Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism

[Universe Prince]

I suggest you brought your own take on the phrasing.

Yeah. Most people do. That hardly lets you off the hook for poor communication.

Further evidence of that would be the fact that you never even asked me why I think Libertarianism is childish. You were only concerned with your point of view.

Was I? You seem only concerned with proving you're better. First you're too adult for libertarianism, now your poor communication is all my fault. Notably, other than to say I must be wrong, you haven't bothered to explain your position. And unless you have something new to say I've never heard before, which I doubt, I have no motivation to ask you why you think libertarianism is childish.

[Stray Pooch]

You define "doctrine" as such an all encompassing term that Palins asking for more specificity makes better sense.

No, Plane, I did not make up the term "Bush Doctrine" anymore than I made up "Monroe Doctrine" or "Carter Doctrine."  Your lack of knowledge of these common terms does not support your argument.  We are not discussing the meaning of the term "doctrine."  We are discussing the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine."

No I do not recognise even yet "Bush Doctrine" as a product of the Bush Administration or as a term that refers to any specific and actual thing.

Then allow me to educate you.  The term "Monroe Doctrine" refers to President Monroe's stated intention to intervene in any attempt by European powers to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.   This was delivered in a speech to Congress in 1823 and was invoked by Theodore Roosevelt and by John F. Kennedy:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.   http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=23&page=transcript

At no point did this speech declare this the "Monroe Doctrine" nor call it a "doctrine" at all.  Yet any historian, of any political stripe, instantly and clearly recognizes it - and its implications and applications.


The Bush Doctrine is that we hold nations that support terror groups equally responsible for terror acts as the terrorists themselves.  We may act preemptively to thwart an impending threat, and we will do so unilaterally if required.   It was developed (as one would expect in an emerging situation) over a period of time, starting on 9-11 (though some libs insist it began before this and was all part of some neo-con conspiracy).  


I happen to support the Bush Doctrine, btw, in pretty much every point.  Basically, Bush was declaring independence from the United Nations - and well past time if you ask me.  And he was making the perfectly sensible claim that if we knew somebody as a threat, we had the right to stop them fro hurting us - not wait for them to hurt us and then retaliate.  

Here are some of the points where Bush stated these policies and how they developed.


Nations who support terrorists will be accountable:  Bush stated this several times, here are two well known examples:


"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."  Sep 11, 2001

"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.  . .  This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion.  It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.  Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.  It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.  We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.  And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
"  Sep 20, 2001

It also includes the idea of Pre-emptive strikes against perceived threats. Here is what Bush said to West Point in June 2002 (the first class after the attacks):

". . . Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."

Here is how it was stated in our National Security Strategy, published in 2002:  (The NSS has been updated by Bush and Obama since then.  I do not know if this policy is in the present strategy and I don't care to study it at this time.)

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.

To me "Doctrine" implys a specific policy chosen to be put forward as important and overrideing to other policys.

That is your personal definition of one word.  It is irrelevent to the recognized meaning of the full term "Bush Doctrine."   Before Nixon most people would have defined "Watergate" as a hotel in DC.  But in fact, your definition of the word doctrine describes Bush's policies in response to 9-11 quite well.

I really doubt that a Quote for George Bush in which he declares a doctrine can be found , nor any single definition of what it means that is widely recognised.

The former is an invalid argument and the latter a weak one.  Bush declared the elements of the doctrine as I stated above, and Monroe did the same thing.   Even an undeclared war is still a war.  There is no recognized method for "declaring" a doctrine under our constitution, parliamentary procedure or any other system that pertains as far as I know. Perhaps you can educate me.  Is there such a thing?  As to the doctrine itself, there may be disagreements about some aspects of the Doctrine or how they may be applied or interpreted.  But people throughout the political spectrum recognize the term and the basic ideas that Bush developed.  Most educated people, even before the Palin gaffe, understood the general meaning of the term (just as most educated people understand the general meaning of the Monroe Doctrine).  After the gaffe it is far more well known, of course, since people who didn't immediately understand it went to their favorite search engine to find out what the fuss was all about.

The fact is, many of our woefully undereducated masses probably STILL have no idea what the BD is, or what Monroe Doctrine is, for that matter.  But a Vice Presidential candidate should have known.   The term was common enough then to make sense.

[Stray Pooch]

Was I? You seem only concerned with proving you're better. First you're too adult for libertarianism, now your poor communication is all my fault. Notably, other than to say I must be wrong, you haven't bothered to explain your position. And unless you have something new to say I've never heard before, which I doubt, I have no motivation to ask you why you think libertarianism is childish.

