We Are All Spaniards

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "David Brooks"
writes:


Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD,
what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl
Harbor? What about after PH?


There wasn't an LP then, but I expect it would be divided, just as it is
now
about Iraq.

Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends,
but
we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has
begun.

The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of
principle.
Some see terrorism as isolated incidents that must be addressed
individually.
LP members with this world view generally supported the invasion of
Afghanistan
but see little justification for Iraq.

Libertarian Hawks, like myself, see a larger world war, against
Islamofascism,
encompassing the whole of the middle east, and much of Africa, Asia and
Europe.
We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not just
individual
governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate strategic target. Iraq
did
not topple the WTC, but Normandy didn't bomb Pearl Harbor either. In WW2
we
went where it was militarily expedient to fight fascism and we will fight
Islamofascism the same way now. Taking Iraq first minimzes the number of
Moslems we will have to kill to win this war.

But Libertarians are every bit as opposed to losing a war once we're in it
as
we arew to unnecessarily getting into one in the first place. We would
have
been quite content to let the marketplace decide whether capitalism and
the
rule of law would prevail over feudalism and theocracy, but they chose to
use
force and we will burn them to the ground if that's what it takes.

American libertarians make Hitler and his Nazis look like a soft touch.
Says a lot for the American right.

Thanks - I concede your post is well argued and nuanced.

-- David Brooks

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...


Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends,
but
we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has
begun.

The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of
principle.
....snip...go see the parent for all of it

"Wdtabor" wrote:
We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not
just individual governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate
strategic target. Iraq did not topple the WTC, but ...Taking Iraq
first minimzes the number of Moslems we will have to kill to win
this war.

I find this argument illogical. Before the war, Saddam had radical
Islamists, "Islamofascists," to use your word, under tighter control
than in any other predominantly Muslim country - hell, he was
exterminating them. Now, the lid is off: we have handed the the
radicals a golden opportunity. They are already taking full advantage of
it by organizing and proselytizing masses of followers, something
unthinkable before the invasion. All this was foreseeable. The invasion
was folly; our enemies have been much enriched by it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:ev85c.13233$Cb.306915@attbi_s51...
The socialists have just won the election & Zapatero has
pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. Looks like it's
down to the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Rather
like last time.

With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the very attackers
they supposedly revile, and endangered us all in the process.

This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has.

What does this have to do with flying (rec.aviation.piloting, to be
specific), except the very tenuous connection ANY political,
especially international, issue does?

What does this have to do with flying (rec.aviation.piloting, to be
specific), except the very tenuous connection ANY political,
especially international, issue does?

Everything, and nothing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"