Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarians Join Anti-War Protests
Libertarian Party website ^ | January 21, 2003

Posted on 01/29/2003 10:51:42 PM PST by Commie Basher

[January 21] Libertarians took part in a major anti-war march in the nation's capital on January 18.

More than a dozen Libertarians carried signs and chanted slogans as they marched with more than 100,000 other demonstrators from the National Mall to the Navy Yards in Southeast Washington, DC.

"We can't let the liberals and lefties be the only ones getting the message out," said Carol Moore, who coordinated the Libertarian effort.

According to the group that organized the rally, A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), the goal of the march was to show opposition to "[President George W.] Bush's criminal war that seeks to conquer the oil, land, and resources of the Middle East."

Speakers at the march included Rev. Al Sharpton (National Action Network), Jessica Lange (actress), Ron Kovic (author, Born on the Fourth of July), Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Free Palestine Alliance, the New York Youth Bloc, and the Partnership for Civil Justice.

The march included "lots of peaceniks who'd be open to libertarian ideas if anyone ever told them they exist," said Moore.

In Nevada, Libertarians joined more than 500 other protesters at an anti-war demonstration in Reno on January 18.

The rally, sponsored by the Reno Anti-War Coalition, was held at the Manzanita Bowl at the University of Nevada.

Libertarians participated to show opposition to the USA's interventionist foreign policy and to the fact that U.S. troops are stationed in about 100 countries, said Nevada LP State Chair Brendan Trainor.

"We have troops in Iceland. Are we protecting them from Greenland?" he said. "The military shouldn't protect foreign investments."

If some Americans want to topple Saddam Hussein, they should volunteer to fight the Iraqi dictator, as individuals did with the Lincoln Brigade to fight fascism in Spain from 1936-1939, said Trainor.

Protesters at the rally carried signs that said, "American's don't shoot first" and "Peace is patriotic."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720721-729 next last
To: eaglebeak
Poets and other artists are censored.

Bullshit. No poets have been censored.

701 posted on 01/31/2003 2:46:11 PM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
It doesn't follow that because the U.S. did or did not say something, that Iraq has the right to invade Kuwait. It doesn't.

I agree, but had GHW Bush warned Sadam of the consequences of invading Kuwait, it is far less likely that he would have done so. Sadam reacted to April Glaspie's statement of neutrality as a green light (or at least he didn't view it as a red stop light or a yellow caution light).

702 posted on 01/31/2003 3:21:30 PM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Does the Constitution prohibit the president from employing military force to protect the lives of innocent Americans unless Congress has first declared war?

The Constitution is ambiguous enough to be interpreted in practically any way imaginable by the courts, Congress, and the Executive branch (see Waco, Ruby Ridge).

703 posted on 01/31/2003 3:25:58 PM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: ravinson; Zviadist; Commie Basher
Ambiguous??? I have never heard a libertarian pleaed mercy on account of the Constitution being "ambiguous."

No, the libertarian faith does not waver on this fundamental point: the Consititution is perfectly clear and means exactly what is says.

So what does the Constitution say on this point: may a president employ military force to protect the lives of Americans in the absence of a declaration of war by Congress?

704 posted on 01/31/2003 3:34:22 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
"Vichie Conservatives", Chief, methinks you've coined the catch phrase that perfectly typifies the libertines of America.

If you were an officer, I'd salute you!

705 posted on 01/31/2003 3:35:56 PM PST by exnavy (muslim=satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: All
Many self styled 'conservative' members of the GOP are, and have been, closet defenders of the welfare state for some time.

This is not the old conservatives=liberals gambit, its observable fact from the voting records of congress.

706 posted on 01/31/2003 3:43:54 PM PST by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Normally, Turkey would not object....but you forget that Kurdistan extends deep into Turkey.

No, I didn't but you make a very good point. The Kurds have dreams that every square inch of land where there is one more Kurd than non-Kurd should be part of Kurdistan. An independent Kurdish state might ameliorate that desire.

I'm not saying an independent Kurdish state is in the cards, but Turkey might be pursuaded that a place where there are Kurds where it is not unpleasant to live would draw the Kurdish population out of Turkey, especially the radical elements. In any case, the Turks seem to be more or less on board, depending on what role they can get in the post-Saddam Iraq. I wonder how many Turkish Kurds are actually refugees.

707 posted on 01/31/2003 3:44:50 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
No, the libertarian faith does not waver on this fundamental point: the Consititution is perfectly clear and means exactly what is says.

