LIbertarian Party says get out of Iraq and Syria.

All the king's horses and all the king's men...
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/09/07/cia-chief-doubts-syria-and-iraq-can-be-put-back-together-again/

 

The debate about Syria lacks Syrians:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/debate-syria-missing-syrians-151130060932842.html

 

Operation Inherent Resolve:
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/Ne...hundreds-to-hospital-US-troops-don-masks.html

 

Hey China, can you loan us another $6 billion to spend in the Mid-East?
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/11/01/pentagon-seeks-another-6-billion-for-overseas-troop-deployments/

 

Al Jazeera agrees with Ron Paul!

Says US should end the war, not try to "win" it.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...-mosul-battle-liberation-161103052127412.html

 

Uncle Sam is persona non grata in Syria according to Ron Paul:
http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2017/01/02/washington-frozen-out-of-syria-peace-plan/

 

US escalates invasion of Mosul:
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/01/04/pentagon-us-doubles-number-of-advisers-around-mosul/

 

More Marines to Afghanistan:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...oy-to-helmand-this-spring-corps-confirms.html

 

Sorry I don't believe that - even I don't think the WH is that stupid! To make one mistake is acceptable - to make the same one again, or worse, to keep making it, is way beyond stupid and a cause for deep concern.

 

Here's another source:
https://kashmirobserver.net/2017/world-news/us-marines-return-afghanistans-helmand-province-13564

 

I was being sarcastic, Tommy.

 

Oops. I was kinda wondering why that didn't seem to square with your other comments.

 

I would say the Libertarians are a fringe party that usually don't receive more than 1% of the total vote in presidential elections, although this year was the exception. Libertarians usually don't even vote for their own candidate. They don't field candidates at the grass roots level, county, local, state political offices, usually only for the presidency and a few senators. But the Libertarians don't have access to the funds the two major parties do. They don't don't have millions, tens of millions of dollars flowing into their coffers from corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interest groups, mega, huge money donors either as the two major parties do. The Libertarian Party is almost totally unknown to exist for the vast majority of Americans.

So yes, they are a fringe party. What they believe in hasn't been tested on the masses either. Their political ideology is as unknown to most Americans as the party itself. Money drives politics in this country and if you don't have it, you don't get heard.

I think the bottom line is unless the Libertarians start running candidates at the local level, state representatives, county commissions, mayors, city councils, etc. It will remain a fringe party who runs a presidential candidate that in most elections is meaningless. But all these meaningless third parties do give someone like me who detested both major party candidates a third option, an option to protest if you will the dumb, stupid, terrible, horrible nominations both major parties made this year. I choose to do that. So third parties do serve a function, an outlet to dissatisfied voters, close to 5% of all voters this year took that third option.

 

It doesn't matter how much money the Libertarian Party has or how much grassroots organizing in local races it does, the party is going nowhere. The only issue that resonates with more than a few spergy intellectuals is pot. The economic agenda isn't going anywhere. The only reason the libertarians got more than one percent this past election is because the top of the ticket showed up high to most of his interviews and the vp candidate was to the left of Hillary.

As soon is pot is legal in all 50 states, the era when the libertarians got 1% of the vote will be considered the good old days.

 

I think it is hard to tell how many fall into the Libertarian philosophy, pot not with standing. According to Gallup 3% of the electorate identified themselves as Libertarians back in 2012. In Georgia, a poll put the Libertarians at 6%. We did have a Libertarian senate candidate get 8% of the vote a few years back. But for the most part, Libertarians don't vote for their candidate as they pretty much always choose the lesser of two evils between the two major parties. Here is an interesting article.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...ns-but-many-americans-have-libertarian-views/

Regardless of a party's political philosophy, if it can't get the money to be heard and to get their ideas out in front of the American public, they aren't going anywhere. When it comes to money and face time, the two major parties have a monopoly.