UP, I have to say something.  I have the utmost respect for you, in spite of our different viewpoints concerning your political position.  I do not mean to join a gangbang here, but I think there is a fundamental flaw with your objection to the characterization of your ideology as "childish" or any other thing, and that is that you personalize it.  Many people consider Mormonism as "brainwashing" or foolish or even delusion (A certain type of metal being used to disguise a face comes to mind!).  But in order to allow for a rational debate about the issues involved, one must allow one's beliefs to be challenged without assuming that calling an ideology childish immediately indicates all adherents thereunto must be considered childish as well.  Had he said "libertarians" are childish, you would be right to object.  But his is not an ad hominem attack.  

I do not, as a rule, debate doctrines (except the Bush Doctrine in the other thread and that's DIFFERENT!).  I do not do so because certain aspects of my faith are too sacred to me to want to get into insulting battles about.  I really get offended by people who trash Joseph Smith as a person or a prophet, who belittle the atonement and divine nature of Christ, who ridicule our temples or our doctrines.  Yet if I engage in religious discussion, those are open and fair game.  But when I mention Mormonism and someone invariably says "That religion is so stupid." or something like that I do not take that to mean "YOU are so stupid" because it doesn't necessarily.  In fact, I have often been told something along the lines of "How can someone as intelligent as you believe in something so stupid?"  I tell them that's a good question, and maybe they should try to find an answer.  I have this book that might help . . .

Just because a person is factually wrong, naive, slanted by upbringing or circumstance or just easily led does not mean they are evil, stupid or lazy.  A person can see in any ideology aspects that ring true to his experience.  I completely understand the appeal of libertarism - and I like some of the basic principles IN principle.  But I think that the ideology goes way too far, and ignores realities that override ideals.  That's why I consider the ideology to be rather foolish.  That does NOT mean, however, that I think YOU foolish for believing or advocating it.  I think you have a different perspective from me, and have concluded that this ideal is superior to others that I might substitute.  I have no doubt of your intelligence, so I conclude that an intelligent person with a different perspective from mine believes in something I consider to be foolish.  Most of my friends think me an intelligent man who believes in God and tries to act decently but one who believes in a religion that is going to send him to hell.  This doesn't bother me, provided, of course, that they are wrong about the hell part!  I also believe that homosexual behavior is evil - but that doesn't mean I think homosexuals are evil.  

Now if I said libertarians were god-hating anarchists who wanted to do drugs and have gay sex you would have a legitimate beef.  But if I say that libertarianism supports gay marriage, drug use, atheism and the end of government, you would be obliged to defend the misperceptions, where they existed, but not to take personal offense.  Libertarians oppose the war on terror.  Neil Boortz is a Libertarian.  Yet he supports the war.   The religious right wants prayer in school.  I am religious and right-wing.  But I oppose school prayer.  We are not all cookie-cutter thinkers.  

Stop taking criticism of your beliefs as criticism of you personally.

[BSB]

I would think that the Republican Governor of the great state of Alaska should have known why, according to what principles, and according to her parties president, we were at war in Iraq.

[Universe Prince]

That's a rather funny comment coming from someone who describes themselves as a "libertarian", a group that has apparently appointed themselves the arbiters of all things that constitute liberty, and dismiss all competing visions as "statist" or "anti-freedom".

You forgot "authoritarian".

Doubly funny because they mostly seem to be in the business of petitioning the state to inflict on their citizens policies the citizens have never, ever chosen for themselves.

That right there shows you don't know what you're talking about. Libertarians generally don't want the government to inflict anything. They want the government simply to get out of the way.

You think you don't have open borders or gay marriage because governments are standing in the way? Is that a joke? Governments have imposed those things on their citizens at every chance they've gotten! Any time they've been put to a referendum, they've been soundly defeated. Who's the "statist" there?

Bogus. We don't have the immigration policy that we have because of a referendum. In any case, you're countering an argument that was not made.

It seems to me a large portion of "libertarianism" is the same politically correct crap governments have been trying to shove down the throats of their unwilling citizens for decades, sexed up with a veneer of sex, drugs and rock and roll and a leather jacket to make it appealing to gullible college students.

Oh, you're jealous of Nick Gillespie. Isn't that cute?

No government ever had a better shill on the payroll than the Cato Institute or Reason magazine.

Oh pshaw. You're just saying that to be mean.

Hint: Liberty is an abstract concept, not a checklist of agenda items.

Hint: No one said otherwise.

There is no such thing as absolute liberty in civil society, nor could there possibly be.

