LIbertarian Party says get out of Iraq and Syria.

Back in the spring of 2003, shortly after the Shock and Awe bombing of Iraq, libertarian humorist P.J. O'Rourke gave a speech at a CATO libertarian think tank luncheon in NYC. During the speech he said that while he agreed with the LP's position against foreign intervention, that the bombing of Iraq was an exception to the rule. And he got a standing ovation.

After the Shock and Awe, George Bush's popularity poll numbers, which were down in the 30% range, jumped to about 80%, the highest recorded for a sitting President, and after that, the LP News, house organ of the "Party of Principle," never made a peep against the attack on the Iraqis.

This time it's apparently different. Polls show that a large majority of Americans accept the State Department/CIA/Associated Press mantra that "ISIL is so evil that even al Qaeda rejects it"--"worse than Hitler," and so on, and that despite all the kings and dictators in the Mid-East having their own heavily equipped armies and air forces, only the US, its men and its taxpayers, can save the day.

And the Libertarian Party, knowing that it's not going to win them many votes, is apparently sticking to it's principles and going along with it's former Presidential candidate Ron Paul, in urging US lawmakers to get out and stay out of Iraq and Syria.

https://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/get-out-stay-out-of-iraq-and-syria

 

This link might work better:
https://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/get-out-stay-out-of-iraq-and-syria

 

I am curious as to why you think the libertarian party is relevant to anything?

You know that they are currently pushing for complete open borders with Mexico don't you?

They are a fringe party, nothing more which is why nobody takes them seriously.

 

Can't refute the point of taking us out of Iraq and Syria huh?

I actually agree with the point. The United States has been meddling in the region for decades, and I'd love tos ee us out of the Middle East too. The place is a cesspool.

It's been America's meddling that has caused the terrorist attacks against us.

The only thing I differ on is that I want to stomp ISIS into oblivion then leave the region and never come back.

America shouldn't meddle in other countries affairs, friend or foe.

 

What is there to refute?

That is a possible route we could take to dealing with the crisis over there and so is invasion, setting up a proxy, supporting one side over the other.....there are lots of options but that is not the problem. The problem is that Obama is not picking any option, he has no plan to deal with anything.......he is simply responding when he feels he needs a political boost.

If you want to pull out of the area and let them work it out and deal with the victors in a more formal setting than by all means do that but formulate it into a consistent policy and sell it to the people.

Obama is not doing any of that.

 

Well, outworldy appearance suggests he has no plan to deal with anything.

But there is another option people don't see to be aware of.

What if there's something going on behind the scenes and these don't have a plan is simply a deflection to take prying eyes from what is going on behind the scenes?

 

Then he would need to produce positive results in some form because the next president is unlikely to continue any policy their predecessor started and I see absolutely no signs of any positivity coming out of that region.

Ever since the Bay of Pigs, which was an Eisenhower operation that Kennedy kept rolling, presidents have learned to pretty much scrap any plans set forth by the guy before them and put their own mark on policy.

 

True.. the US has never been any good at long term planning.

 

Well yes, but Spooky just pointed out why. Everytime an administration changes then its end goals change even if they loudly proclaim that they have every intention of continuing with the plans of their predecessor. Iraq under Bush, for instance, was not going to be allowed to slip away without a significant on site, permanent U.S. military presence remaining behind. But all Obama wanted was to get the hell out of Iraq in time to run for re-election in 2012 and yet delay just long enough that even in a worst case scenario the nation probably wouldn't start falling apart until after the 2012 election cycle was completed. Now the world is paying the price of Obama's re-election strategy. Nice, eh?

 

Truman Doctrine.

 

So America caused it's own problems overseas huh? Well US foreign policy has pulled a lot of boners, but the Libertarian position on foreign policy assumes that the entire world is made up of rational actors who behave rationally,just like an economic computer model. That's why they have no answers in foreign policy other than get out. And "get out" has a lot to do with the current chaos the world is in. On foreign policy, Obama, has been the most perfect Libertarian foreign policy President since Calvin Coolidge. Lead from behind, no victor no vanquished... honestly, he waited to intervene again in the middle east until a regional crisis became a world crisis. So he's gone as far as he can go down that road and the world has gotten worse.

 

Except he wants a war with Syria and he has our troops in Afghanistan supporting the drug trade there and making fifty billion dollars a year off of it.

So how is that a libertarian point of view?

 

I don't think Obama is making fifty billion dollars a year off the Afghan drug trade. If he was, that would be extremely Libertarian! But he is winding down our mission there, and I'm sure we will get a nice little Saigon moment when everything collapses.

And I don't see that he wanted a war in Syria. He's just a dummy that thought his "redline" comment would never come back to bite him. As soon as Assad and Putin maneuvered him out of the way, he gladly backed off.

 

What are you talking about?

America's wartime president
Quick: Which U.S. president has authorized wars of various kinds in seven Muslim countries?
If you guessed Barack Hussein Obama, you are correct.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/opinion/bergen-obama-wartime-president/

Yeah really keeping it isolationist there.

 

It's not easy being libertarian and isolationist in the real world huh?

 

Again, what are you talking about? No part of Obamas foreign policy is libertarian or isolationist. It would be like me pointing to a truck being hit by a train and saying "Looks like not driving will get you into car accidents."

 

Well I guess technically, there really is no such thing as a "libertarian" foreign policy. Libertarians have just adopted isolationism, but it's not really part and parcel of their ideology. Obama has been unique in regarding, at least on the onset of his Presidency, as the US just being one nation among many. He opposed unilateral action, and wanted to let allies take the lead. He eschewed American exceptionalism (at least on the onset), and didn't regard the US as a worthy superpower with a responsibility to help maintain world order. In fact, he tended to view world disorder as a typical result of US foreign policy. So we have, for the most part, tried to stay out of the world's way, at least until recently (and with the uncharacteristic exception of going to war against Libya, for no reason obvious to me, other than because the UK and France wanted to).

 

Here's the list of Obama's military actions:

1) Afghaninstan (came from Bush, still something he's dealt with)
2) Iraq (came from Bush, going back, 1st brigade 1st Infantry HQ is in Baghdad now)
3) Pakistan (drone strikes, a lot of them)
4) Libya (airstrikes)
5) Yemen (drones)
6) Somalia (drones)
7) Syria (airstrikes)

He's doing a real (*)(*)(*)(*)ting job of trying not to fight. Don't buy the hype; Obama is in no way an isolationist. He's about as interested in avoiding military action as he is in protecting our rights and privacy.

 

Medea Benjamin, The Guardian--"The mainstream press just sold another American war."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/10/media-lapdog-sold-war-in-iraq

 

How lucky the Syrians are to have the US and Russia there determining who will be the leader of the modern world:
https://www.rt.com/news/330019-us-troops-syria-pushkov/

 

The party doesn't have to be relevant to have a valid point that should be taken seriously.
But hey, nice try at marginalizing the party so you can avoid addressing the specific issue.

 

Ya know, Sarah, I mean Spooky, I find it curious that anyone can take any of the Republican candidates or Bernie and Hillary seriously.

 

US powers-that-be call for increased intervention in Iraq:
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/04/11/us-defense-secretary-iraq-politics-wont-stall-war-escalation/

 

Man, I thought Iraq was a dumb war, and Obama was going to prevent these kinda blunders.

 

This is an interesting development if true, involving Hillary, Libya, and gold:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/de...i-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/