Cuba, Non Intervention, Police and Race Baiting.

[Glenn Quagmire]

I've never completely understood the Libertarian/isolationist fetish with war declaration; in its history the United States Congress has only ever declared war five times.  Like it or not, the U.S. has a history of engaging in non-declared conflicts and interventionism of varying shades and degrees since it became a country. A good example of this is the Quasi-War with France from 1798-1800.  Declared wars are not automatically just wars.  The Spanish-American War is an example of a declared war that had questionably expansionist aims and made the U.S. an imperial power with its acquisition of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
 
The Constitution says Congress can declare war, but it doesn't specify how this has to be done.  Historically Congress has given assent to conflicts by either authorizing them, agreeing to fund them, or in the minority of cases, actually declaring them to be wars.  The Civil War was the bloodiest and most costly in U.S. history, but it wasn't declared.  Nor was Vietnam, which I agree was immensely wasteful, traumatic and unnecessary, though nonetheless funded by Congress.  A case can be made for the Korean War, or Korean Intervention if you like, since there are now about 52 million free people living in the Southern democracy enjoying the benefits of good international relations and a market economy.
 
Libertarian foreign policy seems to imagine the world community as a domestic community writ large.  Nations should act like sovereign self-respecting individuals with inherent rights and should only go to conflict in an agreed-upon manner for just causes.  It'd be a nice world to live it, but the truth is the world has never, ever worked like that.  The international arena is an anarchic system.  "Just war" is a lofty enough idea, even when Aquinas was discussing it, but in the several centuries after Aquinas "just wars" were basically nobles large and small squabbling over each others territory, a handful of pointless crusades, and then later wars of religion and counter-revolution leading up to the unimaginable industrialized bloodbaths of the World Wars; a millennia of conflict finally ended by, largely, American intervention.
 
The main reason the world has achieved unprecedented advances in technology and commerce in the last few centuries is because a handful of powers exerted such influence that they could guarantee the security of sea lanes and give backbone to international law on the seas.  Formerly and for a very long time this role was the pride of the British Empire and after WWII it was assumed by the U.S. Navy.  At the close of WWII the United States found itself a global superpower and the only nation left standing with the capability to oppose the world's remaining totalitarian ideology of communism.
 
Lofty also the words of Mr. Jefferson, 'alliances with none', and all that.  That's well and good when you're a marginal power on the fringes of the civilized world, but America's role and prominence in the modern (post-modern?) globe is vastly different than anything Jefferson could have imagined.  Once the U.S. became a modern industrial power, the more difficult it became not to be involved with foreign affairs.  Today the world is so instantaneously interconnected that pure non-intervention is impossible.  If you agree to trade with someone and not someone else you will be accused of intervention.  Is espionage intervention?  Are sanctions? Are warnings to other nations?  In a system where there are consequences to acting and not acting and you can be held to account for either scenario where does one really draw the line to what is and isn't intervention?
 
Simply put, until the U.S. can completely disentangle American interests and the economy from the global system it has spent decades shaping and maintaining it is going to find itself chasing or being sucked into foreign interventions.

Buy that man a beer. He gets it. The Libertarian ideal is just that; idealistic.

Isolationism disguised as non-intervention is not a successful policy. Anyone who has studied any history knows this.

As for ISIS, we must deal with the issue.

We gave them a clean map to spread by occupying Iraq and overthrowing Hussein.

For Eoleson to say that we created them ignores the reason for their formation. They would not have flourished if we had not gone in. That ship has sailed.

So we are where we are. We should go in and take them down using whatever means necessary.

As for Cuba, this is long overdue. Rubio and Cruz are pandering to the Florida Cuban vote. They know this is good policy.

 

[delldude]

Why do we have to deal with ISIS.
 
We need more body bags.

 

[Ms Tree]

Buy that man a beer. He gets it. The Libertarian ideal is just that; idealistic.
Isolationism disguised as non-intervention is not a successful policy. Anyone who has studied any history knows this.
As for ISIS, we must deal with the issue.
We gave them a clean map to spread by occupying Iraq and overthrowing Hussein.
For Eoleson to say that we created them ignores the reason for their formation. They would not have flourished if we had not gone in. That ship has sailed.
So we are where we are. We should go in and take them down using whatever means necessary.
As for Cuba, this is long overdue. Rubio and Cruz are pandering to the Florida Cuban vote. They know this is good policy.

I agree that ISIS needs to be dealt with and I tend to agree that we are a big part of why ISIS is in existence on the first place. Having said that, the rest of the countries in the area bear some responsibility as well. Given the history of the US in the region, I think it would be better for the U.S. to provide support in the form is satellite recon, munitions, intelligence and the like to the surrounding countries in the area. Why do we always need to be the ones to put us soldiers lives on the line? I don't high time some other folks put some skin in the game.

 

[SparrowHawk]

 
Do you wait until ISIS gets a foothold in other parts of the Muslim world (as they are working on), sea ports, air and naval assets, chemical and radiological materials, and larger territories of oil production?  Do you allow them more time and resources to wage war against civilian targets in Europe and the U.S. and more time to call aimless and angry young men around the world to their cause?  In other words, do you swap a limited campaign of aerial bombardment now for a massively destructive and expensive regional conflagration later?
 
In the 21st century the sentiment of "it doesn't affect us until it reaches our shores" is hopelessly anachronistic.

 
It affects us because of some of the things you mentioned regarding global entanglements. The notion of preemptive wars comes largely from the likes of Stalin and Hitler among others. Traditionally the US has used the Christian concept of a "Just War". We have the ability to destroy ANY Army at any time. Does that mean we have too? I don't think it does.
 
I would be totally and completely behind a Congressional Declaration of War voted on, approved and signed by the Commander in Chief. If ISIS is as evil as maintained (And NOT a creation of the CIA as some conspiracy theorists suggest) then let's get it on! Round up about a half a million US soldiers, sailors, Air Force & Marines and go over to Syria & Iraq and kick the ever loving feces out of them, pack up and go home. If they want help rebuilding their countries they can pay us in oil. I have no problem with the use of military force and one can certainly argue that beheading US Citizens is an act of war. So for me the basis of a "Just War" has been established.
 
As to Libertarians and declared wars versus the undeclared ones we've been fighting. What follows is my own thoughts on the topic. Not from any Libertarian Party line or the writings of Rothbard and others. For me a formal declaration of war does several things diplomatically.
 
1. It let's the world and our enemies know that the full weight of US Military might and its usage is supported by the civilian population. 
 
2. It lets the UN crowd know that we are a sovereign nation free to act as we choose and will not be bound solely to the UN Charter.
 
3. That contrary to AG Holders comments, International Law does not trump US Law.
 
4. A declaration of war fully informs those of us who will pay for it the scope of the mission
 
5. Going forward it lets other nations how far they can push before they are turned into dust
 
When your stated foreign is one of non intervention and then you declare clearly and concisely where the nation stands. To often our government tries to do things out of sight of the people, The more formalized our actions are the more transparent our policies become.
 
I's rather be in the position of saying to a foreign diplomat, "Do you really want the 101st Airbourne surrounding your Presidential Palace"?, then trotting out the military in limited roles with high costs in dollars and lives. If we pull back a bit and allow the threat of our intervention sink in I think our diplomats could do a better job solving issues. I've always been a fan of Teddy Roosevelt and his quote "Speak softly but carry a big stick" should be the essence of our foreign policy.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Isis....Smisis (in the middle east) who .. Gives 'A-F' !
Some dick-head muslim countries don't care what they do, OR quietly sanction the shiit they do. (Syria anyone)
While other muslim countries '####-slap' those bas-tards(or other muslim trouble makers) in a NY minute.
Surely Y'all remember what Algeria did (and how fast they did it) when a bunch of dick-heads fired a few rounds inside the Algerian Natural gas fields !
 
" F "   Isis !
 
 
 
PS,
 
Sparrow.
Serious question.
WHY do more 'Libs' gravitate toward the G-D .GOP, when the  " D's " probably agree with the 'Lib's more often.
THAT ol' friend, I could never comprehend !

 

[SparrowHawk]

PS,
 
Sparrow.
Serious question.
WHY do more 'Libs' gravitate toward the G-D .GOP, when the  " D's " probably agree with the 'Lib's more often.
THAT ol' friend, I could never comprehend !
 
 
The answer is simple on the surface. People have been conditioned (indoctrinated) with the belief tht a two party system serves the Republic best. So if you're MR. & Mrs. Average Joe/Jane struggling to get by and you blame the Democrats then there is exactly one place for you to go if you buy into (and most do) in the two party system  Most vote with their wallets and in that regard Obama hasn't been all that kind to them, so they bolt.
 
