yeah, whatever you say

Conservatives often have Libertarian leanings, because there is considerable overlap there, especially on fiscal and big government issues. Last year's Libertarian candidate was Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman (poor choice by the Libertarians, but, oh well). Plus, Ron Paul is often at odds with the standard thinking of the Republicans.

FYI – I used to be a member of the Libertarian party, but I'm not now. That doesn't mean I don't agree with them on the majority of issues. I do. Ditto for Ron Paul. Everybody knows Paul is Libertarian, even if you do not.

Republican (1976-1988)
Libertarian (1988 Presidential Election)
Republican (1988-Present)

he was a libertarian what 4 months out of a 33 year career of being a republican?

You're just trying to twist my words because I proved you wrong about Ron Paul being a Libertarian. Petty stuff.

It seems to me you are talking out both sides of your face

A second clue for walter – About Iran, see my previous comment. Nothing has changed.

I should have said…..you gotta know that AIPAC has the propaganda machine cranked up to warp drive if they can get a libertarian like King talking about an invasion of Iran (as an option)

oooohhhhh….I can see your point

King sez…….."No, I don't believe you are thinking at all. What is more Libertarian than, you know, LIBERATING PEOPLE ? Damn."

Ron Paul wasn't to keen on liberating the Iraqi people…….King giveth libertarian credentials and King taketh them away

No, I don't believe you are thinking at all. What is more Libertarian than, you know, LIBERATING PEOPLE ? Damn.

Rev says, "I would suggest that in all of America's tyrant-busting, we have become the tyrant ourselves, see: Terror Twins."

Well, that obviously because you are a dumbass. See: FREEDOM.

Rev says, "Finally King, America had knowledge of the evil concentration camps where Jews were being extinguished…..and yet, it took Pearl Harbor before we did anything. Ashamed of that?"

No, but YOU should be. It was liberals like yourself who prevented America from getting into WWII even earlier. This is also totally inconsistent with your previous statement condemning America for getting into "wars of choice." You can't play both sides of that field, unless you are a dishonest hypocrite.

What I find most interesting about King's explanation is how he describes America's role as stopping tyrants. I'm thinking that isn't libertarian…umm…thinking. I would suggest that in all of America's tyrant-busting, we have become the tyrant ourselves, see: Terror Twins.

Soldiers, like policemen and firefighters, are simply obeying orders and doing their jobs….and because of that they deserve our respect. However, those who send soldiers off to fight wars of choice….not so much.

Finally King, America had knowledge of the evil concentration camps where Jews were being extinguished…..and yet, it took Pearl Harbor before we did anything. Ashamed of that?

Threre were some excellent books written about those POWs of that time before the 50s were over and mostly they were written by those who had been there in collaboration with someone else, kind of like Sarah Palin has done and will do many more times. That is the normal way for politicians, isn't it.?

I have to disagree with you about the year we entered South Korea and how it happened. I was 17 and just graduated from high school when it took place. I guess, even at that age, I was a war monger since I agreed with President Truman on his actions. I graduated from high school in May of 1950 and Truman sent troops to Korea about a month later, so 1950 is the correct date.

In case Rev and walter don't know, Truman had issued the Truman Doctrine about 1948 in which he promised to help those Asians who were threatened in Communist takeovers and South Korea certainly filled the bill. The Koreas were divided under the auspices of the newly created United Nations and Truman's action was based on UN promises to the South Koreans. Truman said that help was needed, like yesterday, so he was going to send troops and let the UN debate sending troops for two or more weeks. In other words, help them when help will be of help and not wait until it was impossible to help.

Anyway all Truman did that could be called wrong was to uphold his newly declared doctrine for eastern Asia so the people of the region could feel that the newly formed Peoples Republic of China wouldn't help communists take over the region. He did it with UN approval, so that the other members could decide when the blue helmets would take over. The blue helmets were worn at command headquarters during the war but some other nations were heavily involved in it. The UK, Turkey, and Australia were all heavily involved in the war. Since the Chinese and N koreans liked the human wave attack so much the Turks loved the ensuing hand to hand combat. The reason for that was that for a Turkish infantryman to wear the long flowing mustache that was their badge he had to slit a throat in combat.

The Aussies and British soldiers performed admirably, although not in really large numbers.

I wonder when the left leaning people here will find out that the UN troops violated the hell out of the Geneva Conventions in the way they fought often. Surely Rev will pounce on this little bit of info if he reads this post. When the Chicoms were getting their unarmed troops reeady for a human wave attack with much bell ringing, whistle blowing and yelling along with lots of drugs it was obvious that a human wave attack was coming. One vet of Korea told us in basic training that before these things happened trucks came down the MLR and handed out shotguns to be used to good advantage. He said they didn't even stick their heads out of their foxholes, just pointed the muzzles toward the solid wall of men, pulled the trigger and sometimes looked out to see the hole the made fill in immediately. Those were the days when the old M-1, Garand rifle was standard equipment and although very handy in hand to hand something a bit faster firing was needed.

I just thought I would throw in some more or less firsthand info about that little war that was the last of the old type wars that were fought with huge armies against huge armies in the field. Main Line of Resistance, and all that. They were so primitive that they still dug foxholes and lived in them on the MLR.

I guess Rev doesn't think the US had any business standing behind the ROKs when China was doing most of the fighting for the NKs. We weren't supposed to be standing up against Communism, but in the 1950s few of us knew that.

So were WWI and WWII. So was the Revolutionary War. Should we have not fought those either ? Should we allow hundreds of millions to be slaughtered just so we can say we didn't enter a "war of choice" ? I'd be ashamed of my country if we acted like that. You don't beat tyranny by sitting back and doing nothing while the tyrants are on the march. If we don't fight those tyrants, who will ? Nobody, and then the world goes to hell. Maybe that's your goal, but it's not mine.

