Libertarian Harry Browne: Bush Did Not Liberate Iraq

HarryBrowne.org ^ | Dec 15, 2003 | Harry Browne

[tpaine]

Grampa Dave wrote:
Where are you guys holding your convention this year?



Welcome to the Republican Liberty Caucus
Address:http://www.rlc.org/?p=FAQ

[NutCrackerBoy]

I tried to explain that the military involvement is not motivated simply by the price of oil. The price of oil involved us economically. A terrible geopolitical situation exists there with us or without us. If we ignored their political upheavals, Islamists would take hostages and bomb us just as much they do now. We have intervened to stop power from coalescing under an Ayatollah Khomeini or Saddam Hussein.

[Commie Basher]

Clinton was an isolationist? He didn't send U.S. troops to invade Haiti? He didn't send U.S. troops to invade Kosovo? He didn't bomb Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan? Good grief, memories can be short.

You must understand, some FReepers have a simplistic/dualistic worldview. If they like apples, they'll insist Clinton burned apples orchards while Bush is a friend to apple farmers worldwide. IOW, they project their hatreds onto Clinton, and their loves onto Bush, never mind the facts. The DUers are the same.

Good thing I'm a libertarian, :-)

[Commie Basher]

Let's zot all those libertarians. Why are they ever here in the first place?

Because conservatives claim to believe in less govt, less taxes, more liberty, and the Consititution -- and some libertarians are silly enough to take conservatives at their word.

[Fledermaus]

And the libertarians dive off the deep end yet again. As a party, they are hopelessly moronic.

I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings (I hate socialsim), but Browne is a total nut.

This is more proof they aren't ready for prime time and will soon be mentioned in same breath as Lyndon LaRouche.

[Fledermaus]

and some libertarians are silly enough to take conservatives at their word.

And conservatives are silly enough to think the libertarians are serious, viable and important.

What a gaggle of pea-brains.

[Wormwood]

Because conservatives claim to believe in less govt, less taxes, more liberty, and the Consititution -- and some libertarians are silly enough to take conservatives at their word.

Good point.

Browne's article simply reminds me why I prefer the 'small l' to the 'capital L'.

[L.N. Smithee]

Sadly though, I think Gary Nolan will be the LP nominee for 2004.

Holy cow, really? The chief propagator of the Chicken Little theories about "Y2K?" If so, the LP is on its way to obscurity along with the remains of the Reform Party.

[savedbygrace]

Somehow it was assumed by politicians and the press, without explanation, that Hussein's capture has vindicated the Bush administration's attack on Iraq.

This is Brown's Strawman opening. A deep thinker he ain't.

[savedbygrace]

I disagree with your position, Howlin. Articles written from a viewpoint that stands in stark opposition to most of us here have always been posted on FR. At least they have the whole time I've been coming here, which was early fall 1997.

They give us good target practice, and as you know, the more practice you get, the better you are at hitting your target.

What's the point of a one-sided debate?

[GigaDittos]

I can say all these things too, but that doesn't make it so. No evidence is given for any of these points. Supervised media, yeah sure, in what way? It could be to protect the media from attack. You can make things sound bad when they may not be. The Libertarians need to dump Browne, he's been a loser since the beginning. He's old news, nobody new will vote for him. Step aside boy, and just be a manager or something. He's a crackhead whose only purpose is to legalize illegal drugs.