...just saw the commercial.

He sounds like an ass to me. Not that impressed.


Aviator  [img]www.milpubs.com/aviator.gif[/img]

Now I know why I didn't vote Libertarian.  What a moron!!!  He sounds like a mix between Mother Teresa and Al Gore.  "We are killing innocent people", PLEASE!!!

Yep, he sounded just as moronic in person as he does in his writings.  He kept saying that "if we have proof Bin Laden did it" (which he didn't believe) that we should "arrest him and bring him to trial."
But when asked HOW we should bring him to trial, he had no answer except to lament that we shouldn't be "bombing civilians."
What a dumbass.

I though he made some pretty good points that America is turning into an empire and the bully of the world.

I think we should definitly minimize civilian casualities as much as possible, but not if it means putting our own soldiers in jeopardy.

Yeah he made it sound like we could just send Barney and Andy on over and tell bin laden to put up his hands and give on up and come on back to mayberry and will put you in jail and have Aunt Bee bake you some pumkin pie.

I disagree with the above statement. And Even if we were, what is wrong with that? We have the best system of Government out there...

As far as the second. What do you think we ARE doing. I'll ask you the same question asked of Brown, What would YOU be doing?

Aviator  [img]www.milpubs.com/aviator.gif[/img]

America IS becoming an empire. Look at the Billions we give every year and all the nations dependent upon us. Even though we are the finest country on Earth, I don't believe we should ram beliefs down people's throats.

For your second question-I would probably be doing the same thing that Bush is currently doing. I would also be pulling out of supporting other countries monetarily.

The only alternatives to being an empire are 1)being part of SOMEONE ELSE'S empire, or 2)being inconsequential and powerless to affect anything that goes on in the world.
I don't care for either alternative.



If we do that, they stop giving us places to base our troops if someone attacks us, they stop giving us intelligence when we ask for it, and it gives us one less tool to use to keep them in line.

1. The alternative is remaining a republic.

2. I'm not saying we should not maintain allies throughout the world-you can have allies without throwing billions of dollars in support at them. i.e Great Britain, Italy, Germany, Japan, France, (well, maybe not France [:)].

I do concede that Browne was sounding a bit whiny with the "we can't kill innocent civilians" etc. I still consider myself a Libertarian-I agree with about 90% of all there policies.  

No, you are confusing a POSITION with a SYSTEM.  Rome was still Imperialist when they were a Republic.  Great Britain was still a Constitutional monarchy when they had an empire.  There is no dichotomy with being a Republic and having an empire.



You don't seem to recall the billions of dollars we threw at Great Britain during WW2, and the billions we threw at Germany, Italy and Japan afterward.

1. We can still maintain alliances/have allies (i.e NATO) without becoming an empire.

2. That's different. We were helping our European Allies recover from a devestating war. They were not "developing" nations that were  staying indefinitaly dependent on foreign aid.

Harry Browne does not represent all Libertarians. judging by the post above i will agree that Harry is making an ass of himself. if Bin Laden was tried in a US court then he would be granted constitutional protection wich he surely does not deserve. the only court suitable for him would be a Military Tribunal.

non-Harried lib

No, we really can't, not if by "becoming an empire" you mean keeping military and financial influence across the globe.  If we don't have military, political and financial influence across the world, why would anyone bother to enter into an alliance with us?



A difference that makes no difference is no difference.  We were giving billions of dollars for many many years to those countries.

1. By not having an "empire", I basically mean that we should mind our own business in regard to internal struggles within a given region (unless, of course, They are a threat to the U.S) , and stop (or at least substantially reduce) monetary aid to countries that never seem to stop "developing".

2. There is agreat difference. Before the war, The mentioned European countries were highly industrialized and well developed. After there destruction, we were helping them (our allies) to re-build from the destruction that they incurred. They soon rebounded and got back on there feet. We were helping to restore there previous industries.

So your main problem is with giving money to third world countries?  Well, I don't like it much either, but I have to admit it is a good diplomatic tool IF IF IF we follow through with threats to cut it off when those countries piss us off.
I don't think that makes us an Empire in any real sense of the word...empires conquer and control other countries.  We exert influence on other countries through financial support.
I do agree that we shouldn't be the world's policeman...I do think something had to be done in Serbia, but I think the European nations should have handled it, as it was in their own backyard.  I don't think we had any business sending troops to Somalia.  It wasn't that we were on the wrong side, it was just that we had absolutely NO reason to be militarily committed there at all.  

