A solid take on Libertarianism and foreign policy

[Rooster]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ign-Policy

It boils down to one crucial aspect of foreign policy which our present Oval Office occupant (nor any other president since Reagan) does not agree with: You piss us off and we will come into your country, kill people, and break things. Then we will leave. Maybe, just maybe if you behave afterward we will help rebuild stuff and make nice by trading with you.

I like the idea of libertarianism. I really do. But this article highlights the faulty thinking that has gone into that ideology which mimics Obama's severe shortcomings in terms of his foreign policy. However, giving others the freedom to do as they please with no repercussions-- and no idea what those repercussions would be if you wanted some --seems like a third helping of the same shit sandwich we've been eating for the past six years.

[mvscal]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ign-Policy

It boils down to one crucial aspect of foreign policy which our present Oval Office occupant (nor any other president since Reagan) does not agree with: You piss us off and we will come into your country, kill people, and break things. Then we will leave. Maybe, just maybe if you behave afterward we will help rebuild stuff and make nice by trading with you.

I like the idea of libertarianism. I really do. But this article highlights the faulty thinking that has gone into that ideology which mimics Obama's severe shortcomings in terms of his foreign policy. However, giving others the freedom to do as they please with no repercussions-- and no idea what those repercussions would be if you wanted some --seems like a third helping of the same shit sandwich we've been eating for the past six years.

The only thing incoherent was that ridiculous op ed. If he had some point to make about libertarian foreign policy, I certainly missed it.

Paul worries that any US intervention will supersede this centuries-old conflict and turn Islamist aggression towards us.

Seeing as how that is exactly what happened to us in Iraq, I'd say it's a fair point. Just about the only thing those goat raping psychopaths agree on is that they hate us worse than they hate each other. Once we step out of the way, they won't have anyone to kill except for each other.

I don't think the occasional reporter getting dome lopped is anything to get all wrapped around the axle over. Two less delusional libtards is no great loss.

[Rooster]

I disagree that it was incoherent. The writer is connecting Rand's libertarian domestic outlook with his previous public speeches outlining his isolationist foreign policy. I drew from that that his conclusion is Rand's libertarian streak does not jibe well with a like minded foreign policy where other countries are free to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't involve us. Notably however, Rand just today reversed his position and is now calling for the destruction of ISIS on the basis of those two journalists. I see it as a continuation of Obama's international shitting in the bed, only with a different philosophy behind it, but the result would be the same.

[Moving Sale]

Reagan was a blowhard who never so much as mussed the hair of any country bigger than an ant. The only military 'success' he had was due to Charlie Wilson and has ended up causing more harm than good. Not surprising you would be sucking his dick you cum swilling moron.

[trev]

Is America weak right now? It seems to be the weakest I remember. I don't think playing nice works with these freak fanatics. Oprah and Obama think they are God and can change the world for the better. Who elected this idiot?

[mvscal]

I disagree that it was incoherent. The writer is connecting Rand's libertarian domestic outlook with his previous public speeches outlining his isolationist foreign policy.

Rand Paul isn't and never was an isolationist. He just doesn't get a hardon for everyone who looks at us cross eyed.

[Moving Sale]

Is America weak right now? It seems to be the weakest I remember. I don't think playing nice works with these freak fanatics. Oprah and Obama think they are God and can change the world for the better. Who elected this idiot?

Yea but you are a stupid lush who has trouble remembering Saturday.

[Moving Sale]

I disagree that it was incoherent. The writer is connecting Rand's libertarian domestic outlook with his previous public speeches outlining his isolationist foreign policy.

Rand Paul isn't and never was an isolationist. He just doesn't get a hardon for everyone who looks at us cross eyed.

Unlike you who was leading the charge into Iraq... Both times.

[Wolfman]

Good thing we had leaders like FDR and Truman at a time when we were dealing with two evil, murderous, warring societies. I guess we'll need a Pearl Harbor like event to wake us up to the realization that we cannot simply "step aside" and be safe.

