Rick Perry-style troops on the ground
Airstrikes
Arm the Kurds
Let whatever happens happen
You completely missed the point here. Intervention has already occurred. I and I'm assuming you didn't want it in the first place. But it happened. Now the new threat has to be dealt with, like it or not.Originally Posted by NIU Students for Liberty
A ship full of pirates is one thing, almost 100k IS fighters with heavy weapons and SAMs is another. Who exactly is the US going to give these letters to that is equipped to deal with IS?
The US invaded Tripoli, Libya over that matter.
I thought the number was closer to 10,000. I'm not really an expert when it comes to letters of marque and reprisal. I just floated the idea. Gunny gave a more detailed response in another thread.
This situation seems ripe for Marque and Reprisal. If I were POTUS, I would deploy priority intelligence against the threat, once we have stopped a few live attacks (if they choose to make them), then draw up and make a case before Congress for Marque and Reprisal to eradicate their entire network, surgically. As in knives over guns, and make a bounty chart for private militia and private bounty orgs to collect up the network and bring them to our Marines alive or dead in exchange for cash payment of six to seven figure bounties each value depending. Run it like a well defended business with a mobile and hidden HQ. We support and pay the locals on the ground bringing us high value network associates.
Completely absorb the network creating the attacks, and only that network. Just vanish all of them in as quick a period as possible using local assets and international private militia (privateers) and then leave, preferably leaving as little if any trace of your presence ever having been. Take the network out as clean as possible and go home.
A subcontinental size operation would likely be just one platoon of MARSOC, maybe augmented with one squad each of Army SOF, Navy SOF, Air Force SOF or second Navy SOF element (depending on mission), a heavy Intell detachment operating hand in hand with CIA assets on the ground, and a heavy command element containing (probably) a Lt Col Accountant, in charge of the M&R accounts and disbursements. Payouts for captured or killed targets. It would have to be commanded by the Marines or Navy (therefore MARSOC being the primary, Could possibly also be SEAL operated Constitutionally...) for Constitutional reasons in situations short of a Declaration of War. Marque and such always go through Navy Branches for a reason.
The point being, if it is a legitimate threat, focus all those googlebillion dollar intelligence assets on the threat as necessary to intercept a live threat, if the live attacks do materialize, then make the case for terror-piracy and cut half a billion to a drawing account for a certain LtCol paying bounties for (preferably) living members of a terror network.
When we refuse to make their propaganda for them, there is less blowback. If a group actively attacking the US just kinda disappears leaving vacuum behind, well, it makes a hell of a lot less blowback.
It's in the 80-100k range now. Apparently once they took the Mosul area every extremist wanted in to IS.
Who's going to equip these mercenaries? IS has weaponry that US citizens can not privately own.
Letters of marque can not be used for foreigners. They are meant to be used by a US citizen who has suffered a financial loss to a foreign government. IS is not an internationally recognized state. Also a letter of marque requires the privateer to bring the pirate/enemy to court. What court would try IS? That issue has yet to be resolved with the gitmo detainees.
I just can't see this working out in the real world.
I'm undecided on what exactly we should do in Iraq, but I do believe that at this point ISIS represents a threat to U.S national security. You have a situation where ISIS assassinated a U.S citizen, where they've acquired a massive amount of weapons and a lot of wealth, where U.S citizens are joining the fight over there and helping ISIS and could easily come back over to the U.S on a passport, etc. I guess I'm just saying that this particular situation is far different from the original invasion of Iraq in 2003, from the invasion of Vietnam, from the war in Libya, the proposed war in Syria last year, etc. Intervention is a bad idea 99% of the time. Our foreign policy has gone off the rails over the last 60-70 years with our interventions in Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, etc. We've been far too eager to intervene overseas and get involved in wars. But this situation seems quite a bit different from all of the unnecessary wars we've been involved in over the last 60-70 years. I'm not saying that I'm advocating a certain strategy or know what we should do, but this group represents a threat to U.S national security that shouldn't be taken lightly. I don't think they're so much of a threat that we should send ground troops into Iraq and Syria, but other options should be considered.
So to paraphrase, you don't like intervention but Obama should continue to intervene. Sounds a lot like Bush's "I have to sacrifice my free market principles to save the free market."