I agree with your take on the Kosovo situation. I don't see why we should have had to send our jets half way around the world to neutralize an "enemy" that showed no real threat to us- That was definitly one for Europe. Your also right about being the "world policemen"-we shouldn't have to break up every little squabble in the world.

I think we basically agree...I want us to have influence globally, but I do not think we should be throwing our troops around the world at the drop of a hat.  If it's in the interest of our national security or keeping open economic markets that are vital to our economy, okay...but just because someone is a bad guy to his own people doesn't mean WE have to be the one to take him out.  The Chinese are horrible to their own people and we don't attack them militarily for it.

I saw John McCain on T.V. and I would take being called a republican as an insult.

[url]www.lp.org/lpnews/0111/survey.html[/url]

Survey: LP members support military action against Bin Laden and Taliban government

by Bill Winter
LP NEWS EDITOR

Libertarian Party members and supporters believe the U.S. government "has an obligation to bring the terrorists who are responsible for the September 11 attacks to justice," and strongly support military strikes against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, according to a new survey.

However, a strong majority agree that Congress should formally declare war before attacking any other nation, and most agree that a non-interventionist foreign policy is still the best defense against the threat of terrorism.

And Libertarians retain their traditional wariness about infringements on civil liberties, with an overwhelming majority opposing all or most of the search and surveillance provisions contained in proposed "anti-terrorist" legislation.

These are some of the results from an online poll of Libertarian Party members and subscribers to the party's "LP.announce" e-mail list, taken October 9-12.

More than 5,000 people participated in the unscientific poll, with 83.8% of them identifying themselves as Libertarian Party members or LP News subscribers. Another 11.3% said they were not LP members, and 4.8% did not furnish any specific partisan affiliation.

It was the first major poll of LP members taken since September 11, when terrorists commandeered four airliners and crashed three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. More than 5,000 Americans were killed in the attacks, which have been linked to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qa'eda terrorist network.

In retaliation, the United States began a bomb and missile assault on suspected terrorist facilities in Afghanistan on October 7. The U.S. also bombarded Afghanistan's Taliban government, which has been accused of safeguarding and supporting bin Laden.

Despite Libertarians' long-standing aversion to foreign military intervention, 94.8% of survey respondents said they agree the U.S. government "has an obligation to bring the terrorists who are responsible for the September 11 attacks to justice."

Of that number, 84.0% strongly agree, and 10.8% somewhat agree. Only 2.7% somewhat or strongly disagree, while 2.5% didn't answer or were undecided.

(continued)

LP National Director Steve Dasbach said the results seem to indicate that Libertarians see the September 11 terrorist attacks as an "initiation of force" against the United States.

"Libertarians believe that individuals and nations do not have the right to initiate force against others, but they tend to agree that the use of force for self-defense -- against rogue nations, criminals, or terrorists -- is appropriate," he said.

"These poll results seem to indicate that most Libertarians think the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC qualified as initiation of force, and that a strong military response constitutes legitimate self-defense by our nation."

However, Libertarians also firmly believe that a non-interventionist foreign policy makes terrorist attacks less likely, according to the poll.

In response to the statement: "If the United States had followed a Libertarian-style policy of foreign non-interventionism over the past several decades, it is less likely that the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States would have occurred," 78.6% agreed. (55.1% strongly; 23.5% somewhat). Another 13.4% disagreed, while 10.0% were undecided or gave no answer.

When asked if a Libertarian-style policy of foreign non-interventionism would make future terrorist attacks less likely, 69.3% agreed, while 21.6% disagreed.

While the poll showed that Libertarians overwhelmingly endorse bringing terrorists to justice, a smaller majority agrees about how to achieve that goal.

* 73.7% support bomb and missile attacks on bin Laden and his terrorist network. (51.8% strongly; 21.9% somewhat). Another 18% oppose such attacks. (10.1% strongly; 7.9% somewhat).

* 85.8% support American special forces units operating covertly in Afghanistan to try to capture bin Laden. (64.1% strongly; 21.7% somewhat). Another 7.8% oppose such a strategy. (4.4% strongly; 3.4% somewhat).

* 65.1% support putting more substantial numbers of American ground troops in Afghanistan to try to capture bin Laden. (41.5% strongly; 23.6% somewhat). Another 24.3% oppose ground troops. (13.1% strongly; 11.2% somewhat).