Another hint: No one said otherwise this time either.

The domain of permissible liberties within civil society is a legitimate object of debate. Whining "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" whenever your your pet agenda item is rejected is not.

Whining and making up nonsense because other people want more liberty than you do isn't really debate.

So, presumably, you would object to a government policy prohibiting a private entrepreneur from selling nuclear and biological weapons to third-world dictatorships hostile to the United States? Personally, I would consider getting nuked off the face of the earth a rather significant loss of my economic liberty, to say the least.

I can play this game too. So presumably, you think the most civil society of all is one where individual liberties do not exist. You support total authoritarian control over every aspect of life?

Another hint: You will never enjoy absolute liberty within any society.

One more hint for you: No one except you is talking about absolute liberty.

Before you enjoy any liberty at all, you have to facilitate an environment where liberty is possible. Some economic transactions are very much detrimental to facilitating that environment. I consider restricting the 5% of transactions that are damaging to that environment in return for maintaining an environment where the other 95% of transactions can flourish a very reasonable trade-off indeed.

A bogus description of the nature of the situation. Once again, you're trying to argue against having no restrictions when no one has argued for it.

Humans need water to live. However, a drink of water and getting drowned in a swimming pool are two different things.

Figure that one out by yourself?

Presumably, you are referring to gay marriage, which is hardly the extent of the range of examples I was referring to.

Oh? Do tell.

There is a good reason our political dichotomy is divided between conservative and liberal, and libertarian not at all. There are some functions necessary to society that will never be profitable from a economic perspective. Raising children or caring for infirm elders will never be economically profitable enterprises. However, they are necessary for a functioning society. The liberal views those activities as the appropriate domain of government. The conservative considers them more appropriately managed by traditional families, and therefore advocates policies which facilitates or strengthens the traditional structures.  How does the libertarian propose to manage them? Markets don't cater to unprofitable activities.

More evidence of your ignorance of libertarian ideas. And your description of the conservative position is just a flat out lie. The conservative also views raising children or caring for infirm family members as the domain of government. This is why conservatives oppose letting homosexuals adopt children, support drinking age laws, and why that Terri Schiavo situation was turned in such a circus. And "advocates policies" in this case means, advocates things like marriage are to be something defined, and therefore controlled, by government.

In any case, your question is flawed. You have clearly assumed libertarian thought begins and ends with markets. Here is yet another hint: Your assumption is wrong. If you had done a modicum of research into this, you would see the libertarian position on things like marriage is that it not the government's business who is and is not married. If one church wants to not allow homosexual marriage, that's okay but not a reason to prevent another church from allowing it. If two people want to enter into a private legal agreement, the extent of the government's involvement would be protection against fraud and the like, i.e. infringements on individual rights. See? Nothing to do with markets at all.

Nobody is advocating telling anyone what kind of relationship they can form, and what kind of contracts they can make between themselves.

If you're opposing homosexual marriage, yes, you are.

But some relationships are valuable enough to society at large that society protects and privileges them. In the case of heterosexual relationships, they provide the means for a society to perpetuate itself. The law privileges them because, in return, they provide a value to society. What value do gay relationships offer society? None. That is why few, if any, societies grant them a privileged status. It's a demand of something for nothing.

That is a very narrow-minded view of marriage. So, presumably, you favor law against all childless marriage. Tell me, if a woman is not capable of becoming pregnant, should she be allowed to marry at all? Presumably, you favor going back to really traditional marriage practices, arranging marriages for for teenagers so they can have more time to produce plenty of offspring. That is the whole point of marriage, right? All that stuff about love and romance and two people choosing to spend their lives together, that is all just a liberal corruption of traditional values, right?

So, a society where I can shoot anybody who annoys me, rape my neighbors daughter, and help myself to his property is a civil society?

Again, not an argument anyone made.

The point here, is that *some* restrictions on personal liberty are required for civil society. Nobody besides maybe the anarchist fringe disputes that.

What you're either missing or deliberately trying to be misleading about is that no one at all is advocating that everyone be allowed to do anything and everything they want. You keep arguing against that, but no one argued in favor of it, not at Reason, not at Cato, and not here at the Three Dead Horses Saloon. So you're arguing against something no one wants. Congratulations on a job almost well done.

And the domain of what restrictions are required, and what liberties are permissible, is very much a legitimate debate.

I agree. That is why I find so juvenile the nonsensical attitude like yours that wants to dismiss libertarianism with distortions and outright lies sans any real discussion at all.