Or maybe conservatives should advocate for the libertarian solution (peace) instead of causing more destruction in an environment already struggling with the destruction around them.
You have yet to present an argument that proves ISIS is a legitimate threat to the U.S. as a whole. Wanting to fly a flag over the White House doesn't count.
Seriously, when did this site become the Sean Hannity Forums?
As if arming the Kurds will actually bring about peace and stop ISIS. I'm sorry, but to put it nicely, that is magical thinking right there.
The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.
I do not suffer from Trump Rearrangement Syndrome. Sorry if that triggers you.
I wonder if the poll options can get fixed because right now they are flat-out embarrassing for a supposedly libertarian forum. The "choices" read to me like:
MIC/neocon "solution" #1
MIC/neocon "solution" #2
MIC/neocon "solution" #3
MIC/neocon strawman of libertarians
Reads like the Weekly Standard.
The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.
I do not suffer from Trump Rearrangement Syndrome. Sorry if that triggers you.
Since when does deviating from the non interventionist/libertarian line on one foreign policy issue make someone a Sean Hannity supporting neocon? I still think it was a stupid idea to invade Iraq, I think the Vietnam war was a huge mistake, I think that it was a mistake to arm the Syrian rebels, was a mistake to intervene in Libya, I support closing down all of our foreign bases and bringing our troops home, oppose all foreign aid, oppose bombing Iran or even placing sanctions on them, etc. I'm hardly a Sean Hannity supporting neocon or anything of the sort. I just don't necessarily think that non intervention is a suicide pact, that we can't even examine each situation individually to see whether or not non intervention actually makes sense.
I view ISIS as being a threat because they beheaded a U.S citizen, have declared war against the U.S and have said they want to kill Americans, have a bunch of U.S citizens fighting for them who could easily come back to the U.S on a passport and launch attacks against us, and have millions of dollars and an army approaching 100,000 that they could use to expand their influence in the Middle East. If they took over the entire Middle East and then refused to sell oil to us, the price of gas would probably go to $20 a gallon. Our economy would collapse and our people would starve. As I said, I start from the standpoint of non intervention and then only support intervention in rare circumstances, but we can't be stupid and just do nothing even when doing nothing would be extremely detrimental to our country. We have to examine each situation individually.
Who are you, what did you do with Trad Con, and why are you calling so many people here "stupid"?
I don't agree with calling you a neocon, but you definitely seem to have gone paranoid recently. This is why the WWII stuff matters. This is a perfect exhibit A example of why it matters. Any thought in my mind that it may have been unimportant, or that its even possible for any libertarian to support any US War post 1812, has been evaporated.
Again, I don't think you're a "neocon", but really, its kind of sad that there are actually people who are more hawkish than you in this country (and lots of them at that.) THat you're actually comparatively libertarian here says more about everyone else than it does about you.
Sorry, I didn't intend to call anyone stupid here. That isn't what I meant. I was just saying that it may not be smart to do nothing in every single situation, although non intervention is smart the vast majority of the time. Every situation still has to be looked at and analyzed. But libertarians can't support any wars after 1812, even after we were attacked by Japan and attacked after 9-11? Both of those wars were purely defensive wars after we were attacked. I don't see how using military action after an attack could possibly disqualify someone from being a libertarian.
Last edited by Brett85; 08-31-2014 at 07:56 PM.
So the overall foreign policy I outlined is hawkish?
I still think it was a stupid idea to invade Iraq, I think the Vietnam war was a huge mistake, I think that it was a mistake to arm the Syrian rebels, was a mistake to intervene in Libya, I support closing down all of our foreign bases and bringing our troops home, oppose all foreign aid, oppose bombing Iran or even placing sanctions on them, etc. I'm hardly a Sean Hannity supporting neocon or anything of the sort.
And who decides, the US government? Even though its our money and innocent civilians in other countries who's lives are at stake?
I'm sorry, but I'm pretty much all or nothing on this issue. The only reason I can even tolerate Rand's stance on this is that I think its 50/50 he's lying, and he's obviously playing political games anyway. But, if I had a chance to talk to him about it, I'd definitely be expressing my frustration with it.
