Iraq is nearly over. BTW we won.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Radar

If you have a gun and you are in their country, you are an invader. If they take up arms against you, it is in their DEFENSE. If you take arms against them, it's because you are a hostile invader.

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I'll try and keep this short and to the point. Yes, I am a belligerent. In the exact sense of the word, in keeping with the international rules of war. To be exact, I am a soldier. A uniformed member of the Armed Forces of the United States.

The guy or gal who picks up a rifle and fires rounds at me may or may not be an insurgent or a belligerent. They are certainly a combatant.

I really don't want to speculate as to what anyone else may think of me or themselves.

Thank you for your reply.

Originally Posted by Radar

If you have a gun and you are in their country, you are an invader. If they take up arms against you, it is in their DEFENSE. If you take arms against them, it's because you are a hostile invader.

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.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

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

what about this?

L. Paul Bremer, the former top U.S. administrator in Iraq, did not try to step between Iraqis and their weaponry. He issued an order in 2003 that essentially upheld Iraqi law: Every man and woman 25 and older with a "good reputation and character" was entitled to own one firearm, including a fully automatic AK-47 assault rifle, the world's most popular killing machine.

or this?

The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

[classicman]

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

[Radar]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

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.

Which is why you are a failure.

[lookout123]

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

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.

[Undertoad]

Radar, did they disarm Iraq?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Radar, did they disarm Iraq?

Are they still getting shot at?

[Undertoad]

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

[Radar]

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.

[Undertoad]

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?

[Radar]

Libertarian ideas and philosophy do work in real life not merely theory. They work perfectly in reality. They survive perfectly when implemented. In fact they worked in America for 86 years before the enemies of freedom started violating the limitations on government and making America less free.

Libertarian ideals aren't the anchor that sinks us. The Libertarian party itself is. The fact that they think shaking your hand and saying "good luck" amounts to supporting candidates. The LP is all about individuality and while that's great, a party that focuses so much on individuality attracts some who are freaks. People who walk around in Druid robes or butterfly wings, etc. These few people have made it tough for the serious libertarians to be taken seriously.

This plus the media outlets, and major parties practice exclusionary tactics. They will not allow us into debates and do everything they can to avoid giving libertarians equal airtime.

Most people have never heard about libertarians or if they have heard of them, it was from a third party who really knew nothing about libertarians.

Most Americans aren't very well educated. They were taught in government schools that they should rely on government for everything and that government is always doing what is best for us. They are taught to be collectivists from an early age. They have no comprehension of what freedom really means and they fear personal responsibility so much, they'd gladly serve their rights up on a platter to avoid having to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions.

This is especially true in my district.

I ran an informational campaign and a very successful one at that. I never entertained any thoughts that I'd actually win the election in such a rigged race and such a rigged system. With more money, my results would have been better. I only put in about $100 - $200 of my own money and the rest was raised online. With only $1,600 I got 8% of the vote. With real money, a campaign staff, and advertising, I'd have done better. But even if I had unlimited funds, I couldn't win in that district because of the reasons I've already listed.