UN says that it is possible that Saddam did have WMDs

[rklenseth]

But USA has more WMDs than any other countries on this planet...so saying that you hold them just because other countries have them is a poor excuse.

I definitely agree with Pirog there... along the same lines, why does the USA maintain a military that is several times the size of Russia's and China's military combined (and much better equipped)? Somehow it seems to me that the military has become a purpose in itself in the USA, rather than a means to an end.

Judith

As one of Libertarian thought, I agree with the notion of not having a standing army unless times of need but the current military is a volunteer army and most of that is either National Guard or Reserve units that are only activated in time of wars or crises (Guard and Reserve units do not count as a standing army). Plus, Russia still has a larger army than us and China has always had a larger army.

Yes, the US does have technological advantages over both countries.

[rklenseth]

Nitefyre>

Nowdays I wouldn't measure an army's strength in the number of people involved...

Agreed except in the case of China unless nukes are used. China could win a war of attrition against the US.

[rklenseth]

The reason for asking in the first place is that I think that conservatives often puts a blind eye to facts they don't like...upholding beliefs because they WANT to see the world in a certain way.

I'm not Conservative. I hold some Conservative view points but not many. I am a Libertarian.

[Missy]

And here I thought I was a libertarian. You're far from a Michael Moore RKL.

[rklenseth]

Moore ain't Libertarian. He is a Liberal. They are totally different things.

And I agree with the many of the principles of Libertarians.

[Missy]

Oh you're welcome to school me on the differance. Now you know why I try to keep a distance from these discussions.


I think I already knew that anyways, but forgot until I had already made an ass of myself.

[Pirog]

Lenseth>

Yes, the US has a large number of WMDs in the form of nukes.

You have a lot of chemical and biological weapons to.
I wonder what would happen if the UN wanted to send inspectors to your country to look thru those stocks...I bet you would cooperate about as much as Saddam Hussein...

There is a long process of dismantling and safely storing nuclear warheads.

True...but it could still be done much, much faster than now.

Anti-missile shield (which I do agree with) is not WMDs. It shoots a missile and destroys an incoming nuclear warhead...

You have to think one step longer though.
If USA as the sole power on this planet have the ability to shoot down nukes the nuclear balance is shifted again.
Suddenly USA could use nukes without risking retaliations of the same kind. And it WAS agreed upon with the Russians that USA wouldn't develop such a system, just because of the reason I mentioned above.

Never heard that Bush was going to use tactical nukes except as a threat to Saddam if he used WMDs on American troops during the war.

It was talked about during the war in Afghanistan to...

I'll see Moore's movie sooner or later. I won't pay money in a theatre for it. Personally, Moore's movies spin the truth so badly that nothing of his works can be taken seriously.

Have you seen Bowling for Columbine?
You don't have to believe everything the man says, but he raises a lot of interesting thoughts...

China could win a war of attrition against the US.

So could Vietnam...it doesn't have much to do with the size of the army really...it's a matter of determination and politics.

I hold some Conservative view points but not many.

I beg to differ
You may call yourself a Libertarian (I really don't know the definition), but your views that are expressed here are identical with the stereotyphical Conservative.

[kroner]

just to clear things up, the republican party takes on an odd mix of libertarian and traditionalist platforms.

the libertarian aspect is the emphasis on smaller government, lower taxes, less gun control, less social programs.

the traditionalist aspect is the emphasis on opposing gay rights, opposing abortion, supporting religious groups, these supposedly moralistic wars, etc.

so libertarians and conservatives do have things in common, but a libertarian does not necessarily hold all the views of the the typical republican.

[Pirog]

kroner>

Ah, I see...kind of like the two most right wing parties in Sweden...but magnified a lot

[jeslange]

@Missy: I think people tend to confuse Libertarian and Liberal because they both share the root "liber," which comes from the latin "free."

Classical liberalism, which many U.S. founding fathers upheld, revolves around little government influence, whereas modern day liberals want government to have a strong hand in economics and especially in social issues. Liberal in this modern context is understandably confusing.

Libertarians are the modern day version of classical liberalists. A short version of the general concensus amongst this group is that the U.S. gov has only the rights specifically laid out in the Constitution. Anything else would make the gov "too big."

[rklenseth]

just to clear things up, the republican party takes on an odd mix of libertarian and traditionalist platforms.

the libertarian aspect is the emphasis on smaller government, lower taxes, less gun control, less social programs.

the traditionalist aspect is the emphasis on opposing gay rights, opposing abortion, supporting religious groups, these supposedly moralistic wars, etc.

so libertarians and conservatives do have things in common, but a libertarian does not necessarily hold all the views of the the typical republican.