More and more I'm realizing how incredibly important the concept of provocation is. The attacks on Pearl Harbor and at 9/11 were provoked, and the reactions were unquestionably unlibertarian. All of this stuff ties together.But libertarians can't support any wars after 1812, even after we were attacked by Japan and attacked after 9-11? Both of those wars were purely defensive wars after we were attacked. I don't see how using military action after an attack could possibly disqualify someone from being a libertarian.
Hawkish compared to the average American? No of course not. But I think we need all of the above AND eliminating the possibility of stupid interventions.
Well, if you start from the perspective that we shouldn't even have a government, it's hard to have a debate over these issues. I'm discussing this from the perspective that we have a government and the main role of the federal government is national defense and protecting the country and protecting the liberties of the American people.
True... the differences between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism don't seem that big until you get into philosophical justifications.
Why do you think some aggression is morally OK?
I guess it depends on how you define aggression. Whether or not it's a good idea to have some sort of intervention with what's going on with ISIS in Iraq, is it really immoral and an act of aggression to kill people who are killing other innocent people? If you walked down the street and saw someone holding a gun to a child's head and was about to kill them, and you got out your gun and killed that person, would that be an act of aggression on your part? I think it would be an example of you acting in the defense of another person. I think the issue of whether or not it's a good idea to get involved with what's going on with ISIS is a valid debate, and it may or may not be a good idea. But I don't see how it's immoral in any way to kill people who have brutally murdered tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.True... the differences between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism don't seem that big until you get into philosophical justifications.
Why do you think some aggression is morally OK?
I agree that its not immoral to kill people who have brutally murdered tens of thousands in Iraq, for essentially the same reason you just pointed out. I do think its immoral to accept "collateral damage" along the way, and to force the American people to pay for it, and to claim to represent the American people when the inevitable blowback comes.
I'm not advocating air strikes in heavily populated urban areas. If the ISIS members are hiding in urban areas among a bunch of Iraqis, then I think it would be counter productive to bomb them, as it would kill a bunch of innocent people and lead to more blowback against the United States. I'm only proposing the idea of targeted airstrikes, not all out airstrikes no matter where they are. If we bombed them while they were driving out on these country roads in their pickups, we would kill the ISIS members while most likely not killing any innocent people.
OK, that's a fair point. I'm not sure if its actually possible ,but this is an important thing to clarify.
When I go out my front door and head to town I'm much more concerned about being killed by a steriod rage police officer than I am by an ISIS suicide bomber.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
So we all agree intervening in Iraq this time against IS was wrong. Some say we have to take that intervention to a conclusion now that IS has threatened the US. Some disagree.
For those who disagree how do you stop the threat from IS? Nobody opposed has articulated a way except for stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and hope they don't attack.
IS ditched the pickups with machine guns and the hummers after the first airstrikes. They are proving themselves smart and adaptive.
Offer all our politicians as a peace offering?
Maybe "we" deserve to get attacked at this point?
The exact way the constitution intended, by securing the borders and repelling invasions..
This idea that invasions are best repelled when they are first spoken about on the other side of the globe is a theory foisted on the public by the MIC and their puppets.
A true sign of strength isn't acting like a scared bully and beating up any who have the audacity to threaten you, strength is remaining calm in the face of an assault and then beating the assailant within an inch of his life after he makes the first move..
In simple terms; "Give 'em enough rope."
Just to play devil's advocate:
If another country is actively in the process of sending transports with armed soldiers in our direction, with clear intention to invade US shores, I think its justifiable to send the navy out to attack those transports before they have a chance to land.
However: that's not what's happening here. Not even close.
AF could give a much better explanation about the line of demarcation in relation to our waters than I could, but this has already been addressed...
What our government is doing now is buying them the ships, footing the bills for recruitment and training, arming them and now threatening to kill them before they embark on the journey here...
A sane populace would be dragging our government officials into the streets and tar-n-feathering them before sending them overseas to deal with the mess they've made in our name.
This isn't WW2 anymore. The invasion won't be a million soldiers in troop transports. It will probably be a few guys who fly in on commercial jets or walk in from Mexico.
Seems like if they want to do it they will. But if we take out their leadership and funding source, hopefully it will just be lone wolf attacks like Boston and not coordinated large scale like 9/11.
Obama really got us into a good mess here.
And Bush (both of them) and Clinton, and Reagan,,,,, and so on.
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004
Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
It's all about Freedom
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us