|
|
Post by ryanthomas on Nov 25, 2012 17:24:10 GMT -5
One of the big sticking points is usage of our military. Many libertarians are too pacifistic, not willing to accept that there is any good reason to go to war. And many conservatives seem to be too willing to use military force. If we can bridge that gap, I think we could certainly overcome the other smaller issues. It would probably be best to not get into debates about previous wars if we're trying to find common ground. There are people who will never be convinced that the Iraq war was a good idea, and there are those who will defend it until their last breath. So if there's any chance of coming together, we should talk only about the future. It might be enough just to support requiring a declaration of war before going to war. I don't really know. I understand your point of view. I can't go along with the LP's stance of 'not unless we're attacked', because we do have interests and allies around the world. For instance, when Saddam attacked Kuwait, who was an ally, I thought defending our friends was the right thing to do. Would you not have your friend's back if someone threatened them? I also believed it was right to go back to Iraq when Saddam failed to live up to his end of the cease fire agreement. After all, a cease fire agreement is nothing more than a surrender by the winning side if it is not enforced. Where I find fault with the whole situation is that, because Bush used the UN as authorization to take the action, he was forced into the ceasefire before the job was done. As it played out, if he had done more than what he did, he could have faced impeachment by the Democrats for going beyond what he was authorized to do. Because he was a weak leader, he had to beg for permission rather than boldly stating his case. Had he been free to pursue Saddam in the first Gulf war and force him into a total surrender, the job would have been done. I also fault Clinton for allowing the situation to continue until W was in office. The first time Saddam refused to allow inspectors into a site, that site should have been bombed into dust within 15 minutes. He should have then asked Saddam if there were any other sites he didn't want to have inspected. If he had been so stupid as to say yes, those sites should have been reduced to rubble as well. Obviously I do see times when the use of military force is necessary, but if we are not timid in the uss of that force, those instances will be far fewer than they are now. Strength promotes peace, weakness destroys it. See, that's where things get sticky between libertarians and republican-type conservatives. I think most libertarians, despite the prevalence of extreme anti-war rhetoric, would be willing to meet somewhere in the middle, but how much are you willing to compromise on foreign policy? Probably not much. You have your convictions about the matter and they're not likely to change. That's OK, though. Starting on a local level it won't be a contentious issue for a while. Maybe in the interim we can find some common ground. Focusing on the differences won't get us anywhere, since both sides have strong convictions. What do we agree about? Should we have a formal declaration of war before going to war? It would seem we could at least agree on that. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 17:39:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure that the words "Declaration of War" are still relevant, but Congressional authorization for any protracted military action is most certainly required by the Constitution.
My point wasn't that the President should be able to take us to war on his own, but that when we do engage in military action it should be with the intention to win, and with the understanding that war is a messy business that can't be carried out without destruction to property and the loss of life. Too many people think war happens like a scene from the "A-Team", when lots of people fire macine guns at each other, but no one ever gets hit. We need to go in, do what we need to do, and leave while the smoke is still rising over the battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryanthomas on Nov 25, 2012 20:04:50 GMT -5
I think most libertarians will agree that when we do need to go to war, we need to fight it to win and then get out quickly. As far as the declaration of war, the Constitution doesn't use that specific wording, but it would sure make a lot of libertarians feel better about supporting a new party. Declaration is much closer to the actual wording in the Constitution than "Congressional authorization for any protracted military action". Be careful with that one or you'll lose a lot of people unnecessarily.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 20:17:24 GMT -5
I think most libertarians will agree that when we do need to go to war, we need to fight it to win and then get out quickly. As far as the declaration of war, the Constitution doesn't use that specific wording, but it would sure make a lot of libertarians feel better about supporting a new party. Declaration is much closer to the actual wording in the Constitution than "Congressional authorization for any protracted military action". Be careful with that one or you'll lose a lot of people unnecessarily. I understand what you're saying, and no doubt you're right. If I had my way, Congress would be full of honest statesment with impecable integrity that would do the right thing no matter what. Achieving that goal is a little beyond my abilities hwever, so I'll have to deal with what is there. Today's politicians don't have the backbone to be plain spoken enough to use the exact wording "declaration of war", but when they are backed into a corner they will still authorize military action. It would be easier to promise otherwise, but I'd rather not make promises I can't keep. The truth is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by ryanthomas on Nov 25, 2012 20:32:45 GMT -5
If they aren't willing to declare war, it probably isn't really necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 21:23:05 GMT -5
If they aren't willing to declare war, it probably isn't really necessary. That would be true for most people, but we're talking about Congressmen. |
|
|
|
Post by ryanthomas on Nov 25, 2012 21:50:44 GMT -5
Yeah, but unfortunately Congressmen fill a role specified in the Constitution. I think using an authorization instead of a declaration is a gray area at best. But I see what you're saying. I just don't think you'll get much support from libertarians unless you can sell it convincingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 22:02:34 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with making the case that war should be declared outright, and I certainly wouldn't t attempt to make the case that it shouldn't. I will say however, that there are bigger issues to be concerned about than the wording in a Congressional authorization for the use of military force. I know some people won't see it that way, but we have to accept the fact that we won't be able to attract everyone. Regardless of how much success we might have, there will still be a Libertarian and a Republican Party.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryanthomas on Nov 26, 2012 12:58:29 GMT -5
That's a big gap to bridge. I'm sure there are libertarians who are more concerned with fiscal policy, though. They can probably be reached.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 26, 2012 20:55:46 GMT -5
That's a big gap to bridge. I'm sure there are libertarians who are more concerned with fiscal policy, though. They can probably be reached. It may well be too big a gap to bridge, but it would be dishonest for me to say something I don't believe to be true. I could pander to every group in the world, but it would be easier to just become a Democrat. All I ask is that people give me a chance to make the case for what I believe, and they can make up their own minds whether or not to join with me. I don't expect to win over everyone, and it is entirely possible that I won't be able to convince more than a handful; all I can do is speak what I believe to be the truth. I say all this, but I should also point out that it is not up to me to be the sole arbiter of what this group will decide is our position on every issue will be. Unless the party members are inclinded to ap point me Dictator, everyone else will have as much to say about these things as I do. |
|
|
|
Post by ryanthomas on Nov 26, 2012 22:15:45 GMT -5
I know what you mean. I agree pandering isn't the way to go. I'm just saying you're not likely to get foreign policy libertarians on your side, so it might not even be worth trying to bridge that gap. There are many libertarians who are much less concerned about that particular issue, though. On fiscal issues, I'd bet there's a lot of common ground Although libertarians probably want a smaller government than you do, they'd certainly be interested in any step in the right direction.
|
|
