Libertarians issue warning to Tea Partiers Which do the tea partiers hate more ?

[ATOMonkey]

Special Forces and Special Operations Forces are boots on the ground. The best and most effective boots we have to deal with insurgent wars in fact. When coordinated with other clandestine operations that can effectively communicate with the locals you get a winning strategy.

The big army is good for fighting countries, not random people with a vendetta.

 

[photoshooter]

And the Marines were started by Jefferson UNDER the Dept of the Navy. Not as a standing army.

The idea was that the Army of King George was an idea that the founders did not want to continue due to the abuses of that army.

When Washington moved against the Whiskey rebellion, he put out the call and formed an army, then disbanded it after it's use was fulfilled.

 

[csaws]

Joe, it seems we disagree on a lot these days. Remember what our founding fathers said...

Liberty Stickers - Political Bumper Stickers - Custom Bumper Stickers Printed

Liberty Stickers - Political Bumper Stickers - Custom Bumper Stickers Printed

Liberty Stickers - Political Bumper Stickers - Custom Bumper Stickers Printed

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Article one section 8 gives power "to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to the Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

Immediately followed by..

"To provide and maintain a Navy"

It's quite obvious that a standing Federal Army was never the intention.

Your conclusion is not obvious at all. In fact it's quite a stretch. The provision was put in place as a check of power on the Executive by the Congress. In the event it became necessary for whatever reason, Congress could defund the army. That's all. In any event it's a far cry from "explicitly states".

The Founders never contemplated not having a professional Army, just one much smaller than today. But our country was much smaller than today. They also never anticipated the extraordinarily complex weapons systems we have today, which necessitates full-time personnel trained in their operations and tactics. The only weapons of the time that were not used in daily life were cannons.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

And the Marines were started by Jefferson UNDER the Dept of the Navy. Not as a standing army.

The idea was that the Army of King George was an idea that the founders did not want to continue due to the abuses of that army.

When Washington moved against the Whiskey rebellion, he put out the call and formed an army, then disbanded it after it's use was fulfilled.

Really? All this time I thought the Marine Corps was born at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia on November 10, 1775, which predates the revolution, the Contiential Army, and the navy. Oh, and the Marine Corps has been in continuous service since then. Kinda shoots that whole no standing Army thing.

I'll have to let the Marine historian know they've been giving bad scoop for about 235 years.

United States Marine Corps. A Department of the Navy. The Men's Department.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I agree, that it was always intended to have professional soldiers. However, those soldiers were to be trained by the States, not the Federal government.

 

[Duncan]

Guys I posted this for the purpose to get people to think about what the mindset of the people aligning themselves with the Tea Party movement .

As I call the majority of them the 401K Casualties .

It appears that this line of thought was not picked up by the readers .

And we wonder why we are a nation in decline .
Thanks
DA

 

[ATOMonkey]

Really? All this time I thought the Marine Corps was born at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia on November 10, 1775, which predates the revolution, the Contiential Army, and the navy. Oh, and the Marine Corps has been in continuous service since then. Kinda shoots that whole no standing Army thing.

I'll have to let the Marine historian know they've been giving bad scoop for about 235 years.

United States Marine Corps. A Department of the Navy. The Men's Department.

As you said, the Marine Corps is not a standing army, it is the Green side of the Navy, and went severely underfunded for a very long time, until boots became more useful than boats.

 

[ATF Consumer]

For Republicans to say Libertarians are isolationists clearly tells you they know nothing about the party or they are using that term to make Libertarians look like quacks. It is disingenuous and actually acting just like Democrats to do such a thing.

 

[Raoc]

Here is the Libertarian Platform on national defense, taken directly from their website:

3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

Where is the "institutional hatred of the military"? Expecting our government to act responsibly and with due restraint in matters of foreign policy is not wrong. Likewise, anyone who has been in the military should know the tremendous amount of waste that goes on in the DoD.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Guys I posted this for the purpose to get people to think about what the mindset of the people aligning themselves with the Tea Party movement .

As I call the majority of them the 401K Casualties .

It appears that this line of thought was not picked up by the readers .