I'm sure Dick will deny some of what I said,

No, but I'll certainly clarify your mischaracterization of it.

More like you'll make up a lot of nonsense to blow smoke at the discussion and hope no one notices.

I voted for Ron Paul. But if the Reason crowd started voting for my party, I'd wonder what was wrong with my party!

They like Ron Paul at Reason. A lot of Reason readers probably voted for him. Reason also likes Jeff Flake. I wonder if any Reason-reading libertarians voted for Jeff Flake. Your party could be in serious trouble already!

I see no reason why the Republicans should be bothered cultivating that kind of libertarian.

And y'all know what kind of libertarian he's talking about. (nod, nod, wink, wink)

A platform of Acid, Amnesty and Abortion did nothing for the Democrats - ask George McGovern - and I have no reason to believe it will improve the prospects for Republicans, either. Whatever votes they win from the more libertine branch of the libertarians will not compensate for the votes they lose from the sane.

There it is. The accusation of lack of morals and mental soundness. This is what lies at the back of all the rest of your objections. You complain about libertarians having "appointed themselves the arbiters of all things that constitute liberty, and dismiss all competing visions as 'statist' or 'anti-freedom'." Meanwhile, you sit there apparently having appointed yourself arbiter of what is moral and sane. What a hypocrite you are.

[BSB]

Richpo: "bitch"

Put up or shut up, midget.

Natick, Mass

[BT]

Winning the nomination is a mistake if it results in losing the presidency.

Again, not if it is the will of the people. I wonder if Reagan could have been President if Goldwater had won?

[Universe Prince]

UP, I have to say something.  I have the utmost respect for you, in spite of our different viewpoints concerning your political position.

Thank you, Pooch. I respect you too.

I do not mean to join a gangbang here, but I think there is a fundamental flaw with your objection to the characterization of your ideology as "childish" or any other thing, and that is that you personalize it.

Calling libertarianism childish wasn't really the problem I had with BSB's comment. It was the "but I'm mature" context of his phrasing. I've had enough sly and "witty" insults directed at me to generally recognize the makings of one. And I suggest again if that was not BSB's intent, then his comment was poorly worded. It's one thing to say "that's childish" and another to say the equivalent of "but I'm more mature than that." That makes it personal, imo, because it's not just a comment on the ideas, it carries the implication of comparison between the other person and me. The implication being while he is mature enough to know better therefore I must not be.

[Plane]

You define "doctrine" as such an all encompassing term that Palins asking for more specificity makes better sense.

 
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."  Sep 11, 2001

"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.  . .

[/b] From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
"  Sep 20, 2001

I do feel as if I am learning something, I myself had never heard this term before the interview with Palin made it popular and I didn't ever see it described so well untill just now.

I don't think I am severely isolated , but I would have been at a loss to express an opinion on the term "Bush Doctrine" yesterday.

Perhaps it was being used a lot in circles I am not privvy to , or perhaps you overestimate the spread of the term as it was at the time.

Perhaps both , but if it is Historians that produce these phrases, how is a canadate responsible to know them?

  That Palin failed to know the inside ball of Washington chatter doesn't offend me so much as attract me. There is much more to how the world works than what happens inside the city limits of Washington D.C..

[BSB]

"That Palin failed to know the inside ball of Washington chatter"

The "inside ball of Washington chatter"? The whole premise behind invading Iraq was as a preemptive strike from the "Bush Doctrine". She was the Republican governor of a state but couldn't put into words the doctrine of a president from her own party, and a doctrine that's principles guided us into a war.

[BT]

She was the Republican governor of a state but couldn't put into words the doctrine of a president from her own party, and a doctrine that's principles guided us into a war.

As a Republican Governor was it her job to know that?

[Kramer]

"That Palin failed to know the inside ball of Washington chatter"

The "inside ball of Washington chatter"? The whole premise behind invading Iraq was as a preemptive strike from the "Bush Doctrine". She was the Republican governor of a state but couldn't put into words the doctrine of a president from her own party, and a doctrine that's principles guided us into a war.

no wonder your life sucks, you live in a narrow mind. You need to discover life isn't just black & white and that some gray exists. Then you will become less self-obsorbed. Go out and help a needy person, do something kind, but stop living in your me me me world. Step out of that dark box you dwell in.

[BSB]

"just black & white"

Yeah, I'm white, and you're a nigger.
Euphemistically speaking, of course.

[BSB]

Her job to kow that, BT? I would yes. As a Governor she should know why the soldiers from her state are being sent off to war.   

[BT]

I'm pretty sure she did. Her own son was deployed.