Constitution governance in this failing and corrupted nation.

Did KC consent to that money being used to fund those groups? No, so since some of us are actually consistent with our principles, we do not consent to having our money being spent to create bloodshed in order to stop bloodshed, or as you called it, a "holocaust".

And if you really cared about restoring this nation, you wouldn't continue ruining it by forcing it to get involved in another war that further destroys another nation.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I am not making you do anything. The Congress must approve, and it must be done by a volunteer army. If you have a problem with your tax money going to finance it, then call up your Congressman.

But you are making us go along with it if Congress approves of your war. Who's going to fund it? How are they going to fund it? Oh, that's right, through involuntary taxation!

And this volunteer army you keep bringing up (as if that is going to justify your argument), why don't you get up off of your ass, make a sacrifice, and join since you care so much about this cause? You are no better than scumbags like Bush, Gingrich, Santorum, and Obama, guys that want to use force in order to gain support for their wars but yet don't actually want to get blood on their hands.

[Madison320]

We're too broke to even have this interventionist argument.

[Cutlerzzz]

Because somehow destroying Libya and using their advanced weapon to fund an Islamic Jihadists uprising in Syria which then spirals out into what we see now in ISIS and Iraq instability is all about non interventionism.

$#@! you for the complete garbage you post on this site and now I know you are not any kind of recent immigrant. An immigrant who cannot see the destructive effects of American interventionist policy. Which country did your folks come from again?

Clearly, this shows the limits of Libertarianism. Us novices need to sit back and let the experts from the White House, Pentagon, CIA, American Enterprise Institute, AIPAC, Congress (especially people with lots of foreign policy experience, like John McCain), and experts with experience handling wars (the people who started the Iraq, Afghan, and Libyan wars especially, but also the people behind the Drone program and support for ISIS last year).

This demonstrates that the world needs the US government to keep military bases in dozens of countries and fight a war every few years to keep peace, because absent American occupation and war in Iraq other groups will move in and occupy/war there. We really need an interventionist government after all.

[jllundqu]

Maybe it wouldn't hurt to bake them some damn cookies instead of killing their people for a change. I like baking cookies and it's a lot cheaper in human costs than plundering, maiming and blasting them back to the stone age.

I have never heard of a terrorist group attacking others because of delicious cookies. Just something to think about.

I'm thinking peanut butter is the way to go, thanks for the idea. I'm sure it'd be illegal for me to send them any though.

Do baked goods count as 'material support' under Sec. 215 of the NDAA??



I see rendition in your future!

[jllundqu]

Yes it is. War powers act. Next.

Um..... What the hell are you talking about? The WPA has nothing to do with the current situtaion. And don't pull the AUMF crap, either.

Is this a congressional decision or did the Fuhrer make the decision on his own for more bombs and war?

[69360]

What did I leave out? The fact that you supposedly didn't support going into Iraq but now we have to drop more bombs to solve the crisis?

If you truly don't want U.S. citizens to be in danger, you don't drop a $#@!ing bomb and give extremists more excuses to recruit and spread terrorist cells.

But in hindsight, I was mistaken. You actually sound more like Mike Huckabee since both of you share this idiotic "you break it, you buy it" foreign policy:

You still haven't answered. How do you propose to keep the US from being attacked now that Obama picked a fight with ISIS?

You don't want to bomb them. Fine, how do you neutralize the threat?

You know they burn people alive in Nigeria?

They chop off breasts in Sudan?

They rape women by the scores across Africa?

Children lose arms to warlords?

Afghani generals pimp boys?

They hang people from bridges, their testicles castrated and forced into their mouth, messages carved on their bodies?

You know the United States murders babies? Tortures women and children? Trains, funds, and arms death squads?

Where were the humanitarians then! Sanctioning Iraq, probably, in all their Christian values. $#@!ing ridiculous.

Yes that's all horrible but in the end what happens overseas is not the concern of our government. But in this case Obama already got involved with a particularly nasty terror group. We can't take the bombs back.



I think the biggest problem in this thread and with RPF and liberterians in general is that all of you are great in dealing with principles and philosophy, but not so good at dealing with practical reality.

We shouldn't intervene in other countries, great I agree. But Obama did. Now it has to be taken to a conclusion or we are at risk.