And we wonder why we are a nation in decline .
Thanks
DA

It sounds like you are implying that because the reader/contributors of this post didn't pick up on your purpose, the nation must be in decline. Are you sure it's not just that you failed to get your point across?

 

[Hawkeye]

Article one section 8 gives power "to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to the Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

Immediately followed by..

"To provide and maintain a Navy"

It's quite obvious that a standing Federal Army was never the intention.

Its true that the Founding Fathers were concerned about a standing Army and the 2 year appropriation limit was intended to limit such; hwoever it is largely moot. Congress only appropriates for one eyar at a time now.

Also, I beleive we have had a "standing army" since the inception fo the nation, at least under the Constitution. It may not have been very large, but we ahve had an Army as well as a Navy.

 

[TriggerWork]

The good in all of this, is at least we all still care enough to speak our mind (and are allowed to do so) for what we believe to be the best for this great country moving forward. I see it from another angle. When power and money are involved who can be trusted? Sure a new person my have the intent to "change things", but once elected and the promise of that golden ticket is laid in front of you, people change.

I believe we can all agree on one thing regardless of party seperations. We need alot of Mr. Smiths right now and to get rid of all the Mr. Paines.

 

[Duncan]

It sounds like you are implying that because the reader/contributors of this post didn't pick up on your purpose, the nation must be in decline. Are you sure it's not just that you failed to get your point across?

No I didn't fail because I didn't give an op -ed on the article .
I believe the readers failed to see that the main point was the two types of mindset that may makeup the TP .
The decline implication comes form all the emotion erupting on a topic that is not the main thrust of the writing .
Thanks
Duncan

 

[88GT]

The Libertain platform is that only the industrious will immigrate if we stop giving away money to the non-industrious.

So the previous poster who said the Libertarian platform was an attempt to create utopia was correct?

C'mon. It's a crock to think that the only reason people are crossing the border these days is because of the freebies they can pick up at their local social security office or welfare department.

And the Marines were started by Jefferson UNDER the Dept of the Navy. Not as a standing army.

The idea was that the Army of King George was an idea that the founders did not want to continue due to the abuses of that army.

When Washington moved against the Whiskey rebellion, he put out the call and formed an army, then disbanded it after it's use was fulfilled.

And just how well do you think that solution would work in modern times? Even if we could call up an appropriate number of people (you do realize this would be a reinstatement of the draft for all intents and purposes, right?), what kind of materiel would they have at their disposal? Without the continual and consistent funding of military "stuff" (used generically to be all inclusive), how exactly would these temporarily call-up soldiers execute a battle plan? What weapons would be at their disposal? Would they know how to use them without excessive training times? Would they have sufficient levels of defense, intel, tactics training, unit bonding (and by bonding I mean so much more than singing Kumbaya around the campfire at night)? Would there be sufficiently knowledgeable and capable COs to lead these men?

If you (in general) think the loss of life as we currently fight with a permanent military and "too much" funding is high, what the heck do you think we'd have with amateurs and weekend warriors leading the way?

For Republicans to say Libertarians are isolationists clearly tells you they know nothing about the party or they are using that term to make Libertarians look like quacks. It is disingenuous and actually acting just like Democrats to do such a thing.

But they are isolationists. And they do look like quacks for it. They clearly and repeatedly have claimed to be opposed to just about any interaction outside our geographic borders. (With the exception of economic ones, for that they are only too pleased to welcome anyone--regardless of his intent--to the playground.) While I do agree that nation-building and status quo fighting such as is occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq right now are the not the proper or most efficient uses of our military, the solution is NOT to avoid all military action entirely.

The Libertarian Party plays lip service to the idea of national defense, but never commits itself to concrete ideas about what is "sufficient military to defend" the country. And I have yet to see a statement regarding border security as anything but "we have nothing to fear from legal immigration."

I cannot support a candidate that does not take a more realistic and pointed view of national defense. I certainly can't support one who refuses--by omission or simple oversight--to make a clear stance on border security/national defense.

At least with the Republicans I have an idea about the response that would be made to an armed affront to our people by a foreign nation. Sadly, I can't say the same for the Libertarians. They steadfastly refuse to address this issue, and until they do, I will not support them.