 

I was thinking for half a second that it is sad that more libertarians don't vote Libertarian, but honestly I dont. I give votes to Johnson because he best represents me but locally is a different story. The last Libertarian candidate I remember here locally was talking about trading chickens as currency and jailing smokers. People like that give the party a bad name. If we had more live and let live while being fiscally responsible people, well that message doesn't sell I guess. Freedom scares people and asking government departments to be fiscally sound doesn't work. Lots of pearl clutching and talk of how essential services will fail, though oddly enough pet projects are "so far along they can't be deferred now."

 

No probs, Tommy, it happens in this medium - nuances and all that?; and I'm glad you realised that I was being sarcastic about the situation and not toward you. I was gonna tell you but you this morning but you obviously understood.

 

Exactly. I always have been a live and let live person and the reason I back Ross Perot was because his main platform was the national debt and fiscal responsibility. Two things everyone in Washington don't believe in. Washington wants to control or at least influence every citizen's daily life and spend/borrow way above what revenues we receive in order to control its citizens.

Even though that has been my political beliefs, I never considered myself a Libertarian. I always classified myself as a Goldwater conservative with a bit of Perot thrown in. More of a traditional conservative, definitely not a neo-conservative or a social conservative. Just a more traditional one.

 

So far, same old same old:
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/01/22/yemen-reports-first-us-drone-strikes-under-trump/

 

Thousands more US troops needed in Afghanistan:
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/02/09/general-thousands-more-us-troops-needed-in-afghanistan/

 

The only thing that the U.S. has accomplished by its martial misadventures in the mid east is the creation of more enemies where none existed before Zionist lobbies assumed control over US Foreign Policy.

If anyone wants to see the true Cost of America's Zionist driven "War on Terrorism" aka "War on Islam", they need only to visit any one of America's V.A. hospitals and witness the thousands of mutilate, burned, mangled & traumatized young Americans sent to make the Mid East safe for Israeli hegemony.

Please see the Oded Yinon Plan for a "Greater Israel" for the real reason the US has wasted $ Trillions and thousands of innocent lives

 

As much as I agree with your testimony that the USA with the criminal attack in the year 2003 the ME interfered and smashed into chaos and thus are the main cause for today's problems ...

Would ISIS exist with Saddam leading Iraq? Surely not and even if Saddam himself would represent a danger, certainly another ISIS, which is easier to get in the grip!

... The anti - Zionist part, unfortunately, I can not agree. I am not a friend of Israeli politics, but the Zinositen = Jews are in all guilt is simply and nonsense!
That Bush Jr. invaded Iraq in 2003 had nothing to do with Israel, but with pure revenge and hatred, coupled with the will to control the many Iraqi oil.

 

Gosh, a conspiracy theory!

Trump does not believe in nation building like Bush and Obama did.

 

I too do not believe that Jews are "...in all guilt..." etc as many American Jews were among the most vocal opponents to Bush Jr's war in Iraq
However the Right Wing Zionist extremists at AIPAC are on record as being a driving force behind the Bush Jr. War on Iraq that conveniently eliminated what was touted by expansionist Israelis as Israel's primary threat.

Please see the Israeli Oded Yinon Plan for Right Wing Zionist plans for a "Greater Israel"

Thanks

 

Sure, there are many plans for many things milling around in world and there are also some more or less important bad groups in political sphere acting in the world. But in matter of Iraq 2003 it had nothing to do with such things. It was a thing which was long time in the Bush administrations head before being elected and after being elected, the Iraq was their priority. And right this is one point why 9/11 could happen, because why did CIA, FBI and NSA fail too? Because the security council put the threat of Osama and Al Qaida back to threat level like a Mexican drug cartel!
Even after 9/11 happened, some of the Bush administration morons wanted to male Iraq guilty for it, but failed due to security services and the fast reporting media and had to take to make a war against Al Qaida in Taliban governed Afghanistan instead starting war against Saddam right now as wanted!
Who of the Bush Administration was involved here?