You've never heard me say that. I've long held a Tocquevillian view of the U.S. Constitution (i.e. it's far from perfect and has language that has made creeping socialism highly predictable). I think libertarians who take a "the founders were flawless" attitude do libertarianism a disservice.

708 posted on 01/31/2003 4:12:30 PM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: All
Absolutely, the Constitution is ambiguous enough to be interpreted in practically any way imaginable by the courts, Congress, and the Executive branch. (see Waco, Ruby Ridge)
By those who ignore their oaths of office, that is.

Of course, rational people do not waver on this fundamental point:
the Consititution is perfectly clear and means exactly what is says.

Thus the Constitution, by ommission, says a president may employ military force to protect the lives of Americans in the absence of a declaration of war, only by an act of Congress. [the 'Emergency Powers act',is it?]

He is thus only constrained from impetuous acts by the XXV amendment, Section 4.
Or, by the long drawn out process of impeachment.

709 posted on 01/31/2003 4:23:21 PM PST by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
Balooney....Conservative don't want Stalinists to have the "peace" issue....one of the biggest problems with you Libertarians, is the simplistic pigeon hole characterizations and easy one-size-fits-all name calling that you throw at all of those who disagree with you...which is about 99.9% of the breathing humans in the country....There are "thinking" people in this country who recognize the danger to ALL of our well being that Irag posses. This does NOT make one a WAR MONGER....Churchill was labeled a war monger for suggesting that Hitler was a weed who should be plucked from the garden BEFORE the weed ruined the garden....the wise libertarian types of his day said that the west should work THROUGH the League of Nations, and not take unilaterial action against Hitler...there was NO proof they said, that Hitler intended to cause harm to the world....millions of dead later, the WAR MONGER was proven right.
710 posted on 01/31/2003 4:49:52 PM PST by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: ravinson
I think libertarians who take a "the founders were flawless" attitude do libertarianism a disservice.

I agree.

IMO, the libertarians who take the "Constitution is flawless" attitude are simply hiding from reality -- that because the Constitution is not the direct word of God or the direct pronoucements of objective reason, but instead written by human reason, then the Constitution is flawed.

The Constitution is a compromise -- the Constitution is not a libertarian document.

711 posted on 01/31/2003 6:17:21 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: ravinson
...April Glaspie's statement of neutrality...

I would have to review the source on this again.

712 posted on 01/31/2003 6:19:30 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Beautiful poetry, is it not, Luis ?

His eyes, grieviously weeping,

he turned his head and looked back upon them.

He saw saw doors standing open and gates without fastenings,

the porches empty without cloaks or coverings

and without falcons and without molted hawks.

He sighed, My Cid, for he felt great affliction.

He spoke, My Cid, well, and with great moderation.

"Thanks be to Thee, our Father Who art in heavan!

Mt evil enemies have wrought this upon me."

For those who don't know " EL CID ", read it.

713 posted on 01/31/2003 8:17:27 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

Hijo:

Espantado de todo, me refugio en ti.

Tengo fe en el mejoramiento humano, en la vida futura,
en la utilidad de la virtud, y en ti.

Si alguien te dice que estas páginas se parecen a otras
páginas, diles que te amo demasiado para profanarte así. Tal
como aquí te pinto, tal te han visto mis ojos; con esos
arreos de gala te me has aparecido. Cuando he cesado de
verte en esa forma, he cesado de pintarte.

Esos riachuelos han pasado por mi corazón.

¡Lleguen al tuyo!

José Martí

714 posted on 01/31/2003 9:55:53 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You just had to go and do this! How long till the Anglo-only folks come storming in?
715 posted on 02/01/2003 12:25:37 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: Impeach the Boy
Churchill was labeled a war monger for suggesting that Hitler was a weed who should be plucked from the garden BEFORE the weed ruined the garden....the wise libertarian types of his day said that the west should work THROUGH the League of Nations, and not take unilaterial action against Hitler...there was NO proof they said, that Hitler intended to cause harm to the world....millions of dead later, the WAR MONGER was proven right.

So if we don't stop Saddam now, he will invade Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, he will even march into and conquer Israel and Turkey, then he will march into Europe and Africa (through Egypt) and take those continents too. Meanwhile, his other armies will march north and east, taking Russia, India, China, Japan ... then he will sail across the ocean and conquer North and South America.

Ah yes, I see your logic. War now, or the entire planet will be speaking Farsi, or whatever they speak there.