* 66.4% support American military attacks against Afghanistan's Taliban government and against Afghan military targets. (46.4% strongly; 22.0% somewhat). Another 21.4% oppose such attacks. (11.3% strongly; 10.1% somewhat).

* 54.8% support American efforts to topple Afghanistan's Taliban government and replace it with a less repressive government that doesn't support terrorism. (33.4% strongly; 21.4% somewhat). Another 30.2% oppose such a plan. (16.7% strongly; 13.5% somewhat).

(continued)

* 52.9% support future U.S. military action against any nation that supports or endorses terrorism. (28.9% strongly; 23.0% somewhat). Another 30.5% oppose such an open-ended military policy. (16.0% strongly; 14.5% somewhat). Fully 17.5% were undecided or gave no answer.

* 46.4% endorse American support for the Northern Alliance or other groups that are fighting to topple the Taliban government. (20.6% strongly; 25.8% somewhat). Another 34.2% oppose such a policy. (18.0% strongly; 16.2% somewhat). Again, a large number -- 19.2% -- were undecided or gave no answer.

Those last three questions indicate that Libertarians are unwilling to give the U.S. government carte blanche to engage in limitless military action in the name of fighting terrorism, said Dasbach.

"It's obvious that as military options move beyond striking back at those terrorists directly responsible for the September 11 attacks, Libertarians grow increasingly uncomfortable," he said. "A significant number of Libertarians clearly perceive the danger of a War On Terrorism turning into old-fashioned nation-building missions and foreign interventionism.

"They clearly don't want this anti-bin Laden military effort to turn into an 'endless war for endless peace.' That's where most of the respondents draw the line," he said.

Poll-takers also strongly support the notion that the United States should not attack any foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress. Fully 68.8% agreed with that statement, while only 18.1% disagreed.

When asked about the political fallout from the September 11 terrorist attacks -- such as Congressional aid for the airline industry, proposed self-defense measures, and anti-terrorism legislation -- respondents overwhelmingly oppose granting new power to government, with some exceptions.

* 90.3% oppose a national ID card to fight terrorism, while 5.0% support the proposal.

* 87.8% oppose allowing law enforcement to use the Carnivore e-mail surveillance system. Only 4.9% support it.

* 78.6% oppose new laws that would make it easier for law enforcement to get wiretap warrants, while 12.0% support such laws.

* 65.6% oppose allowing the U.S. Attorney General to detain legal immigrants for up to seven days before filing criminal charges. Another 22.6% support such a plan.

(continued)

* 91.8% oppose restricting the right of Americans to use strong encryption programs that might also be used by terrorists, while 2.5% support the idea.

* 76.7% oppose the $15 billion federal bail-out of the airline industry, while 14.7% support it.

* 61.7% oppose the creation of a new Office of Homeland Security. Another 23.7% support the agency.

* 47.8% oppose any additional restrictions on immigration into the United States, while 37.8% support such restrictions.

* 84.8% support allowing commercial pilots to carry guns while flying. Only 9.0% oppose the idea.

* 54.6% support allowing passengers to carry weapons while flying. Another 33.8% oppose the idea.

The responses to those questions seem to indicate that Libertarians are, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, unwilling to give up "a little freedom to try to gain a little security," said Dasbach.

"In most cases, by substantial majorities, poll-takers clearly refused to give up more civil liberties so the government could fight the War On Terrorism," he said. "However, in areas like immigration control and detention of legal immigrants, a significant minority were apparently willing to consider proposals they thought might prevent future terrorist attacks."

In other poll questions:

* 72.5% agree there is sufficient credible evidence that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network are responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks, while 5.7% disagree. Another 21.8% were undecided or gave no answer.

* 77.4% support putting an American bounty on the head of bin Laden and his terrorist allies. Another 12.0% disagree with that proposal, while 10.5% were undecided or gave no answer.

[url]www.lp.org/lpnews/0111/resolution.html[/url]

LNC backs 'measured' anti-terrorist response

The Libertarian National Committee has passed a resolution supporting military action against the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States.

The statement, which was discussed at a special LNC meeting in Atlanta, Georgia on October 14, passed unanimously (with one abstention).

The statement read:

On Sunday, October 7, the United States launched military action against Osama bin Laden, the terrorist believed to be responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The U.S. military also struck military bases controlled by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, which has sheltered and reportedly assisted bin Laden.

While the Libertarian Party has been a consistent voice against reckless foreign interventionism by the U.S. government, we support action against the perpetrators responsible for the terrorist attacks. The vicious and barbaric attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which bin Laden allegedly masterminded, cost 5,000 innocent Americans their lives. Such horrific crimes cannot go unpunished.

A fundamental role of the United States government, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, is to protect American citizens against foreign attack. Therefore, it is proper for the government to take forceful action against terrorists who have already killed thousands of Americans, and who have threatened to kill more. Such criminals must be rooted out and destroyed before more innocent people die. Their training camps and weapons must be eliminated. Their supply infrastructure must be shattered.

At the same time, the United States' response must be appropriate and measured. Every precaution must be taken to minimize injury or death to innocent civilians and non-combatants -- in Afghanistan and in other nations. To do otherwise is not only a violation of America's ideals, it would also create future enemies for our nation and continue the cycle of violence and revenge.

We also call on the United States government to publicly reveal the evidence that conclusively links bin Laden and his terrorist network to the September 11 terrorist attacks. While much circumstantial evidence is available, and while bin Laden has made statements condoning the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government has an obligation to conclusively demonstrate that he is guilty of mass murder. Such evidence would not only help swing world opinion firmly behind the United States' actions, it would make a clear and compelling case that justice is being served by the recent military actions.

(continued)

The Libertarian Party must take a more cautious stance about the military attacks on Afghanistan's Taliban government. Yes, there is considerable evidence that this totalitarian regime has aided bin Laden, and, yes, it refuses to assist the U.S. government in bringing bin Laden to justice. But it is a sovereign nation, and a military strike against it is an act of war. According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only the United States Congress has the power to declare war.

If military action against the government of Afghanistan is indeed appropriate, then the U.S. Congress should establish this by debating and passing an official declaration of war. Such an action would make the attack constitutionally legitimate, and protect the vital separation of powers upon which this nation's government was founded.

The United States government should also announce clear, measurable, and finite goals for this War on Terrorism. Any military action must not be allowed to turn into an endless, global war against numberless, shadowy targets. America's best interests will be served by decisive action that targets the guilty, spares the innocent, and ends as quickly as possible.

Finally, the United States has an obligation to consider a new, positive approach to foreign policy for the future.

Years ago, President Thomas Jefferson articulated a foreign policy that consisted of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Such a foreign policy -- deeply rooted in American tradition and principle -- would reduce the chance that terrorists will ever again want to strike a bloody blow at America.

As our nation embarks on this new war, the words of Thomas Jefferson echo down the centuries, and point in the direction of an America that can be at peace with the world -- and have less to fear from foreign enemies.

WHAT A F*ING DUMB A$$!!!

Tgis guy is talking about proof and facts,who the hell dose he think he is?
Bush dose not need to have him look over everthing befor he makes a move,it's like he dose not get it....dude YOU NOT THE PERZ!!!!!!

YOU DID NOT WIN.

Thius guy is just another LEFT WING NUT CRY BABY.

He wants to talk about people in Afghan being killed what about us!?!?!?!?!
If it's us or them then it's US! we did not make it that way the cowards did,that way they are bad.

F*ING COMMIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!![ROLLEYES]

The only major libertarian figure that's responded to all this in  a way taht wasn't horribly embarrassing has been Ron Paul.

I never thought that those protections in the Constitution that have to do with trials and punishments were dependent upon one "deserving" them. Lots of people look guilty, punishment and loss of rights ought to be reserved for those convicted.

If we're so sure Bin Laden is guilty and we can't get him live, then go ahead and bomb him. In fact, I won't shed any tears if some soldier someplace takes it upon himself to pull the trigger and save taxpayers a lot of money. But the policy of our government as a whole ought to be to respect the basic rights laid out in the Constitution and to extend them to all people, where we are able to.

So you want to tell me that all the men that went to fight and are now DEAD! did os so that coward could hide from us with our own Constitution!?!?!?!


Your as big a dumb a$$ as Sh!y Browne is.

I just have to ask!

Imbroglio, in your lil. gif. were you show everbody your pee shooters why did you de-face the American flag.
Do you think it makes you more free to be an a$$ to the work of men greater that you?

What's really striking about the poll Imbroglio has given us from the Libertarians, is how much they agree with Republicans on most important issues. I suppose that it would likewise be true that Republicans support most of the major planks in the Libertarian Party platform.

The disagreements are few, but the glaring nature of those few items, such as supporting a foreign policy that [u]upsets[/u] [u]no[/u] [u]one[/u], and a demand that Congress actually declare war in order for the President to do what we all agree he needs to be doing, indicate to me a certain disconnect between their perception of the 'real world' and how things really are!

If, , the Libertarians could ever gain political dominance in this Country, they would be hamstrung by their own philosophy. Can you imagine them agreeing on a War Resolution to actually fight the War Against Terrorism? It would stay bottled up in committee forever while they nit-pick it to death, fretting about the exact language to use in the declaration of war, fearing that if the language is overly broad, it might provide a precedent for acting in another crisis, yet to come.

They would have abandoned Europe to Communism after World War II. The Far East would be Red. South and Central America would be communist, as well.

And yet there would still be no Palestine! You think Jordan would have established a Palestinian state for any reason? Think again!

No, no, no. Pure Constitutionalism at home, but pure pragmatism in supporting our interests in the rest of the World!

Otherwise, what in the Hell did we hire you guys for, anyway?

Eric The(Pragmatic)Hun[>]:)]

Not quite right.  In wartime, if you catch a spy, saboteur or assassin not dressed in the uniform of his own (combatant) nation, he is given a summary military tribunal and executed.
Bin Laden is a saboteur and assassin and is not a member of his (or any) country's armed forces.  Thus he is NOT eligible for either constitutional OR Geneva Convention protection.

One of the reasons we haven't declared war on the Taliban is we never recognized them as a true national government. Only Pakistan and Saudi Arabia ever recognized them a legitimate government.

Gee does the American flag have 10 stripes? Does it have 11 stars? Does it have a powder blue field? It seems that you don't even know what the American flag looks like.

Some of you people are so wrapped up in "war fever" that you see enemies everywhere you look.

I've said before that the Republican and Democrat parties will continue to converge to a point where they will be completely indistinguishable from each other. And that is becoming a reality.

RikWriter, if I were you, I would consider changing my "sign off signature".

First off ... that quote is by Berthold Brecht not "Bertol Brecht".  And secondly.... Brecht was a staunch Marxist.  But, then again .... you might have an affinity for Marxists ... so you may not have a problem quoting one!

Just a friendly recommendation! [:)]

DaMan  

Well, raf... if not the Libertarian Party, which party is going to "fill the breach"???!!

DaMan

It's already happened. Candidates have realized that it's more important to satisfy and compromise for the public in order to get votes than actually have a pair and stand by what they say.

If he is not a member of any nation's armed forces, then he is just a criminal and the term "war" is just a propaganda term being foisted upon us to justify greater governmental powers, as it was in the "war" on drugs, the "war" on crime, and the "war" on poverty.

I've been telling people from day one that the use of the term "war" gives Bin Laden a level of legitimacy that he does not deserve. In my book, he is a common criminal.

Just curious. Did you post in the "What's Your Age" thread?

DaMan, if I were you, I would hang myself at the earliest opportunity.  Just a friendly reccommendation. [:)]

Well, no.  The difference between the war in Afghanistan and the war on drugs or the war on poverty is, neither drugs nor poverty are purposeful acts with the express intent of bringing down western civilization.
This is a war, whether it fits your personal definition of war or not.

RikWriter, I will take your "reccommendation" to hang myself, if you will learn how to spell the name of your socialist hero, "Bertholdt Brecht", correctly! [:0]

DaMan

PS- I've noticed that you're improving! No longer Bertol.....now "Bertolt" !  Hahahhaha!

Oh, come on. There is a big difference between the probable intent of the acts and the probable result of the acts. Just because in Bin Laden's wet dreams he thinks he's going to pull down western civilization does not mean that there was ever the slightest remote chance of that happening. The Unabomber also thought he'd destroy modern civilization; nobody ever declared war on him.

Bertolt is the correct spelling...I cut and pasted the quote into the profile and I left off the "t."  He was born Berthold, but changed his name to Bertolt during his career as a writer.
As for his politics, so what?  His quote is pertinent and correct even if his political beliefs were naive and stupid.
Hell, even YOU are right sometimes and look what an a-hole you are.