NationStates Jolt Archive

Talk of Iraq in Monday's State of the Union address reignites Party's call for Iraq exit

Washington, D.C. - After Monday's State of the Union address delivered by President George W. Bush, the Libertarian Party is renewing its call for a safe and timely troop withdrawal from Iraq. "President Bush's State of the Union address once again emphasized his desire to remain in Iraq without any finite objective or operational goal," says William Redpath, chairman of the Libertarian Party.

"While we are pleased to see a decline in violence in Iraq, this should by no means become a mandate for sustaining our presence in the country," says Redpath. "We were wrong for invading Iraq, and we as a country have paid for that mistake in dollars and blood. Our obligation is not to Iraq, or any other nation in the world. Our obligation is to our soldiers: to keep them as safe as possible and to use them only in the direct defense of our nation. Each day we remain in Iraq is a rebuke of the promise we have made to the members of our Armed Forces."

The Libertarian Party believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, which stresses trade with all nations of the world, but condemns pre-emptive warfare that initiates hostilities. The Libertarian Party believes the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq violated this non-interventionist stance.

"The president says he will return our troops 'on success,' but never identifies what this 'success' is," says Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian Party and a Marine Corps veteran. "Is success a free and democratic Iraq? Is success an Iraq without terrorists? Is success a peaceful Iraq? All of these are things that most of America wants to see, but they are not clear and reasonable objectives for our military to achieve. Without a realistic endgame, the president is setting America up for a perpetual state of war for decades to come."

"We must leave Iraq as quickly as possible in a matter that is consistent with the safety of our troops," Redpath concludes. "Democracy cannot come from the barrel of a gun, and to try to force it into existence only results in catastrophe. Every day that we continue the occupation of Iraq is another day that our troops are in harm's way and another day that we have failed to learn from our mistakes."

Link (http://www.lp.org/media/article_563.shtml)

See, we are not filled with nuts, some of us are quite sane, thank you very much! :p As usual, I'd have to agree with my party on this, we really should pull out of Iraq and use our military for a defense purpose only.

What counts as a defensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_%28military%29) purpose?

What counts as a defensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_%28military%29) purpose?

For me, it's not doing pre-emptive strikes like we did in Iraq, but only attack after we've been attack and only attack the people who attacked us. the war in Afghanistan was the correct war, we should've stayed in Afghanistan and never gone to Iraq.

Link (http://www.lp.org/media/article_563.shtml)

See, we are not filled with nuts, some of us are quite sane, thank you very much! :p As usual, I'd have to agree with my party on this, we really should pull out of Iraq and use our military for a defense purpose only.Wee! Our obligation is to our soldiers! We owe the people who's lives we ruined nothing!

Having the sensible stance on Iraq doesn't mean some one isn't a nutjob.

For me, it's not doing pre-emptive strikes like we did in Iraq, but only attack after we've been attack and only attack the people who attacked us. the war in Afghanistan was the correct war, we should've stayed in Afghanistan and never gone to Iraq.

So what happens to dictators who perform genocide?

I think if the US had waited until they had a nod from the UN then they should have gone in. This would give more time to gain allies around Iraq and gain public support within Iraq, rather than the reverse when going in commando and bombing the hell out of it.

The Libertarian Party believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, which stresses trade with all nations of the world, but condemns pre-emptive warfare that initiates hostilities.
So even if the US is able to intervene to protect the individual rights of a people, they should not? There was me thinking libertarians believed in a human being's absolute rights. But apparently, they apply only when you have US citizenship.

Having the sensible stance on Iraq doesn't mean some one isn't a nutjob.

Having an unwanted association with a nutjob doesn't make one a nutjob.

But pulling out of Iraq is not a rational decision, it is a decision (in this case) based on ideology, or the isolationist American libertarian ideology, which isn't necessarily completely sound.

Having an unwanted association with a nutjob doesn't make one a nutjob.
Gee, that was totally irrelevant to what I said since I didn't call anyone a nutjob. Maybe next time you do that, you should be funny. Like talk about how Santa Claus doesn't tigers in the Atlantic Ocean.

Gee, that was totally irrelevant to what I said since I didn't call anyone a nutjob.

It was relevant because you certainly implied that the Libertarian Party does have nutjobs or a nutjob viewpoint.

Maybe next time you do that, you should be funny. Like talk about how Santa Claus doesn't tigers in the Atlantic Ocean.

I think I'll let you be mister funny man, since you are clearly the superior wit.

Irrelevance much?

So even if the US is able to intervene to protect the individual rights of a people, they should not? There was me thinking libertarians believed in a human being's absolute rights. But apparently, they apply only when you have US citizenship.

Libertarians also believe in the non-aggression principle.

Wee! Our obligation is to our soldiers! We owe the people who's lives we ruined nothing!

What's even better are some of the "Libertarians" I've run into who think the United States should loot the place on the way out, in order to recuperate some of that lost treasure. I asked whether a "Libertarian" would support the right of a home invader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion) to loot his victim on the way out (think of the cost/risk!!!), or if said home invader should face prosecution or even have to pay restitution to his victim.