[kcchiefs6465]

South Korea, in fact. The entire country would be living in a communist dictatorship if the US hadn't intervened. What's that? Nothing to say about the "destructive effects of American interventionist policy"? Lol, you need to stop seeing the world in black and white. Interventionism is neither all bad nor all good. Obviously it was good in Korea/Kuwait. It was bad in Vietnam/Afghanistan. I suspect it will be good here in Iraq, as long as mission creep doesn't happen.

If I could throw a book at you and you'd retain even the title, I would.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes that's all horrible but in the end what happens overseas is not the concern of our government. But in this case Obama already got involved with a particularly nasty terror group. We can't take the bombs back.



I think the biggest problem in this thread and with RPF and liberterians in general is that all of you are great in dealing with principles and philosophy, but not so good at dealing with practical reality.

We shouldn't intervene in other countries, great I agree. But Obama did. Now it has to be taken to a conclusion or we are at risk.

We need a final solution?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Obviously it was good in Korea/Kuwait.

Obviously.

I suspect it will be good here in Iraq, as long as mission creep doesn't happen.

That never happens.

[heavenlyboy34]

Clearly, this shows the limits of Libertarianism. Us novices need to sit back and let the experts from the White House, Pentagon, CIA, American Enterprise Institute, AIPAC, Congress (especially people with lots of foreign policy experience, like John McCain), and experts with experience handling wars (the people who started the Iraq, Afghan, and Libyan wars especially, but also the people behind the Drone program and support for ISIS last year).

This demonstrates that the world needs the US government to keep military bases in dozens of countries and fight a war every few years to keep peace, because absent American occupation and war in Iraq other groups will move in and occupy/war there. We really need an interventionist government after all.

Bull$#@!. Libertarianism allows for mental midgets and war pigs to go fight wars of conquest/intervention and run clandestine ops themselves. You just have to accept the consequences instead of shifting them to everyone else.

I've seen very few war hawks who actually spent time in a fox hole. Coincidence? I reckon not. Tell me, Cutlerzzz, where will you be stationed?

[pcosmar]

You still haven't answered. How do you propose to keep the US from being attacked now that Obama picked a fight with ISIS?

You don't want to bomb them. Fine, how do you neutralize the threat?

I don't.. I am not threatened by them at all.
And our government has no intention of doing anything about them,, or they would have and could have long ago.

We knew exactly where they were when they attacked military bases.. and those bases could have been leveled at that time destroying all the equipment and fighters present.
And when all that equipment was moved,, the convoys could have been hit,, with little or no collateral damage.

It was not.

[kcchiefs6465]

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/ve...=310&pid=66497

Tom Woods interviews Ron Paul on the matter.

[jllundqu]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kcchiefs6465 again.

THanks, listening to it now

[pcosmar]

I don't.. I am not threatened by them at all.
And our government has no intention of doing anything about them,, or they would have and could have long ago.

We knew exactly where they were when they attacked military bases.. and those bases could have been leveled at that time destroying all the equipment and fighters present.
And when all that equipment was moved,, the convoys could have been hit,, with little or no collateral damage.

It was not.

Ok,, I need to add this too..
Non-interventionism is a fantasy. it is a fantasy I like,, but a fantasy just the same.

As far as ISIS.. We just handed them the country on a Silver Platter. They Just got their very best PH Recruiting tool,, at the cost of one HumV and one mortar crew. (our very limited strikes were not meant to hurt them)

The Great Satan came to save the devil worshipers,,,

Watch their numbers grow,, and the New Government of Iraq embrace them.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm seeing references to State transfer of weapons. Germany, France, etc aren't private entities. They're States.

Private companies make and sell arms. Government regulates the sales of those arms.

[orenbus]

[robert68]

Private companies make and sell arms. Government regulates the sales of those arms.

If half or more of a company's income is from the government, it's not private.

[Brian4Liberty]

"American cities on fire! Boogity boogity!"

Is ISIS ‘An Existential Threat’?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

U.S. air strikes since Friday have opened a corridor through which tens of thousands of Yazidis, trapped and starving on a mountain in Iraq, have escaped to safety in Kurdistan.

The Kurds, whose peshmerga fighters were sent reeling by the Islamic State last week, bolstered now by the arrival of U.S. air power, recaptured two towns. But the peshmerga have apparently lost the strategically important town of Jalawla, 20 miles from Iran, the furthest east that ISIS forces have penetrated.

Last week’s gains by the Islamic State caused Republican hawks to flock to the Sunday talk shows.

