Thread: Libertarian position on Iraq and the draft ?

Whats the Libertarian position on the war in Iraq ? What about the draft - should people be forced to fight against their will ? I am guessing this is against Libertarian philosophy.

Originally Posted by InspectorMorse

Whats the Libertarian position on the war in Iraq ? What about the draft - should people be forced to fight against their will ? I am guessing this is against Libertarian philosophy.

You guessed right- no one should be forced to do anything they don't want!!

Oy Paddy Im asking the Yanks ! :therethere:

Originally Posted by InspectorMorse

Whats the Libertarian position on the war in Iraq ? What about the draft - should people be forced to fight against their will ? I am guessing this is against Libertarian philosophy.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war"
Plato
Libertarians are mostly nationalists, I am starting to agree with that philosophy more & more. We need tp protect our own borders before we start protecting others.

The libertarian position on invading Iraq was:

There's too many ways to look at it.

There's the "Saddam took power as a thug, therefore his government has no intrinsic support of the people and thus it can be removed at anytime by any legitimately formed outside government". This is dependent on the correct interpretation that legitimate governments formed to protect the freedom of the people can intercede to protect the freedoms of other people if it's in their own interest to do so.

Questions of timing and expense aside, it's clearly in everyone's interest ("everyone" meaning people who aren't terrorists, totalitarians, or surrender monkeys), to minimize the number of dictators everywhere, and it's also in our interest to expand freedom in the religious repressive middle east.

Naturally, I argued against the invasion at the time because...it was going to be damn expensive and it was easy to see that it was going to take decades. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that the IWIN:hissy:s have finally realized it, and the numbers of the Surrender Monkeys have swelled. Too bad circumstance changed once the invasion happened, and the IWIN:hissy:s just switched sides to remain on the wrong side.

Presently? Libertarianism is also about the sanctity of the contract. We promised those people our help, said promise being implied by our act of invasion under the guise of liberating them.

So we're stuck.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

The libertarian position on invading Iraq was:

There's too many ways to look at it.

There's the "Saddam took power as a thug, therefore his government has no intrinsic support of the people and thus it can be removed at anytime by any legitimately formed outside government". This is dependent on the correct interpretation that legitimate governments formed to protect the freedom of the people can intercede to protect the freedoms of other people if it's in their own interest to do so.

Questions of timing and expense aside, it's clearly in everyone's interest ("everyone" meaning people who aren't terrorists, totalitarians, or surrender monkeys), to minimize the number of dictators everywhere, and it's also in our interest to expand freedom in the religious repressive middle east.

Naturally, I argued against the invasion at the time because...it was going to be damn expensive and it was easy to see that it was going to take decades. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that the IWIN:hissy:s have finally realized it, and the numbers of the Surrender Monkeys have swelled. Too bad circumstance changed once the invasion happened, and the IWIN:hissy:s just switched sides to remain on the wrong side.

Presently? Libertarianism is also about the sanctity of the contract. We promised those people our help, said promise being implied by our act of invasion under the guise of liberating them.

So we're stuck.

Unfotunately, though not surprisingly, you are incorrect. The official position of the Libertarian party is that the war was unjust, unwarranted, unneeded, stupid, expensive, and nothing more than a ruse by the current administration to show the world how tough they are. The Libertarian party is against the nation building process and would like to see an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

Here a link to there official website.
Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Unfotunately, though not surprisingly, you are incorrect. The official position of the Libertarian party is that the war was unjust, unwarranted, unneeded, stupid, expensive, and nothing more than a ruse by the current administration to show the world how tough they are. The Libertarian party is against the nation building process and would like to see an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

Here a link to there official website.
Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee

You are incorrect here as well. A lot of libertarians don't support the war, yes. But not all of them do. The others believe it is in our best interest to protect our freedom by removing Hussein and set up a fledgling democracy in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Unfotunately, though not surprisingly, you are incorrect. The official position of the Libertarian party is that the war was unjust, unwarranted, unneeded, stupid, expensive, and nothing more than a ruse by the current administration to show the world how tough they are. The Libertarian party is against the nation building process and would like to see an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

Here a link to there official website.
Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee

No. I am correct. Unlike some, I'm able to think for myself. If you'd wanted to know what the Libertarian Party's position was, you should have phrased your question more clearly.

I gave you the libetarian position.

Not that you're capable of understanding the difference.

I bet you think Democrats support democracy, right?

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

No. I am correct. Unlike some, I'm able to think for myself. If you'd wanted to know what the Libertarian Party's position was, you should have phrased your question more clearly.

I gave you the libetarian position.

Not that you're capable of understanding the difference.

I bet you think Democrats support democracy, right?

Actually, you gave the right wing position. If you had bothered to click on the link I provided it would have taken you to the official Libertarian party page which would then tell you, in English, how much they are opposed to the war. You can sit there all day long and tell me how I don't think for myself, how wrong I am, how great and right you are, but everyone here can see exactly how full of crap you are. You views have nothing to do with the Libertarian party. If you wanted to express your opinion perhaps you should have prefaced it with "this is my opinion". Instead, you prefaced it with "this is the Libertarian position".

I have only been here two weeks, yet I can not recall a single time you made a factual state that was actually correct.

Actually, the "right wing" position was an intense eagerness to attack Iraq. I suspect you're too young to remember that, though.