Libertarians also believe in more localized government, State's rights, isolation (but I do not hold fully to that view). Libertarians are also often confused with Anarchists. They also fully support the Bill of Rights and believe the Bill of Rights should be the law of the land and that is why they will defend less arms control because it a right protected in the Bill of Rights (the ACLU for instance) as well as the right to organize militia (that is why you will see Libertarians organizing militia groups). They are also against standing armies in times where there is not war or crises and even so they believe it should be a volunteer army. Libertarians also don't like Big Business and prefer small localized businesses. Libertarians also believe that government law should be based on Common Morals such as killing someone for malice reason is wrong but killing someone to defend yourself or someone else is not. Whereas Conservatives will often times support Religious aspects in government, Libertarians feel religion or morals based on religion have no business in government.

There is more but I don't have the time to post all of their ideals.

And in no way are Libertarians Conservative. If you ever go and talk to Libertarians they hate Conservatives just as much as Liberals. They feel both have fucked up this country.

A lot of Libertarian beliefs center around the Old South belief in agrian society (pretty much small, self suffiecient farming communities pre-Civil War) and Thomas Jefferson's platform and ideals before he joined the Democrat-Republican Party.

[rklenseth]

@Missy: I think people tend to confuse Libertarian and Liberal because they both share the root "liber," which comes from the latin "free."

Classical liberalism, which many U.S. founding fathers upheld, revolves around little government influence, whereas modern day liberals want government to have a strong hand in economics and especially in social issues. Liberal in this modern context is understandably confusing.

Libertarians are the modern day version of classical liberalists. A short version of the general concensus amongst this group is that the U.S. gov has only the rights specifically laid out in the Constitution. Anything else would make the gov "too big."

Classical Liberalism during the American Revolution center closely around Libertarian beliefs today with some differences and off many beliefs by scholars during the Renaissance. The Social Liberalism formed in Europe during the French Revolution and later built upon by Napoleon Bonaparte while he ruled his French Empire. Social Liberalism later adopted Marxism and even later Communism as platforms with varying degrees of this.

Both are forms of Liberalism just different. Both were very revolutionary during their times. Libertarians called themselves that to distance themselves from Liberals as they do not want to be confused with Social Liberalism. Thus Liberals are from Social Liberalism (of which there are many factions ie. Communism ect.) and Libertarians are from Classical Liberalism.

[rklenseth]

just to clear things up, the republican party takes on an odd mix of libertarian and traditionalist platforms.

Republicans and Conservatives should not be confused with Libertarians. Libertarians are not right wing. Libertarians use to be the emphasis of the Democratic Party until the Old South Agrian Society fell away after the American Civil War and was replaced with Social Liberalism because it appealed to the masses of poor Irish, Italians, Germans etc... coming to America afterwards. The Democratic Party pretty much abandoned the Libertarian platform for votes. Republicans have always been on the Conservative platforms and the ideals of Alexander Hamiliton though with varying degrees throughout American History.

[Missy]

@Missy: I think people tend to confuse Libertarian and Liberal because they both share the root "liber," which comes from the latin "free."

Classical liberalism, which many U.S. founding fathers upheld, revolves around little government influence, whereas modern day liberals want government to have a strong hand in economics and especially in social issues. Liberal in this modern context is understandably confusing.

Libertarians are the modern day version of classical liberalists. A short version of the general concensus amongst this group is that the U.S. gov has only the rights specifically laid out in the Constitution. Anything else would make the gov "too big."

Ah-ha, that was informative enough. Thank you.

And here I thought I was a libertarian. You're far from a Michael Moore RKL.

My intended meaning was right anyways, and it still works if you insert the correct word.

And here I thought I was liberal. You're far from a Michael Moore RKL. It's true enough from my stand point.
Though it doesn't much make sense to write that, as the point of saying it now holds differant meaning than I'd first thought.


*Fades back behind the wall-paper again.*

[Psycho Pixie]

@Missy: I think people tend to confuse Libertarian and Liberal because they both share the root "liber," which comes from the latin "free."

Classical liberalism, which many U.S. founding fathers upheld, revolves around little government influence, whereas modern day liberals want government to have a strong hand in economics and especially in social issues. Liberal in this modern context is understandably confusing.

Libertarians are the modern day version of classical liberalists. A short version of the general concensus amongst this group is that the U.S. gov has only the rights specifically laid out in the Constitution. Anything else would make the gov "too big."

so going by this idea here...

A libertarian wants less government control, basically wants more freedom of the peoples choice.

whereas a liberal wants the government to be more in control... therefore it wants the government to have more freedom to act apon the people.

am I right?

Psycho Pixie. the truely libertarian, by any definition.