Declaration of war, or letters of marque and reprisal depending on how you classify ISIS.Originally Posted by tod evans
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
What has this group of people with no country actually done that warrants a declaration of war?
I don't watch the Tee-Vee so my newz is pretty limited, I've read that they chopped the head off some dude they considered a spy and made threats...
Have they actually done anything else to the US?
*facepalm*
You said you weren't losing your anti-war positions, but it seems like you are. Don't fall for the propaganda. Don't support any involvement.
They have threatened the U.S. and are committing genocide.
I don't know that they have done anything else to the U.S. I have no interest to wait and see what they have in store, especially with out porous border.
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
Sorry man.
Not enough for me to jump on the war wagon...
War comes in all shapes and sizes. I wouldn't put troops on the ground, or even engage ISIS via airstrikes in urban areas. But I have no problem with organizing opposition and taking out supply lines.
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
I can't go for this "We're not really at war, our soldiers and equipment are just helping other folks." BS
Either declare war and an objective or GTFO...
But nobody consults with me.......
No kidding. The chemical and Bio weapons we went to war against Saddam over were GIVEN to him by US. ISIS were the rebels we were supposed to be backing in Syria against Assad. Now we are debating about going into Syria and attacking these rebels were we supposed to be arming.
Instinctively, I want to help the Christians in Iraq, but I don't trust these #@$^! murderers running our government. Even if it's just dropping bombs and no troops on the ground. Google: "Children casualties of US drones."
What is going on over there is due to the U.S. government following policy dictated by the Military Industrial Congressional Complex of which Cruz is a member.
When was the last time we were able to take out an amorphous terror group like this through military action?
I actually share a bit of a different view towards them than your average libertarian because I think there are many things we probably can do to help the situation but all through peaceful means. Given that we created the mess, we are in a special situation where our actions can influence the region in a very positive sense. Hint: bombing family members generally does not win people over to the anti-terror side.
Last edited by Anti-Neocon; 08-31-2014 at 01:53 PM.
The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.
I do not suffer from Trump Rearrangement Syndrome. Sorry if that triggers you.
That's a mighty bold claim. Please cite your source where Rand has advocated anything remotely similar to "bombing ISIS back to the stone age". This I gotta see.
This thread makes me smh. People still believe the beheading video is real? Sorry but if you honestly think that video is legit then you are a sheep and a moron.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
I lack knowledge about this incident. What leads you to believe it is fake?
The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.
I do not suffer from Trump Rearrangement Syndrome. Sorry if that triggers you.
Rand is still implying that airstrikes are justified, but he is being a little more subtle about it.
I do think it matters.
If one guy very reluctantly advocates a bombing that will inevitably lead to "collateral damage" because he doesn't see another option, and another guy seems almost itching to go in guns blazing, I'd say the second guy is worse than the first guy.
The problem is that they're still both bad. Rand Paul is continuing to play with fire... I just hope he doesn't burn himself (or anyone else.)
Ted Cruz, well, he basically already lit himself AND the rest of us on fire.
All of it.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
Can you name specific attributes of it which make it look fishy/conspiratorial? You're the first person I've heard say that and I'm just genuinely interested.
The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.
I do not suffer from Trump Rearrangement Syndrome. Sorry if that triggers you.
Easier to direct you to the plethora of vids already examining it.
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...beheading+fake
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...beheading+hoax
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
Watch it. There is no beheading.
'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...
I don't see how supporting one intervention makes one pro war. I mean, if I oppose 99 out of 100 interventions, but support one limited intervention with air strikes, that somehow makes me some warmongering neocon? I'm opposed to intervening for humanitarian reasons, but I support defending our country and responding to national security threats, and I think it's getting to the point where ISIS poses a direct and present threat to U.S national security.
The video itself was fake, but I read that it was still confirmed that Foley was killed off camera.
Last edited by Brett85; 08-31-2014 at 05:59 PM.
He didn't use the kind of rhetoric that Cruz used, but he said that he supports the air strikes against ISIS.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...k-Rise-Of-ISISRegarding ISIS, the Islamic State terrorist organization that has grown a foothold in Syria and Iraq, Paul said he supports airstrikes. But if he were the president in this situation, unlike Obama, he would have called Congress back from recess to sell both chambers on action—and seek authorization before using America’s armed forces there.
I didn't call you a "warmongering neocon." I think you're falling for some of the hype and starting to compromise to some degree. You're still more anti-war than the average American, not even close. But I don't think you're a strict noninterventionist anymore (if you ever were.)
I've come to the conclusion that it may be best to have a foreign policy where we start from the stand point of non intervention, where we start from the perspective that we shouldn't intervene overseas, and then only support intervention in rare circumstances, when we really have no other options. I'm just not convinced at this point that a strict non interventionist foreign policy is realistic. For instance, what if Iran were to close down the straight of Hormuz? If that happened, the price of gas would probably go to $20 a gallon. That would directly affect U.S national security. No one could afford to travel. It would destroy our economy. I think that non intervention is the way to go 98% of the time, but we still have to examine each individual situation and see whether or not it's realistic to do nothing. The vast majority of the time it's realistic to do nothing, and the vast majority of the time doing nothing is the best option. But it may not always be. But in the rare situations where we have to intervene overseas, I think Congress should have to approve it, there should be a clear objective and goals, we should go all out and complete the objective, and then get out and bring all of our troops back home. We should never indefinitely occupy a country and use our military for the purpose of nation building.
Last edited by Brett85; 08-31-2014 at 06:26 PM.
Do you really think that all we need is airstrikes to take out ISIS? Do you really think there won't be "boots on the ground?" We shall revisit this in a month and see how well this whole "take out ISIS before they take us out" strategy works.
Yes, but when that happens, the whole argument of "well, we shouldn't have intervened but we don't have a choice now because they're attacking us" is going to be thrown out. And people will fall for it. Traditional Conservative will fall for it... heck, I bet every minarchist falls for it. Why wouldn't they? After all, they think the State is legitimate, and the State was attacked, the fact that they provoked the attack be damned. Its Pearl Harbor and 9/11 all over again.
I don't think that Obama will send combat troops back into Iraq. What he's done his entire Presidency is launch air strikes but not send in ground troops like Bush and Cheney did. I don't see any evidence that combat troops are going to be sent back into Iraq, and I don't see how airstrikes are going to make it any more likely that combat troops will be sent there. Any AUMF that is passed, if there is one, will specifically exclude combat troops. Otherwise it won't pass.
Yes... we'll just conveniently keep 1500 or so "non boots on the ground that are actually on the ground" in harms way so we have a perpetual reason to bomb to "protect them"
'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...
That's a good point. I don't really understand why we need troops on the ground for the purpose of gathering intelligence regarding where to bomb. I would think that our CIA could do that.
Meh.
I would still point out that any military action taken against ISIS needs to be approved by Congress. The President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just bomb whoever he wants to whenever he wants to.
Because air strikes alone won't do anything to ISIS. For every member of ISIS killed by an airstrike more are recruited because we will inevitably kill innocent civilians. So without troops on the ground, air strikes will only achieve one thing and that is make more money for the bomb makers.
Ok. But what happens if we do nothing and they just take over Iraq and Syria? What would happen if they just took over the entire Middle East and refused to sell oil to us? The price of gas would be too expensive for anyone to drive. There are all kinds of terrible things that can happen if ISIS is able to take over these countries and actually establish their own government in these countries. If nothing we can do can actually solve the problem, then we may be in big trouble, because the entire Middle East will be controlled by a terrorist group that hates us and will try to collapse our economy by not selling oil to us.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us