Yes.

Ron Paul isn't the only logical choice, Kucinich is also a good guy.

You cannot be a libertarian and support the war. Libertarianism relies on the idea of the Non-aggression Principal. This means you never initiate force against anyone, you only defend yourself. If you wish to go after the people who caused 9/11, that would be Al Queda who at the time were stationed in Afghanistan. The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. While Saddam was a tyrannical dictator, it was none of our business to go in. It was not our problem. We were the aggressors in this war.

Libertarian Party != Libertarianism / Classic Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

This is not a war. You cannot fight an idea. You cannot fight guerrillas and expect to win.

I don't know why we went over there. Honestly, I don't know the true reason. I know that we had no reason to go over there for the following:

Oil
Set up permanent middle east base
Liberate people
Retaliate for 9/11


If any of those three things are true, it doesn't matter. It is not our business to be meddling in sovereign countries. We have done it before and every time it bites us in the rear years later. We refused to grant Cuba independence and look at where they are now. We over threw the Iranian government in the 70's. We propped Saddam up until he was useless to us.


We shouldn't mess with people. If the people of country X are dissatisfied with their government they will over throw it themselves.

Before someone throws out the "Well, you wouldn't have entered WWII and defeated the nazis then?" argument (Which is irrelevant to begin with.) the German submarines attacked three of our commercial vessels before we entered the war and blew them up. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. We were attacked first.

You want to be safe? Bring the troops home and surround our border (Not speaking of immigration here.). That'll be safe.


Many arguments I've seen thus far use the premise that the war is valid and legal to begin with, and that we shouldn't pull out now due to progress. This is wrong. The war is legally wrong (Not declared by Congress.), morally wrong (No man should ever attack another man unless in self defense.), and the war is going bad (Yes, violence is down since June, but, it is still higher than it has been since we "won".)

You want a sensible solution? Pull out completely. There will be bloodshed. Many will die. That is the harsh truth, but the best possible outcome. Anything else is just delaying the problem and making it larger.

If someone could please tell me why we went to Iraq to begin with I'd be happy to know.

I can't argue that.

While that is an honorable goal, the big difference between Japan and Iraq is we were not in Japan milking the country for all it's worth. We stole Iraq for our own benefit. If chaos ensues when we leave, then there might be justification for cleaning up the mess, so long as the people approve it, which I doubt would happen. Staying there for what "might be" is bad policy. The predictions made so far were wrong so I'm not so quick to believe the predictions of those that say it will be chaos and Iraq will get overtaken. As it stands currently, Iraq has been overtaken....by us, and I think we should return what's rightfully theirs. The present goal is not focused on leaving Iraq. We're there and we've setup shop (literally). Corporate interests drive our reasons for staying the course, not the goodness of our leaders who are looking out for the Iraqi people.

--------------- Added [DATE]1197414520[/DATE] at [TIME]1197414520[/TIME] ---------------

TruthElixirX, thank you. Finally a voice of reason. I agree on all points.

I think the answer is easy to understand when you realize who profits from the war. Hint: It's not the American or Iraqi people. I'll leave that question open to your own research.

May be.

But if we leave now what kind of example does that set for the rest of the world? We screwed up badly by going in like we did but we can still "do good" by staying and helping the Iraqi people sort out this mess.

If we leave now and never return who knows what may happen (good or bad). Either way the Iraqi people can use our help, and we owe at least that to them. No one is saying the USA must go it a lone either...if any other country (or the UN) want to help in this rebuilding effort I welcome that help.

The fighting over there is no going to magically end if we leave, no matter how much we want that to happen.

Well, who's welfare should we, as a nation, put first? Let's see...I vote OURS! :D Unfortunately we have politicians running the show. In order to reach the level of running for president, you have sold your soul in some form or fashion to some interest or interests. I have no use for any of them. The one thing about government and those in power in it...they will never cede their power or allow the shrinking of government...regardless of how well packaged their message is. I like to consider myself a caring conservative with libertarian tendencies. I'm personally of the opinion there will come a time in this country where the common man will need to revolt against the system to take this country back from the politicians otherwise we will destroy ourselves...we don't need islamo-facism to do it to us.

• What kind of example did we set when we overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953?
• What kind of example did we set when we radicalized Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the 80s?
• What kind of example did we set when we installed Saddam Hussein into power (whom everyone has already admitted was bad)?
• What kind of example do we set when we play and fund every side in our Middle East foreign policy?

While I can appreciate the argument you make, I think we're a we should should have started worrying about the example we set 60 years ago.

Is it really any surprise why no one is helping us in Iraq? Perhaps everyone else knows it was wrong?

While you are completely right in your assessment, Ron's voting record proves there is at least one exception to the rule, and for that reason alone I will do everything to support the only honest candidate in the Presidential race. His message isn't talk. He practices what he preaches, votes accordingly, and has done so for years.

Don't kid yourself...he is only one man and none of them can do all they promise if elected. It's congress that runs the show, not the president.

Tell that to the Bush administration.

A discussion among members is fine, but please do not make this a thread with personal attacks or disrespectfull posts.

Can i get a copy of this picture of 2 angels. ;)

And he has racial writings from earlier in his career what will sink him like a brick if he gets anywhere near the general election.

The racism argument is completely baseless. Nothing in his Congressional history indicates he's a racist and the only evidence offered of such is a single, obscure newsletter many years ago that he's already stated he had no part in writing. He did accept responsibility for it since it had his name attached to it. Clearly if you would have taken a mere 15 to 20 minutes to research him you would quickly find there is nothing racist about him. You wont find another candidate with a following as diverse as Ron Paul because there is no greater champion of freedom and liberty for ALL individuals. Because he is so honest and principled and doesn't have the dirty laundry so many candidates have, those trying to discredit him have no choice but to resort to contrived and false claims. Do your own research and come to your own conclusion rather than resorting to hearsay. I invite you to try and find any dirt you can on Ron Paul because you won't be able to.

We have to get out from Iraq... is the 'Wrong War II' :P

...I was the one telling him not to make personal attacks. That's what ad hominem is. Read the posts before mine.