I'm told I'm some kind of "communist."

"Individual responsibility" apparently means "when we act collectively, nobody is responsible."

So even if the US is able to intervene to protect the individual rights of a people, they should not?


No, the US should not. Only a coalition composed of Member States of the United Nations, acting with the authorization of the Security Council, possesses any such mandate or power.

So what happens to dictators who perform genocide?


Such a dictator should be deposed and captured alive by a coalition force composed of, and authorized to act by, the United Nations. Then, said dictator should be turned over to the International Criminal Court for prosecution.

Of course, the United States does not adhere to the International Criminal Court (or the rest of the United Nations, by any practical measure). Neither does the "Libertarian" Party support any so-called "world government."

Thus, encouraging US interventionism is to encourage wholesale violation of international law.

So, no, the United States should not take an active interventionist role. Not only is it illegal for an individual member of the United Nations to do so, but it's likely to end poorly anyway.

Thus, encouraging US interventionism is to encourage wholesale violation of international law.


There is no such thing as International Law. Only International Treaties, which do not have the force of law.

Having an unwanted association with a nutjob doesn't make one a nutjob.

of course, given the nutjob nature of so many of the key players in the libert movement in general and party in particular, the 'unwanted association' is a bit tenuous.

I'd disagree that this is the sensible option. If we have to be in Iraq for another fifty years, so be it, so long as the Iraqis aren't shooting at each other so much by the end of it.

I'd disagree that this is the sensible option. If we have to be in Iraq for another fifty years, so be it, so long as the Iraqis aren't shooting at each other so much by the end of it.

John McCain, give Yootopia his profile back. Now. :mad:

There is no such thing as International Law. Only International Treaties, which do not have the force of law.

Um.

Just as domestic law is made up of statutes and/or common law, International Law is made up of Treaties and/or precedents.

And, at least in the U.S., International Treaties DO have the force of law. See Article VI (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the U.S. Constitution ("This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. " (emphasis added)).

John McCain, give Yootopia his profile back. Now. :mad:
It's genuinely better for the Iraqi people to have trained soldiers around to do the peacekeeping, rather than religious militias. We don't really want another Afghanistan in Iraq, now, do we?

It's genuinely better for the Iraqi people to have trained soldiers around to do the peacekeeping, rather than religious militias. We don't really want another Afghanistan in Iraq, now, do we?

I was joking.

But considering the fact that our being there is one of the main causes of violence, we should certainly consider withdrawing. IIRC, most Iraqis want us gone.

Considering the fact that our being there is one of the main causes of violence, we should certainly consider withdrawing.
At least it's our troops, who have decent medics, armour, and armoured vehicles getting shot at instead of the Iraqis, who have overfull hospitals.
IIRC, most Iraqis want us gone.
They're not being particularly realistic. The Iraqi government holds little of the country and is completely unrepresentative after the withdrawl of most of the Shi'ite parties.

The Iraqi Army is utter pish, and is filled with militiamen, the same is even truer of the Police.

I agree, and disagree. I think that we shouldn't do an Immediate withdrawel, but rather a slow and gradually withdrawel.

No, the US should not. Only a coalition composed of Member States of the United Nations, acting with the authorization of the Security Council, possesses any such mandate or power.
So individual rights should be ignored if governments do not feel like protecting them?

Link (http://www.lp.org/media/article_563.shtml)

See, we are not filled with nuts, some of us are quite sane, thank you very much!

One sane policy does not a sane Party make.

I knew some libertarians at uni some years ago, they were dead easy to confound in a debate, some of their 'arguments' are inane copypasta jobs with 'freedom' thrown in every second word.

Um.

Just as domestic law is made up of statutes and/or common law, International Law is made up of Treaties and/or precedents.

And, at least in the U.S., International Treaties DO have the force of law. See Article VI (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the U.S. Constitution ("This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. " (emphasis added)).

That's true in the US (and some other countries), but only because US law says so - there is nothing that makes a treaty have force of law in and of itself. Further, any nation, even the US, can simply declare a treaty broken or simply announce their intention to no longer follow it - unlike actual law, which must be repealed.

More importantly, for something to have the force of law, there must be a mechanism of enforcement - and there is no such mechanism for international treaties. These are only enforced when one nation takes umbrage over the actions of another - a rule of consequences, rather than a rule of enforcement (the difference being that enforcement would imply the rule being applied universally, in all cases, where consequences only occur when someone more powerful chooses to get involved - so that application is spotty to non-existent).

What's even better are some of the "Libertarians" I've run into who think the United States should loot the place on the way out, in order to recuperate some of that lost treasure. I asked whether a "Libertarian" would support the right of a home invader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion) to loot his victim on the way out (think of the cost/risk!!!), or if said home invader should face prosecution or even have to pay restitution to his victim.

I'm told I'm some kind of "communist."

"Individual responsibility" apparently means "when we act collectively, nobody is responsible."Yeah. "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."