“ISIS is a direct threat to the United States of America,” said Rep. Peter King, John McCain called for bombing ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

But using air power to prevent ISIS from seizing the Kurdish capital of Irbil and Baghdad is not enough, said Sen. Lindsey Graham. “We need to go on offense,” he told FOX News, “There is no force within the Mideast that can neutralize or contain or destroy ISIS without at least American air power.”

The Islamic State is “an existential threat” to our homeland, Graham added, asking, “do we really want to let America be attacked?”

Came then this warning from Sen. Graham:

“If he [Obama] does not go on the offensive against ISIS, ISIL, whatever you want to call these guys, they’re coming here. This is not just about Baghdad, not just about Syria. It is about our homeland.”

“I think of an American city in flames because of the terrorists’ ability to operate in Syria and Iraq,” said Graham, “Mr. President … what is your strategy to stop these people from attacking the homeland?”

This semi-hysterical talk of an “existential threat” to the “homeland,” and the dread specter of “an American city in flames” is vintage war party, designed to panic us into launching a new war.

But before allowing these “Cassandras” to stampede us back into the civil-sectarian Middle East wars that resulted from our previous interventions, let us inspect more closely what they are saying.

If ISIS’ gains are truly an “existential threat” to the republic and our cities are about to “go up in flames,” why did these Republican hawks not demand that President Obama call back Congress from its five-week vacation to vote to authorize a new war on ISIS in Syria and Iraq?

After all, King, McCain and Graham belong to a party that is suing the president for usurping Congressional powers.

Yet, they are also demanding that Obama start bombing nations he has no authority to bomb, as ISIS has not attacked us.

King, McCain and Graham want Obama to play imperial president and launch a preemptive war that their own Congress has not authorized.

What kind of constitutionalists, what kind of conservatives are these?
...
More:
http://buchanan.org/blog/isis-existential-threat-6867

[heavenlyboy34]

Ok,, I need to add this too..
Non-interventionism is a fantasy. it is a fantasy I like,, but a fantasy just the same.

As far as ISIS.. We just handed them the country on a Silver Platter. They Just got their very best PH Recruiting tool,, at the cost of one HumV and one mortar crew. (our very limited strikes were not meant to hurt them)

The Great Satan came to save the devil worshipers,,,

Watch their numbers grow,, and the New Government of Iraq embrace them.

Non-interventionism is not at all fantasy. It's a matter of minding one's own damn business. Interventionist philosophy is just a type of White Knight Syndrome. All fantasy. Even if you wanted to butt into every petty conflict around the world, it would be an exercise in futility. People have to work out conflicts for themselves. It's just a fact of nature. The best you can get from forcing people (intervening) to "get along" is armistice-which is not at all "peace"-and definitely not a lasting ("durable" in diplomat-speak) solution.

[Cutlerzzz]

Bull$#@!. Libertarianism allows for mental midgets and war pigs to go fight wars of conquest/intervention and run clandestine ops themselves. You just have to accept the consequences instead of shifting them to everyone else.

I've seen very few war hawks who actually spent time in a fox hole. Coincidence? I reckon not. Tell me, Cutlerzzz, where will you be stationed?

Ill be paying my taxes like a Patriotic American to support the war for our great heros. The fact is that America needs to save the day again and Libertarians can't do it. It's time to allow the experts in Washington to handle it. They already have lots of experience in Iraq, they know what they're doing.

[pcosmar]

Non-interventionism is not at all fantasy. It's a matter of minding one's own damn business. Interventionist philosophy is just a type of White Knight Syndrome. All fantasy. Even if you wanted to butt into every petty conflict around the world, it would be an exercise in futility. People have to work out conflicts for themselves. It's just a fact of nature. The best you can get from forcing people (intervening) to "get along" is armistice-which is not at all "peace"-and definitely not a lasting ("durable" in diplomat-speak) solution.

My point is that intervention is the present, and foreseeable reality. It has been policy for over 100 years.
It is reality,, the desire for non interventionism is fine,, but it is not a reality.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ill be paying my taxes like a Patriotic American to support the war for our great heros. The fact is that America needs to save the day again and Libertarians can't do it. It's time to allow the experts in Washington to handle it. They already have lots of experience in Iraq, they know what they're doing.

Ah, White Knight Syndrome with tinges of Chicken Hawk fever. I suspected as much.