And if you think Israel is going to nuke Iran, think again.

The only direct threat to America in any of those wars of choice was from al-Qaeda…and they do not represent any country.

I KNOW what the U.S. justification was for each war of choice we entered into. That has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the fact that we started those wars….we entered into them when a direct threat to the U.S. didn't exist.

Roy may know, you know, history…or not, I don't really know…..but he's not acquainted much with objective honesty. At least not when it comes to America's wars of choice.

walter…..keep those spot on comments coming.

"What are the facts? In 1974 Iran signed its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements of the Safeguards Agreement stipulated that Iran must declare to the IAEA the existence of any nuclear facility no later than 180 days before introducing any nuclear materials into the facility. That is why, despite much propaganda, the construction of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility was perfectly legal.

In 1992, the Board of Governors of the IAEA replaced the original Code 3.1 with the modified Code 3.1, which requires a member state to notify the IAEA “as soon as the decision to construct or to authorize construction has been taken, whichever is earlier” (emphasis mine).

On Feb. 26, 2003, Iran agreed to voluntarily implement the modified Code 3.1 until the Majlis, Iran’s parliament, ratified it. But in February 2007, the Board of Governors of the IAEA sent Iran’s nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council. Iran contends that the IAEA acted illegally.

In retaliation, Iran notified the IAEA in March 2007 that it would no longer voluntarily abide by the modified Code 3.1. Iran reverted to the original Code 3.1. Although the IAEA contends that Iran cannot revert to the original agreement without its consent, Iran’s argument is on solid ground, because the Majlis never ratified the modified Subsidiary Arrangements. It also presented evidence that the preliminary work on the Qom facility may have begun in the early 1990s, when the 180-day advanced notification was required.

"Reporting that China is skeptical about the new claims, Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com said, "Shouldn’t the American media infuse its coverage with some of that same skepticism, along with a similar desire to see actual evidence to support the claims being made? Isn’t that exactly the lesson every rational person should have learned from the Iraq War?"

There is little evidence that any lesson from the Iraqi fiasco has been learned."

Glenn Greenwald being cited by libertarians? Will wonders never cease?

http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2009/10/06/countering-the-conniptions-over-qom/#

Iran had been lying about that facility and that is the real truth..

here's a little bit more about the intel about Iran's "bomb" from the libertarian website antiwar.com

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2009/10/06/leaked-iran-paper-based-on-intel/#

also from antiwar.com…….

"This is a reference to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which accords the signatories that right: and indeed, the NPT framework loomed large in the President’s remarks, including his indirect reference to Israel’s refusal to sign that treaty. "This is not about double-standards," said Obama, "or singling Iran out," but of course that’s just what it’s about. At this very moment Israel has a great deal of its nuclear arsenal – containing at least 200 atom bombs– aimed straight at Tehran, as well as god-knows-how-many other Middle Eastern capitals. Who is threatening nuclear holocaust in the Middle East? It isn’t the Iranian mullahs, that’s for sure.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/10/01/on-your-mark/#

Korea – During WWII, North Korea (backed by Communist Russia) and South Korea (American backed) fought along the 38th parallel, the dividing line between North and South Korea. In 1948, NORTH KOREA INVADED SOUTH KOREA, you imbecillic dimwit. The US and the United Nations intervened on behalf of the invaded SOUTH. The communitst People's Republic of China sided with the NORTH.

Vietnam – The US entered this war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam. The WAR WAS ALREADY GOING ON WHEN WE ENTERED IT. And after imbecillic dimwits like yourself were responsible for losing that war, millions of southeast asians were murdered in the aftermath. You must be SO proud of being responsible for that mass murder.

Grenada – We went into Grenada to rescue Americans after the communists overthrew the democratically elected Grenadan government.

Bosnia – We went into Bosnia to stop the ethnic cleansing (genocide) that was taking place.

Iraq 1 – We liberated Kuwait after Saddam invaded.

Afghanistan – The Taliban were hosting Al Qaeda in the aftermath of 9/11.

Iraq II – I was against this one, but Saddam violated every condition of his Iraq 1 surrender, and that's why he was overthrown.

Pakistan – We are bombing Al Qaeda there. You know who Al Qaeda is, hopefully.

In conclusion, please get an effing clue.

To those who think it's over the top to say that America and Israel are warmongering nations…..I would simply ask you to review the historical facts. No nation has led more wars in the last 60 years, or so, than the U.S. Think……Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Bosnia, Latin America (clandestine and illegal), Iraq twice, Afghanistan and, marginally now, Pakistan. And in every case I mentioned…it was not a war of necessity, which makes it all the worse.

Israel has attacked Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinians (repeatedly) and wants to attack Iran.

Perhaps those who reject my over the topness could provide the names of nations who war more than America and Israel.

I know that these facts make those who hold American exceptionalism dear to their hearts, uncomfortable. Listen, I love the U.S. too….but I'm not going to remain blind to the truth.

And to King…..in 2002 there was also a consensus by many nations that Saddam possessed WMD and was a threat…..not a gosh-darned bit of it was true. Anyone dispute that? Then why in the hell would I believe it when the same ignorant people agree with American neo-cons that Iran is about to kill us all? It would be an act of willfull gullibility to simply nod in agreement with chickenhawks who have been 100% wrong on just about everything.

And B…..if the truth is considered to be "out on the left fringe"…..so freaking be it. That doesn't negate the truth in my viewpoint.