Parties weigh in on Iraq war. Libertarians, Greens, others take dim view of U.S. action

Most Americans know where Republicans and Democrats stand on the war in Iraq, but few have heard views on the war expressed by the plethora of other, smaller political parties.

Accepted as the nation's third-largest organized political party, the Libertarian Party generally advocates a military policy of non-interventionism unless such intervention is directly tied to American security.

"Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power. This objective should be achieved as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect," says the party's platform on "Military Policy."

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian CATO Institute in Washington, D.C., says of the Iraq war, "The only pertinent issue is whether Iraq poses a serious, imminent threat to the United States, thereby justifying pre-emptive war. The pro-war camp has utterly failed to make the case that Iraq poses such a threat."

"There is no doubt that Saddam is a murderous tyrant. But that characteristic does not distinguish him from several dozen other rulers around the world," Carpenter said. "If overthrowing a dictator is sufficient reason for the United States to go to war, one must ask how many other holy crusades are in our future?"

Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000, writes, "Our government's attempts to fight communism or spread democracy around the world have caused millions of innocent people to die in Iran, Indonesia, Iraq, Panama, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Grenada, Cambodia and many other countries. All the good intentions in the world are little comfort to the people buried prematurely all over the globe.

"What I want is for our government … to quit pretending it knows what's best for other countries; to quit inciting terrorists by backing coups and dictatorial regimes; to quit generating hostility by bribing foreign governments to allow American troops to be stationed in a hundred countries; to quit giving our money to foreign countries – no matter whose side they're on," Browne says.

Some libertarian-minded pundits wholeheartedly support the war against Iraq. Author and syndicated radio host Neal Bootz says, "The real pity is that the United States and Great Britain, with some help from a group of willing allies, have to go this alone against Saddam Hussein. … Here is a man who idolizes Stalin. He murders tens of thousands with poison gas. He gouges the eyes out of children to teach lessons to their parents. He builds weapons of mass destruction and secrets them for some future purpose. He defies demands from the international community to disarm and behave. Then, when push finally comes to shove, much of the world takes a powder. Pathetic."

The America First Party, meanwhile, is supportive of U.S. troops but last week adopted a policy condemning the war.

"Since its founding nearly one year ago, the America First Party has been the leading voice against this war, on the right," said national Chairman Dan Charles. "We have held to a consistent and principled position. By passing this resolution, the national committee has reaffirmed the party's strong stand that this war against Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States.

"We have reaffirmed our commitment to ensure that the Constitution is followed. We have reaffirmed our commitment to the sovereignty and security of our beloved nation," Charles continued. "We have reaffirmed our love, support and respect for our brave sons and daughters who are being misused by President Bush to fight a war that violates our Constitution and the principles so many have fought and died to protect."

Jerry Baxley, chairman of the Southern Party National Committee, told WorldNetDaily he wonders what happened to the war on terror.

"It is the position of the Southern Party to ask why would the president of the United States not go after the people who masterminded the attacks on Virginia and New York as he had stated in the beginning," he said. "We also ask why the president would, with the support of both the Republicans and the Democrats, stage a war with a sovereign nation without proof that the nation had the weapons of mass destruction or that it was involved in the attacks of Virginia or New York.

"The actions of President Bush are the same actions of President Lincoln 140 years ago, and that is to invade a sovereign nation without legal reason," Baxley added. "Yes, the Republican Party is still the party of Lincoln and the Democrats no better."

James Clymer, chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee, said there was "not unanimity among our members" regarding the war in Iraq. But generally, he told WND, "the war is undertaken in an unconstitutional manner, i.e., there has been no declaration of war and Congress has abdicated its responsibility by granting general powers of aggression to the president."

"If the cause be just, let Congress debate the issues and make a declaration of war and engage the enemy with a firm resolve to win, regardless of what the U.N. or any other international body may say," Clymer said.

"There are serious concerns that this war may be the indication of a new imperialism on which the U.S. is embarking, flexing our muscles and asserting our authority as the world's only superpower, in areas of the world where we as a nation do not have a direct vital interest," said Clymer. "This is contrary to our heritage and our constitutional form of government."

The Radical Women Freedom Socialist Party advocates outright defeat of the U.S. by Baghdad.

"The hope that a U.S.-led war of mass destruction against Iraq could be averted has evaporated like a water droplet in the Saudi desert," says a statement released by the party entitled, "Victory to the Iraqis over U.S. imperialism!"

The Green Party wants the United Nations to act to stop U.S. "aggression." According to the party's statement, "U.S. Greens have adopted a proposal to urge the United Nations to invoke Resolution 377 ('Uniting for Peace') in response to the invasion of Iraq by the United States. … 'Uniting for Peace' allows the U.N. General Assembly to circumvent the veto of the Security Council and take action when a permanent member of the Security Council, in this case the U.S., commits an unprovoked act of military aggression."

