[misterrob]

The election was rigged no mattter who “won” in the end. And, what business is it of ours to meddle in a rigged process anyway? There are going to be risks of helping to solidify the regime is we are seen to be taking an active interest in seeing them gone.

[Grunthor]

To be a generous as I can be, perhaps the Libertarians simply do not care about others being free so long as we in this nation are? Perhaps the rest of the world can go to hell as far as they are concerned so long as they get theirs?

Not that I would defend Repukes either but if one is going to say that they love liberty, it seems that they ought to love it for all.

[Mr. Mojo]

The usual suspects on the Libertarian Left, LewRockwell.com, Justin Raimondo and AntiWar.com,

Those nutballs are all pro-Mullah and want Iran to develop a nuke weapons program. Why? Because it directly threatens Israel. ...a people/nation they despise above all others.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[KarlInOhio]

The old battle between the isolationist libertarians and the "Randian" willing-to-intervene-for-freedom branch. I'm too lazy to look up the original wording, but I remember Ayn Rand writing that the US had the right, but not the obligation, to invade Cuba to free it. (I hope I'm remembering that correctly).

[HamiltonJay]

The Libertarian party in America is a joke. As long as they continue to take a pass on Abortion they are being completely intellectually dishonest with themselves and everyone else.

Liberty is defined as “freedom from oppression” you can’t claim to be a libertarian and argue that your right to liberty allows you to engage in the most heinous act of oppression there is, the denial of an innocent child its inalienable right to life. To propose that liberty grants you the right to engage in such a horrific act of oppression is a complete perversion of liberty and is indefensible.

Sorry “Libertarians” but its “live and let live” not “live at let murder”. Until the party stands up and stops being completely disingenuous with itself on this topic you cannot be considered anything but a complete fallacy. Your stand on this is a complete bastardization of the very meaning of liberty.

[ChrisInAR]

Soooooooo...another Neocon excuse to bash Libertarians. How about THIS libertarian quote:

I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to inter-meddle in the internal concerns of another; and that, if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace.

-- George Washington: Letter to James Monroe, August 25, 1796

[Dead Corpse]

As a libertarian, get the info on who to send money to so the Iranians can fight for their freedom, and I'll donate what I can.

But our government has ZERO legit authority to do so unless we are attacked first. Every time we've tried to meddle in the ME, we muck things up worse.

Make the case that Iran having troops attacking ours in Iraq, and I'll be right there with you. That would clear the "non-initiation of force" moral hurdle for me.

RP and Lew-Rockwell are vehemently anti-war. "Anti-war at any cost" as I've repeatedly called it here over the years. Retaliatory force is mandatory. If not, you just invite your enemies to attack you again. War in a just defensive cause is not a bad thing. RP and his fellow travellers on this issue want even defensive use of force to be mitigated.

This doesn't sit well with me.