But to address the article in the OP: I think it's deplorable that the Libertarian Party is stooping to such levels to win more converts. (Who's acting like a Dem now?) Third party politics in America is an anomaly that doesn't have traction yet. Until it does, if the Libertarians really want to gain ground, they need to infiltrate the current power-mongers and utilize the infrastructure that already exists. I think most people in America who identify themselves as Republicans have strong libertarian leanings, particularly with regard to the size, scope, and role of the federal government. The tea party movement is a perfect illustration of this, by the way.

But instead of moving toward those people, the Libertarians demand that the people move towards them. Then they choose to alienate a good portion of them by calling them stupid and easily duped? Last time I checked, insulting someone wasn't the best way to make friends.

 

[csaws]

And just how well do you think that solution would work in modern times? Even if we could call up an appropriate number of people (you do realize this would be a reinstatement of the draft for all intents and purposes, right?), what kind of materiel would they have at their disposal? Without the continual and consistent funding of military "stuff" (used generically to be all inclusive), how exactly would these temporarily call-up soldiers execute a battle plan? What weapons would be at their disposal? Would they know how to use them without excessive training times? Would they have sufficient levels of defense, intel, tactics training, unit bonding (and by bonding I mean so much more than singing Kumbaya around the campfire at night)? Would there be sufficiently knowledgeable and capable COs to lead these men?

Seems to work fine in Switzerland

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

 

[dross]

I differ on the Libertarian position on war as well.

I believe in the principle of "no initiation of force." In the current wars, however, we did not inititiate force.

When a country is held hostage by a dictator, or a party who enslaves them by force, the dictator or government has initiated the force upon its own people. There is no moral obligation to help those people, but should we choose do so, we have also violated no moral principle.

Also, just because we help in one instance doesn't mean that we are now obligated to help in every instance. It's perfectly legitimate to help in the places where the risk is smaller or where we have coinciding national interests.

I am a libertarian (small "L") and I believe that both wars this century were necessary and right. This is one of the big problems I have with the Libertarian party.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And just how well do you think that solution would work in modern times? Even if we could call up an appropriate number of people (you do realize this would be a reinstatement of the draft for all intents and purposes, right?), what kind of materiel would they have at their disposal? Without the continual and consistent funding of military "stuff" (used generically to be all inclusive), how exactly would these temporarily call-up soldiers execute a battle plan? What weapons would be at their disposal? Would they know how to use them without excessive training times? Would they have sufficient levels of defense, intel, tactics training, unit bonding (and by bonding I mean so much more than singing Kumbaya around the campfire at night)? Would there be sufficiently knowledgeable and capable COs to lead these men?

Seems to work fine in Switzerland


http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

This isn't Switzerland. For one thing, we're about 1000x larger, have more people, and don't have a convenient tradition of neutrality coupled with uninviting terrain. If the Russians or the Chinese ever felt the need to conquer them, rest assured it could be done.

If you want to look at the early campaigns of WWII in Africa, you can see the effects of a large, insufficiently-trained force against a smaller, professional army. We got our butts handed to us in North Africa until we were blooded in combat and the effective leaders got sorted out from the ineffective ones.

As I have said before, our grunts are some of the most highly-trained specialists any army has ever seen. You don't get that sort of training in a month, or six months, or a year; you certainly don't get unit cohesiveness and esprit de corps as combat multipliers without extensive training and experience.

Our potential opponents, Russia and China at present, but others could be possible as well, are as well armed as we, close to, if not equal to our technical capabilities, and have vastly more manpower under arms. We no longer have the luxury of a draft callup and six months of trainup before we may be called upon to defend our shores; the distances to be crossed just aren't that great, in transportation terms, anymore. It no longer takes three weeks to sail across either ocean and aircraft transit times are measured in hours.

 

[rambone]

Keep voting in ***clowns like Coats & Ellsworth and you won't even have a border left to defend. We are bankrupt! We can't have a guy who lobbied for Cap & Trade, and we can't have a guy who voted for Socialized Medicine.

 

[Clay]

IBTL