"Under international law, it is a war crime to attack, or threaten to attack, another country that has not first attacked us. Iraq has not attacked us," says a statement released by the Socialist Party U.S.A. "The men who gave the orders to attack Iraq are war criminals, as surely as the war criminals who have stood trial in The Hague for genocide."

"With layer upon layer of misrepresentation, exaggeration, and outright lies, George W. Bush and his war cabinet have recklessly flung our nation into an illegitimate, illegal and unnecessary war," says a statement issued by CPUSA.

"The costs and consequences of this will be enormous, for our country and the world. Many lives will be lost. Political instability and right-wing religious fundamentalism will grow," the CPUSA statement continued. "The Korean Peninsula will become more inflamed. The spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons will gain momentum. The chances of terrorist 'blowback' will increase."

The Reform Party, founded by billionaire Ross Perot in 1992, does not have an Iraq war position published on its website and did not respond to a request for comment. In terms of foreign policy, the party's platform – adopted in 1999 – says members are "committed to a foreign policy based on the principles of consistency, decisiveness and accountability."

"We insist on a foreign policy that is proactive rather than reactive, and whose primary purpose is to enhance our country's national security," the platform said.

"Hateful " ? That's the kind of rhetoric, that is posted here and to LP, day in and day out. When Libertarians grow up, begin to post civily, and clean up their act, then and only then, will they be taken vaguely seriously. As to " joining my tent ", it's up to them. If they continue to prefer Dem/Liberal positions and politicians, then they'll continue to be marginalized. Libertarians see the partially filled glass as empty, rather than even 1/2 empty, and NEVER as 1/2 full. It's all or NOTHING with them and they'll never get ALL.

That's because you're blinded to reality. Libertarians talk about self responsible people and freedom, when they aren't responsible people. Since they aren't, why do they assume that everyone else would be, if only, ONLY everything would be legal to owne, use, do ?

GOPers don't want to grab anyone's guns. They DO uphold " lifestyle " laws, which, by-the-by, most have been in use for millenia . Just which unacceptable behaviors, do you engage in, that you're so worried is against the law ? Maybe, just maybe, you should think about that and NOT cavailing so much about not being able to live in a " LORD OF THE FLIES " atmosphere. :-)

Libertarians talk about self responsible people and freedom, when they aren't responsible people.

Well, there's the little straw man you build the rest of your silliness on.
I take responsibility for my actions and advocate the same for everyone.
You are too full to hate to discuss anything rationaly. Go ahead and
take the last word. I am done.

Well, the war, at least the Iraqi part, is all but over. So war or no-war is pretty much moot now. I am seeing a trend which I find interesting. The growing discussion between Libertarians and Greens over areas of similar interest, especially the decentralization of power. I must admit that I am soooo disillusioned with the Demos and Republos. They all talk the decentralist game--in differing ways and at their convenience, but they are really about supporting each groups' special interests. I can see a potentially new political philosophy emerging which uses the libertarian overstructure of minimalist government at the federal and state levels, but enhances local governments and groups (the Green influence) to make their own choices. This is something that neither of the elites in the 2 big parties want. This means enabling legislation which effectively forces power down to the local level as a start. I would also want it possible for local groups and governments to be able to form coalitions and associations to address the bigger issues affecting their areas. This sounds closer to the Jeffersonian model, albeit in a more urban society, than what the Reublicrats propose.

At some point, fairly recently ( before GW) I felt the way you do, and was seriously considering the Liberatarian party, and started to look into it.

I saw some things, which were appealing: limited gov., fiscal responsibility, but unfortunately part of their platform (and I actually wrote to the head of the party asking some questions, and got a reply) is a regidity of the opposition to any war, no matter what, that the US shouldn't get involved. I also noticed some overly socially liberal stands.

I know some Libertarians who subscibe to the "good" part, but reject the rest, and some who are Libertarians precisely because they agree with the "bad"(IMO) part.

But their overall platform includes both.

So I crossed them off my list of a party to seriously consider. However, I still agree with the limited government, fiscal and personal responsiblity, local gov. etc.

I think, after all is said and done, the Republicans are closest to that, they just need a little reforming and giving them a chance with a larger majority, because I think they were sliding away from this platform, just trying to survive in a heavily Democrat congress and constituency, but all that is changing.

I wish I could be optimistic. I see the Republicans increasingly controlled by the Religious Right. I heard one local Republican politco talk about the need to put Jesus and the Bible back into the schools and stop the march toward international atheism, what ever the hell that is. There are libertarian oriented Republicans like Ron Paul, but the RR considers him a fruitcake. I think we ned to look beyond the Rep and Dems to something new. Not sure what that will be like at the end of the day, but the old left/right paradigm looks increasingly old and tired, and I might add, increasingly irrelevant.

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.