[Derron]

Pretty much will rack 88's take here. The average American person has no fucking clue about US history, much less Middle Eastern or European.

It took the US colonies over 11 years to form a government after the Revolutionary War. The notion of states and states rights under a Federal government was very complicated to work out for even motivated and certainly more educated people than those barbaric savages in the Middle East.

They have lived by the sword for over 4,000 years there. These people are so fucking stupid and illiterate you could never get a states concept over. You have to really wonder with the Saudis and Kuwaities just laying back and letting these IS cocksuckers do all the dirty work and then come in and smash their ass when they have consolidated conquered areas.

Wolfie's take on another Pearl Harbor level event has merit. 9/11 was a Pearl Harbor level event, and with the lax attitude of our puppet government another event of that magnitude or greater is inevitable. I have no problem with leaving them alone and letting them exterminate each other yearly. But when you let your borders be as porus and unsecured as our are, you have to expect there are huge numbers of radical Muslims ready to act.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Is America weak right now? It seems to be the weakest I remember.

If you're a weak country, you should seek out a strong, caring country that can wrap it's strong arms around your country's frail frame and tell your country "Shhh...everything's going to be okay...shhh". This strong country will plant gentle kissed on your country's sweet, soft face...and then the strong country can take the weaker country to see a movie at the drive-in in St. Catherines Ontario, where they also serve poutine at the concession stand.

[Goober McTuber]

Not surprising you would be sucking his dick you cum swilling moron.

Compassionate, gay-loving liberal using homosexuality as an insult. Not surprising there, either.

As oppsed to when a fat, stupid, conservative, closeted homosexual does it?

[Rooster]

While I see the merit of what you saying, 88, and agree with the gist of it, I have seen that the people of countries like Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi, Angola, Nigeria, and others can and do identify with the country they are citizens of as long as they have something that motivates them to do so-- apart from force. I couldn't say how strong that attachment is, but in conversations they appear to comfortably accept the borders in which they reside. Anecdotal, I know. Perhaps they embrace their country as we might a sports team, enthusiastic until they begin to lose and then they revert back to the default position of tribal loyalties.

However, your second point is entirely correct in that the Middle East particularly seems to need a dictator or strongman to garner the (grudging) respect of the citizenry and that our options are really limited to two; of which I believe encouraging hem to slaughter each other is the most viable. In the case of Syria, we should be helping under the table whichever side happens to be losing. That place is a black hole for radicals where, if we play our cards right, they'll die a bloody and painful death.

[Rooster]

Sale, while Reagan did not have a shooting war on the scale of a Gulf War or Iraq/Afghanistan, he did something no modern day Lefty president could have done: He broke the back of the Soviet Union finanacially via military spending. Despite yours and others of your political views, the revisionist history you'd have us believe about that event doesn't match up with reality. Indeed, the conflict we are seeing in Ukraine is a direct result of Reagan's brilliance and Obama's ineptitude and incompetance. Putin, who experienced firsthand what Reagan wrought, is bent on regaining what was lost in the 80's and Obama, a Marxist at heart, is complicit in enabling him both directly and indirectly.

Yes, you can bitch and moan about the money Reagan spent to cause the fall of the USSR, but c'mon, that pales in comparison to trillions Obama has wasted, err invested during his six years in office.

[Moving Sale]

He broke the back of the Soviet Union finanacially (sic) via military spending.

Revisionist Bullshit. He wasn’t even in office when the USSR collapsed and there is no indication that the US outspending the world in Arms had anything to do with the USSR sucking as a country or that if they had held on a few more years that the spending Bill Clinton did would not have collapsed them. Your hero Reagan was a stupid empty suit, who’s only good ideas would get him kicked out of the R party if he were to utter them today.

[Moving Sale]

He didn't respect his office or he would have appointed justices that would have overturned Wickard which would have taken 80% of his power away and he couldn't articulate shit. He was a asshat of the highest order.