The fact that he was unable to even take Iran, despite massive US support to Iraq, and despite Iran being torn by recent revolution ... well, we can overlook the facts.

Really, look at the facts. He is surrounded by nuclear powers (Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia). Any one of them can take Saddam. If Iraq causes trouble, let his neighbors take him out. We've sent Israel (and to lesser extents India and Pakistan) plenty of aid over the years. Let them start using it to our benefit. We've done enough already.

716 posted on 02/01/2003 5:13:12 AM PST by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
What the Bush administration is trying to stop is Iraq's sale of WMD's to terrorist groups, which would in turn, use them against Western countries...most notably us.

You can try and twist this into whatever fantasy argument you want to turn it into, but it doesn't change that simple fact.

Iraq sponsors international radical Muslim terrorists. They train there, they find refuge there, and they may even get financing from Hussein.

When you stick your head in the sand, your ass gets exposed to the world. And that's exactly where some wacko is going to shove that dirty bomb purchased from (or donated by) Saddam; our collective asses.

717 posted on 02/01/2003 6:38:00 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
Pardon me for jumping in so late, but I just had to disagree, twice -

First, I don't think the anti-war 'movement' is growing, because I don't think that there is any anti-war movement. There are a lot of mislead touchy-feely people and leftover peaceniks being fed tainted political pablum by the left with the help and to the joy of those that hate America, but this is not a political movement so much as a bowel movement [did i say that out loud?]. A bunch of ex-hippies and 'impressionable youth' are trying to relive the 60s one last time before moving to florida to run out the clock. But the anti-war protesters in washington DC weren't weaving flower garlands, holding hands and singing "Give Peace A Chance" while speakers waxed poetic about the wonder and beauty and sanctity of all life - they sold T-shirts and buttons attacking Bush while the speakers vomited venom at Bush in particular, Israel as an aside, and America and the civilized West in general. This is not an "anti-war movement", this is an anti-America group recruiting dupes, suckers, and other useful idiots to further the cause of socialism. As the case is made, information is revealed, and of course once the fighting starts, the 'movement' will vanish, and its commie sponsors will be flushed back into their hidey-holes [at the NY Times et al. oops, did i say that out loud?]

Second, I further diagree with the implication that the LP is anti-war: there are considerably more than 12 members of the LP [insert voter turnout joke here], and in fact the LP is seriously divided over the war on terror and/or the upcoming war on iraq; most favor both, but the magrin is thin and there's not been a great deal of discussion. Personally, I think the LP organizers were surprised by this, just assuming that the we-won't-start-the-fight portion of the party motto applied.

IMHO, it doesn't, but the but-by-god-we'll-finish-it implied other half of the motto applies.

For me, the crucial question is not whether the war is justified, run well, has good timing, is convenient, might be better than Futurama re-runs, or will lead to cheaper gasoline prices. The crucial question is: Do our enemies already believe that they are at war with us?

Since the answer is obviously yes, based on both declarations and actions, then we are already at war, and have an obligation to finish it.

I would prefer that Congress formally declare war - that's what they're supposed to do, and I don't believe that any act of Congress has the authority to delegate this power. Unfortunately or not, Congress believes that it does, and has, therefore President Bush should and must do whatever is necessary to win - decisevely and hopefully quickly, with minimal loss of innocent life.

718 posted on 02/01/2003 10:43:47 AM PST by CzarChasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
For your amusement, here is what babelfish.altavista.com translated your post to:

Son: Frightened of everything, I shelter to me in you. I have faith in the human improvement, the future life, the utility of the virtue, and in you. If somebody says you that these pages are looked like other pages, deals that I love too much to you for profanarte thus. As here I paint to you, so they have seen my eyes you; with those arreos in full dress you you have appeared to me. When I have stopped of verte in that form, I have stopped of pintarte. Those brooks have happened through my heart. Arrive at yours! Jose Martí

Naturally, I have no idea what you're talking about, but since you weren't talking to me it doesn't matter ;-)

719 posted on 02/01/2003 10:49:52 AM PST by CzarChasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
You are being too logical. If logic ruled the world, Kosovo would be part of Albania, Bosnia would be divided between Serbia and Croatia, with an independent Muslim state created out of the remnant, Chechnyia would independent.

None of this will happen, however, because the state department has an absolute phobia of any border changes. My prediction is on the table: the U.S. will fight tooth and claw to maintain a united "democratic Iraq."

720 posted on 02/01/2003 6:46:46 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720721-729 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson