Cite?

That all depends on your definition of who "they" are.

If you are attacking them I agree, If you are there defending and protecting them I wholeheartedly disagree.

So you watched CNN reporting and understood that "NOBODY" meant the entire country?

what about this?

or this?

If you are attacking them? You mean the way America attacked Iraq, destroyed their military and their infrastructure, killed civilians, etc.?

The U.S. Military has NEVER belonged in Iraq. Not for a single day. No actions of America in Iraq are defending Iraqi people from any dangers that we didn't create in the first place. Nothing America is doing in Iraq is legal, or morally or ethically correct. No American in Iraq is defending America from danger. No American soldier in Iraq is upholding their oath. No person who supports the war in Iraq also supports the Constitution. No person who supports the war in Iraq is a libertarian. Those are the facts. Here is my opinion. Those who support the war in Iraq aren't worthy to call themselves American.

America's actions in Iraq are those of a rogue terrorist nation that violates international law, and doesn't even adhere to its own laws. Anyone who attacks an American soldier in Iraq is attacking an invader who has no business being there. There is no defense for the presence of the U.S. military in Iraq at any point in history.

blah blah blah - Maybe your attitude is why you didn't get elected when you ran for office. See the thread about perspective.

1. I ran against a 20 year incumbant.

2. I ran against a black woman in a mainly black district where white people are 10% of the population.

3. I ran in a district where more than 80% of the voters are registered in the Democratic party.

4. I ran as a Libertarian which is like having an anchor tied around your waist and being tossed into the ocean.


I never thought I would win the election. I ran an information campaign. I gave the voters of my district someone better to vote for and got libertarian ideas out there. My attitude had nothing to do with my election results, and if it did, it worked in a positive way for me because I pulled down 8% of the vote (most Libertarians get about 1%) and I spent a total of about $1,600.

My attitude is the same as that of our founders...who were all libertarians.

Thank you for your reply.

Radar doesn't share .joe's reluctance to speculate, and does so con brio. I think there is a fair argument in favor of these labels though.

Each side feels justified in their actions. *Regardless* of the actions. Sometimes that justification is an appeal to rules, sometimes to fairness, sometimes to desperation or passion or history or hysteria.

NO ONE thinks their actions are unjustified, evar. There's always a "But..."

Always.

Where two parties agree on the authority, the jurisdiction of the source of the justification, whether it is the the law, the chain of command, the moral imperative, or the voices in their heads, there is harmony and solidarity. Where there is a difference in the respect granted to those sources of authority, there is conflict.

Radar, did they disarm Iraq?

Or, as in the case with Iraq (and many other situations in the past ) if America wants something, it gets it because it has the muscle to do so. Saddam went rogue on the US and so the US went all out to first correct him and then finally just get rid of him. Of course, they had to use a lot of subterfuge to do it.

Are they still getting shot at?

Are you avoiding the question in your own mind as fiercely as you're avoiding it here?

I've already answered it. American soldiers were kicking down the doors of homes in Iraq during and after the invasion of 1991. They were TRYING to disarm all Iraqi households. America also shut down the free press in Iraq due to unfavorable articles.

America failed in this, and after the insurgents started flooding into Iraq, America reversed its position.

That's a slightly different answer than what you've given before, so "I've already answered it" is not a good foreword. Also, your answers are unclear, so I ask for clarification.

Is it your position that Americans were disarming Iraqis of firearms between 1991 and 2003? Or is it that they stopped in 1991 and resumed in 2003?

The addition of "TRYING" and "failed" is a change in your position from what I gather. Can you point to some sort of source that indicates disarming Iraq of firearms was the military's position?

Which is why you are a failure.

Ever wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that while the ideas and rhetoric sound and feel really great, they just won't survive long when they come in contact with reality? Outside the little club called libertarianism the rest of us have to say, "that sounds great. now let's try something that will actually work. you know, beyond the world of theory?"

Your other three reasons for losing may be relevant but they're just gravy. You lost because you can't convince enough people that you have the ability to apply your ideals to real life.