What is interesting now is that knee jerk reaction is starting to change. On a percentage basis the Libertarian Party is the fastest growing party However the fastest growing segment is people registering as Independent or no party. This accounts for some of the bile and venom spewed in the mid-term election cycle. Read Ralph Nader's new book "Unstoppable" for further insight into why Progressives and Libertarians are beginning to join together in an effort to take on Wall Street and save the Republic. They know domestically the two groups differ a great deal. However they also know the root causes of our current situation. 
I'm guardedly optimistic for our future as the younger folks realize just had badly they've been screwed.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Sparrow,
Thanks for a informative answer.
(I always knew deep down inside, I was somewhat closer to a 'Lib, than the Fn'  GOP) !
 
PS,
I'm heading for Barnes and Noble bookstores,....because I do want to read Ralphs latest !

 

[SparrowHawk]

 
I'm heading for Barnes and Noble bookstores,....because I do want to read Ralphs latest !

 
 
No one has ever accused Ralph Nader of being stupid or uninformed that I know of. Hope you enjoy the read. You have to remember that only about a third of the population actively resisted the British during the Revolutionary War. If Nader's point proves out and the coalition is formed that would be a bout the same one third of the voters with the R's & D's dividing up the rest of the voters.
 
With one third of the electorate, you'll see Congress Critters who aren't R's or D's. Legislation like "Audit the Fed" will land on the Presidents desk and that would just be the beginning of an Iceland style house cleaning of Government. Over time one of the current two parties will be absorbed and we'll be back to 2 parties.

 

[MCI transplant]

How's that NATO thing working out today with Ivan holding a gun to EU and their energy?
 
Find out real soon in the ME.

And what's the United Nations role in the world today? ------- It would seem the purpose of their whole existence has been convoluted to the point where they no longer serve a purpose! ------ They produce nothing, Solve nothing!

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

UN and NATO are different organizations. You responded to Dell's NATO post talking about the UN.

"Key difference: The UN is an international organization which was created to keep the peace between nations and help create international law and cooperation. NATO is a military and political alliance of different countries which was created to counter Soviet and Communist power."

http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-un-and-nato

 

[Ms Tree]

Did the Americans put in camps during WWII here in the US also cooperate with their captor? Should they have risen up and fought back?

 

[delldude]

Did the Americans put in camps during WWII here in the US also cooperate with their captor? Should they have risen up and fought back?

 
Dude...

 

[delldude]

UN and NATO are different organizations. You responded to Dell's NATO post talking about the UN.

"Key difference: The UN is an international organization which was created to keep the peace between nations and help create international law and cooperation. NATO is a military and political alliance of different countries which was created to counter Soviet and Communist power."

http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-un-and-nato

 
 Like I was saying:
 

 
Russia -- embroiled in a tense standoff with the West over the Ukraine crisis -- has identified NATO as its top military threat, in a revised military doctrine signed Friday by President Vladimir Putin.
The move, detailed in a 29-page document, comes just days after Ukraine's parliament voted overwhelmingly to scrap a law blocking Kyiv from pursuing membership in the Western military alliance.
Moscow's previous doctrine also named NATO as a top risk to Russian security and stability.The revisions announced Friday describe Ukraine as "a frontline of confrontation," though, and detail conditions under which the Kremlin could authorize the use of precision weaponry as "part of strategic deterrent measures."  http://www.voanews.com/content/russia-identifies-nato-us-as-major-threats/2574605.html

 

 

[Ms Tree]

Did the Americans put in camps during WWII here in the US also cooperate with their captor? Should they have risen up and fought back?

Crap. Wrong forum.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

 
 
No one has ever accused Ralph Nader of being stupid or uninformed that I know of. Hope you enjoy the read. You have to remember that only about a third of the population actively resisted the British during the Revolutionary War. If Nader's point proves out and the coalition is formed that would be a bout the same one third of the voters with the R's & D's dividing up the rest of the voters.
 
With one third of the electorate, you'll see Congress Critters who aren't R's or D's. Legislation like "Audit the Fed" will land on the Presidents desk and that would just be the beginning of an Iceland style house cleaning of Government. Over time one of the current two parties will be absorbed and we'll be back to 2 parties.

 
As you know,......'RALPH is cool with CAPITALISM,...........................BUT NOT......."CAPITALISM at Any CO$T".
and I further agree with you that I can forsee a merger of some sort between the " D's and L's ".
 
Sometimes it necessary to ....sleep with a lesser enemy, so as to defeat, or at least keep in HEAVY CHECK....the Biggest Enemy!
 
F   the GOP   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!