Kana

Yes, for the most part, libertarianism is about less government intervention into all walks of life. To varying degrees and with varying exceptions, of course, depending on which libertarian you talk to. There are very few things libertarians agree about, really, including foreign policy.

I don't want get into a discussion about the nuke. I feel that in war, soldiers should do the dying, not civilians, but few governments knew more about killing civilians during WWII than the Japanese government. At the same time, the prefecture of Niigata, where my family is from and where I was born, was on the list of bombing targets. I suppose its always easier to rationalise the use of terrorism when you weren't one of the targets.

Libertarians won't flinch from defensive wars. People make the mistake of thinking libertarians pacifists, and while there are probably a few, most are not. Honestly, we haven't had a defensive war in quite some time, and our current adventures in the Middle East have nought to do with defending this country.

I object to the ideology espoused by both parties that it "falls upon" the US to step into conflicts between other nations and sort things out. It didn't fall upon "us"--read, Washington--to have that "responsibility". They took it, because carrying a World Cop badge brings power. Neutrality has always been an option, but neutrality doesn't bring the governmental power that waging war brings.

I would agree with you in going to war only when it is in our best interest, but I suspect I would define our interest more narrowly than you would.

__________________
Groovyville

CosmicRocker

^ fair enough. I don't want o side step to WWII either - except that was a defensive war, as you call them.

I suppsoe some of the role of the USA as a world power is a matter of perspective.
Because we HAVE entered into 2 collosall failures ,
and put our foot in where we had no business ( Iraq, Vietnam ), we lose perspective of our full history.

Tossing Spain out of Cuba.
Repelling the Japanese form China, the Philipines, and Germany from France and Europe in WWII.
The same for WWI

I see a pretty good grasp of history on your part, sadly many younger folks refuse to believe that even when we fuck up and meddle in places we have no business, we usually do so out of just motivations.

It's the blame America Always crowd that need to understand America has been
a force for stabiliy, and justice, without a desire for conquest throughout our history.

we are flawed, but not an evil empire.

__________________

Try a little love. and it cant go wrong
Get on the right thing
My little love, you cant go wrong
Get on the right thing .

Kana

I don't think America is an evil empire. I just think the American government has an inflated sense of self-importance and the pretence that it knows best on how things ought to be done around the world (and in our homes).

__________________
Groovyville

RK77

What "prestige"? That is all in your empty head! The US lost whatever "prestige" by abusing it! The only issue now is can someone get some of the favor of the nations of the world back.

Don't be ridiculous! Define coercive diplomacy for yourself then sit and think for a minute!

Sure........ that's it!

No, dear, this is NOT coersive diplomacy---go look it up!

You in your bigoted fascist mentality have convinced yourself that we should tell other countries what they should or should not do. MAYBE if you ever get over your relative morality issues you will understand the problem with your attitude.........then again...........

anhailla

[quote=Kana;180955]Absolutely not true about democrats, I would add that are republicans that never believed in this war.


.


there are still major differences between the platforms of the parties.

__________________
...either I go, or that wallpaper does.

Oscar Wilde

ibex

Every empire has evil at its core, no matter how great its accomplishments or how long its legacy lasts. America is an empire, every bit as much as Rome, Egypt or the Soviet Empire were, and we're an empire in decline. We are in no position to dictate terms to other countries on an "or else" basis. All this talk about American prestige is utter nonsense when the Chinese are underwriting our debt. This bipolar, Cold War mentality held dear by the so called "greatest generation" and their spoiled children cannot hold, reality will cure it, or should I say "obliterate" it over the next several decades and it won't be pretty. The sad thing is that the people at the bottom of the economic ladder, who are represented disproportionately in the military rank and file will pay the price. What's at stake here over the long term is America's survival. If we remain a country dedicated to maximizing the profits of the military industrial complex, one in which the gap widens into a chasm between the top 5% and the lower 30% economically, a country dedicated to the PNAC vision of foreign policy of diplomacy through military force, we are doomed. I am under no illusions that an Obama administration will change this course, but a McCain presidency will speed us towards our own destruction that much faster.

HarperLee

Quote:
This is my problem with Democrats. I honestly think most of them only oppose the War in Iraq because the guy who started it puts an (R) after his name. They don't oppose the principle of military interventionism; they just oppose people with (R)s after their names.

This is absolutely untrue about me and all the Democrats I know.

I have memorized the 23 Senators who had the integrity and foresight to vote against the October 11, 2002, Iraqi war resolution.

Most Democratic Senators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, voted for it. I also feel great frustration and anger at the Democrats in Congress who have not acted bravely to put an end to this obscene
nonsense.

__________________
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken

BillCosby

Not sure I waste my time here but.... You are wrong...... Many Americans such as yourself keep hearing the negative about America cause you & many other are in denial about many of the things they have done........

Take the above flawed concept=strawman argument..... "America is not an evil empire".........lol Are there good empires???? Empires by their very nature are evil.... @ least IMO........ "good empires" are only considered good by the conquers... This is so obvious as to not need any further explanation...... That term belongs right up there w/ good slave holders & benevolent dictators..........

This simplistic & naive comment is typical I guess of someone that prefers to cherry pick their information. Selecting just that which suits their needs & fits their preconceived ideas of how they wish things to be..........

Did the Native Americans just give the nice ppl from Europe the land cause they liked them......??? Florida.?? In the Philippians they kicked out the Spanish so they could take it over.....

& our good friends to the south........... They just gave us all that land cause we are so nice.......treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo,

Let us...>>> you forget those good cottage industries like making apple pie......

The Scalp Industry Something practiced I believe in everyone of the lower 48 states...... ((Something every proud American should know...........

Although the origins of the practice of scalping may be lost in the nebulous hinterlands of the past, the industry of scalp hunting has a specific and documented history. Although some of the particulars may be shrouded in rumors, the scalp bounty laws instituted a peculiar economic venture between the Mexican government and, primarily, American citizens. Between 1835 and the 1880s, the Mexican authorities paid private armies to hunt Native Americans, paying per kill and using scalps as receipts. The practice began when the Mexican government could no longer provide adequate protection to its citizens from the marauding Apaches and Comanches. The natives rode down from the U.S. killing peons, kidnapping women, and stealing livestock and then would escape back over the border. Because the Mexican military was unable to effectively ward off the threat over such a large expanse and because the Mexican farmers either could not afford or were forbidden to possess arms, the government had to look to alternative methods of suppressing native violence.

Bounty Laws

Sonora was the first state to enact a scalp bounty law; in 1835, offering 100 pesos for the scalps of braves (with a peso roughly equal to an American silver dollar). An American named James Johnson sparked the boom period in 1837 when he fired a concealed canon at close range on unarmed Apaches. The blast tore into Apache warriors as well as women and children, and Johnson and his troops swarmed into the mass of natives, killing and scalping. While this event occurred in Hidalgo County, New Mexico, the scalps were cashed in Sonora, and the entire incident proved how profitable scalp hunting could be. It also flamed native animosity towards both Mexicans and Anglos, encouraging more raids and greater violence (a cycle that continued throughout this era). Soon afterward, Chihuahua enacted a similar law offering a graded bounty: $100 for braves; $50 for squaws; $25 for children under fourteen (although the latter two were ostensibly for live captives). While the callous nature of this business might have limited the number of participants, the Panic of 1837 had left many pioneers and miners strapped for money, and scalp hunting offered a quick profit for men trying to reach California, and the bounty of one Indian was worth more than many Mexicans or Anglos could earn in a year. It also provided financial rewards for a conflict that had begun before a price had been set on Indian blood.

The system was temporarily abandoned, but in 1841 it was revived due to continuos raiding; one Comanche raiding party killed 300 Mexicans and seized over 18,000 head of livestock (as well as countless women and children). The situation continued to worsen for the Mexican authorities, and some historians have suggested that the natives actually "harvested" victims, leaving behind enough survivors and resources so that they could raid again. At one point, the situation had gotten so bad that Apaches were killing Mexicans on the streets of Chihuahua City during the middle of the day. In 1843 the authorities in Chihuahua tried to pit natives tribes against each other and offered Apache tribes a stipend if they would take the knife to the Comanches and stop raiding the state. This plan obviously failed- the Apaches did take the stipend, but began raiding Sonora instead (essentially the Mexicans were paying the tribe to raid other Mexicans)- however, it reveals the desperation of the Mexican government. By 1845, the scalp bounty had be reinstated yet again, and Gov. Don Angel Trias of Chihuahua put out a $9000 reward on the chief of the Apaches- Don Santiago Querque. At this point Querque/Kirker began working for the government scalping the natives that recently had been his allies.

After the Mexican-American War

Ironically, the Mexican peoples finally received relief from the Apache and Comanche raids when the U.S. declared war on Mexico; the U.S. soldiers spent their spare time chasing and hunting the natives. However, without the protection of Kirker and the other Anglos, Chihuahua was again besieged and in 1847 raised the price of scalps to $200. After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, most of the Mexican states revived their scalping bounties again in preparation for more raids (there is little mention of the discontinuation of these bounties- I would speculate though that after the immediate threat was gone they were repealed until the attacks resumed). In 1849, Chihuahua's "Ley Quinto," which would remain on the books until 1886, passed setting a price of $150 for live women and children, $200 for the scalps of warriors, and $250 for live warriors. Most professionals though felt that the extra $50 did not justify the increased risk and so traded in "receipts" only. Durango passed similar laws the same year, and in 1850 Sonora set the price at $150 for warriors and $100 for women and children under fourteen. By mid-1850 Chihuahua and Sonora had included the Seri Indians on their hit lists too. The details of the scalp bounty laws reveal that this wretched business was indeed a business with its own self-policing practices. States, to prevent fraud, defined "scalps" to include one or both ears or the crown (a fresh scalp could be stretched before it was dried and cut into up to a dozen "scalps"). Regulatory committees were also established to examine scalps, but these were often bought off so that the scalps of children were purchased as adults, etc. (As a brief aside, a method of scalping and preserving the receipts was dictated by several of the scalp hunters. In James Kirker's party the duties were relegated to the Shawnees in the group who would cut around the crown and then sit with their feet on the shoulders of the victim and yank the trophy from its place of origin. The scalps were then sprinkled with salt and tied to poles to dry so that they would not deteriorate before they could be sold.)

The rather liberal payment policies of the local authorities made the scalp industry highly profitable. Indian hunters could keep any livestock or loot they recovered, civilians, soldiers, Mexican nationals, and foreigners were all eligible, and unquestioning inspectors all enticed unscrupulous men into this business. Mexican scalps were just as good as Indians, the scalps of women and children were bought for $100 (although the law made no provisions for this), and the bounties were advertised both in Mexico and North of the Rio Grande. Many of the scalp hunters were former Texas Rangers or forty-niners searching for quick cash. Some of the more famous include Major Michael Chevallie, James Kirker, Capt. Michael Box, John Glanton, and John Dusenberry. Other Americans also participated for a different type of payment; the state of Coahuila promised land to groups of Seminoles and a group of run-away slaves led by John Horse (Juan Caballo) in exchange for their services as Indian hunters.

Boom Time

The years of 1849-1850 were the true boom time, but an industry like this can obviously get out of hand (if it didn't begin by being out of hand). From the accounts it seems that no one in the South-west was safe during that year. The recent war with Mexico and the dark hair of the Mexican farmers made the peons easy targets when Indian scalps became scarce or too dangerous to acquire. Scalpers also began slaughtering any natives they could run down, including peaceful tribes like the Pimas and Yumas. Kirker and Box supposedly made rather large profits hunting agricultural tribes along the Rio Grande and Sierra Madre. Groups would also masquerade as natives and raid local villages, an act that served a dual purpose. It reinforced the necessity of the bounty laws and provided scalps that could be then sold to the governors responsible for protecting the village. The authorities did begin to notice that whenever Glanton or other hunting parties passed through a region, Indian activity always increased; a fact that led to many hunters being run out of Mexico and eventually helped to ruin the industry. Scalping as a business peaked that winter when the natives were driven out of the mountains in search of food; in one raid in the Big Bend country Glanton supposedly took 250 scalps (a fact that doesn't appear in Chamberlain's account, so it may have been another scalper). By that spring though, Chihuahua alone had paid out over $17,000 to scalp hunters. Many of the Mexican states found that they did not have the money to pay the scalping parties or that the expenditures were growing to a point where they would soon be bankrupt- another element that helped bring an end to the trade.

Bust

Scalp hunting was a high risk industry beyond just the battles required to attain scalps, and it eventually took its toll on the hunters. Some native chiefs began offering bounties for the scalps of Mexicans and Anglos as a retaliatory effort; Chief Gomez set the price at $1000 each after a similar bounty was put on his locks. Scalpers even began scalping other Indian hunters; payment could be collected from the natives if the Mexicans wouldn't accept the scalps. In one gruesome hunting party comprised of Mexicans and Kickapoo Indians, a dispute between the two constituencies arose, and the Mexicans scalped (and redeemed) all of their native hunting (former) allies. By the spring of 1850, the hunters were facing a depletion of their resources, and many were being run out for their indiscretions with the Mexicans they were supposedly protecting. Glanton found a reward on his head in Chihuahua and relocated to Sonora before the Yumas killed him. Both Kirker and Box were run out of Chihuahua and Durango and ended up in California. Although the laws stayed on the books until the 1880s, the industry as such had run its course; violent confrontation continued in the guise of the Indian Wars until most of the tribes were subdued and confined to reservations.

__________________
Preventive war is not war!!!!Counter-terror is not terror

Comicsartist

Mithrall

As an ex-soldier, I am gonna have to take offense to this statement. Show me a soldier that is responsible for thier country's policies or aggression and I will agree on that particular soldier but most of the time soldiers are just as innocent as the civilians if not moreso. I really like the quote from Mary Tillman, 5/9/08, mother of slain Army Ranger Pat Tillman that Kanadesaga has adopted as her tag: "Soldiers lose their voice when they enlist. My sons spoke of that before they did enlist. That that, was a reality. And the public is their voice." This is absolutely true and it permeates the entire military all the way to the top ranks. Often the only time generals will dare to speak up is after they have retired.

Military personel do not have the same rights as civilians, It also applies to the families of military personel in some instances. I am not sure how many people are aware of this but military personel and thier families are prohibited by law from sueing the military. When I was serving I heard and saw many horror stories of military dr's screwing up and killing or severely harming a patient and there was no recourse for the families because it was a military dr. One of the guys in my platoon actually had a military dentist pull a moler instead of the wisdom tooth he was supposed to pull. Military dr's have no need of malpractice insurance, they can't be sued. One of my friends in my platoon collided in mid air with a sergeant and both of them streamered in to the ground, the only thing that saved them is the sergeant's parachute re-opened at the last second and snapped him upright breaking both of the sergeant's feet. My friend wasn't so lucky, his leg was shattered in several places. When the dr's set his leg, they set it wrong. His foot would lay flat on it's arch when he was laying on his back in his bunk. They had to keep rebreaking his leg to straighten it out a little at a time. They wouldn't let him out of the military even after his term of enlistment was up because they wanted to keep operating on him to reduce the percentage of his permanant disability so they wouldn't have to pay him as much.

The U.S. Military has a completely voluntary force, however simple economics drive many young people who are just out of high school into the military. These people are certainly not the ones making foreign policy decisions, many of them have never even voted before. When we invaded Iraq, both times there were Iraqi "soldiers" who surrendered that were just dragged off the street and sent to the front lines. They were wearing loafers not boots, many of them were very relieved to be captured by U.S. troops. In a democracy, the average civilian is infinately more responsible for the policies and aggression of that country than the average soldier.