Cuba, Non Intervention, Police and Race Baiting.

[ChockJockey]

It affects us because of some of the things you mentioned regarding global entanglements. The notion of preemptive wars comes largely from the likes of Stalin and Hitler among others. Traditionally the US has used the Christian concept of a "Just War". We have the ability to destroy ANY Army at any time. Does that mean we have too? I don't think it does.

 
The Christian concept of 'just war' is something else I have difficulty grasping.  What is the criteria? I think if you peruse the list of wars involving the U.S. you'll see a pattern of interventions and conflict centered around national and economic interests going back quite far.  I suspect you'll be hard-pressed to find any pre-WW2 military actions by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union that they justified as being pre-emptive, as far as I can tell most were just land grabs and border disputes.
 

I would be totally and completely behind a Congressional Declaration of War voted on, approved and signed by the Commander in Chief. If ISIS is as evil as maintained (And NOT a creation of the CIA as some conspiracy theorists suggest) then let's get it on! Round up about a half a million US soldiers, sailors, Air Force & Marines and go over to Syria & Iraq and kick the ever loving feces out of them, pack up and go home. If they want help rebuilding their countries they can pay us in oil. I have no problem with the use of military force and one can certainly argue that beheading US Citizens is an act of war. So for me the basis of a "Just War" has been established.
 
As to Libertarians and declared wars versus the undeclared ones we've been fighting. What follows is my own thoughts on the topic. Not from any Libertarian Party line or the writings of Rothbard and others. For me a formal declaration of war does several things diplomatically.
 
1. It let's the world and our enemies know that the full weight of US Military might and its usage is supported by the civilian population. 
 
2. It lets the UN crowd know that we are a sovereign nation free to act as we choose and will not be bound solely to the UN Charter.
 
3. That contrary to AG Holders comments, International Law does not trump US Law.
 
4. A declaration of war fully informs those of us who will pay for it the scope of the mission
 
5. Going forward it lets other nations how far they can push before they are turned into dust
 
When your stated foreign is one of non intervention and then you declare clearly and concisely where the nation stands. To often our government tries to do things out of sight of the people, The more formalized our actions are the more transparent our policies become.
 
I's rather be in the position of saying to a foreign diplomat, "Do you really want the 101st Airbourne surrounding your Presidential Palace"?, then trotting out the military in limited roles with high costs in dollars and lives. If we pull back a bit and allow the threat of our intervention sink in I think our diplomats could do a better job solving issues. I've always been a fan of Teddy Roosevelt and his quote "Speak softly but carry a big stick" should be the essence of our foreign policy

 
I think I can understand where you're coming from and you have some fair points but it sounds like a kind of foreign policy that wishes or pretends the Second World War never happened.  The present international order that came from the rubble of the most destructive war in history both mandates intervention and makes formal declarations of war archaic if not taboo.  I suggest that anyone with 51 minutes to spare take a look at this video, the 25th episode from the BBC's infinitely excellent World at War series documenting WW2. It does 1000x better job than I ever could explaining how drastically the global political order changed between 1939 and 1949.  And Laurence Olivier is just about the best narrator ever.
 

What is interesting now is that knee jerk reaction is starting to change. On a percentage basis the Libertarian Party is the fastest growing party However the fastest growing segment is people registering as Independent or no party. This accounts for some of the bile and venom spewed in the mid-term election cycle. Read Ralph Nader's new book "Unstoppable" for further insight into why Progressives and Libertarians are beginning to join together in an effort to take on Wall Street and save the Republic.

 
It seemed to me the Tea Party and Occupy people were always opposing the same system of injustice but from opposite ends, they just couldn't see past the massive machine of corporate-government entanglements to see eye to eye.
 

 
No one has ever accused Ralph Nader of being stupid or uninformed that I know of. Hope you enjoy the read. You have to remember that only about a third of the population actively resisted the British during the Revolutionary War. If Nader's point proves out and the coalition is formed that would be a bout the same one third of the voters with the R's & D's dividing up the rest of the voters.
 
With one third of the electorate, you'll see Congress Critters who aren't R's or D's. Legislation like "Audit the Fed" will land on the Presidents desk and that would just be the beginning of an Iceland style house cleaning of Government. Over time one of the current two parties will be absorbed and we'll be back to 2 parties.

 
I could never stomach registering as a voting Democrat or Republican.  I voted for Ralph in '00; if the Dems put up Hillary in 2016 and the G.O.P. someone equally useless I expect I'll vote 3rd party again.

 

[signals]

It affects us because of some of the things you mentioned regarding global entanglements. The notion of preemptive wars comes largely from the likes of Stalin and Hitler among others. Traditionally the US has used the Christian concept of a "Just War". We have the ability to destroy ANY Army at any time. Does that mean we have too? I don't think it does.
 
I would be totally and completely behind a Congressional Declaration of War voted on, approved and signed by the Commander in Chief. If ISIS is as evil as maintained (And NOT a creation of the CIA as some conspiracy theorists suggest) then let's get it on! Round up about a half a million US soldiers, sailors, Air Force & Marines and go over to Syria & Iraq and kick the ever loving feces out of them, pack up and go home. If they want help rebuilding their countries they can pay us in oil. I have no problem with the use of military force and one can certainly argue that beheading US Citizens is an act of war. So for me the basis of a "Just War" has been established.

Wow. This just boggles my mind. First, ANY ONE WHO USES GOD TO JUSTIFY THE SLAUGHTER OF ANY HUMAN is using GOD as a scapegoat. So to say Christian "Just War" is a political war dragging a god to justify the cause. Next, I believe the military, unless you reinstate the draft is at 250,000, so half-million is a delusional dream. Now, we are learning that wars drag on longer than we would like.

If what you say is the great PAUL DREAM, then he is an uninformed delusional moron leading his lemmings over the cliff. Remember, we can declare war on nations, but ISIS is not an actual UN recognized nation. Declaring war on ISIS is why many see the USA as an empire ready to fall...from within!

 

[SparrowHawk]

 
The Christian concept of 'just war' is something else I have difficulty grasping.  What is the criteria? I think if you peruse the list of wars involving the U.S. you'll see a pattern of interventions and conflict centered around national and economic interests going back quite far.  I suspect you'll be hard-pressed to find any pre-WW2 military actions by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union that they justified as being pre-emptive, as far as I can tell most were just land grabs and border disputes.
 
 
I think I can understand where you're coming from and you have some fair points but it sounds like a kind of foreign policy that wishes or pretends the Second World War never happened.  The present international order that came from the rubble of the most destructive war in history both mandates intervention and makes formal declarations of war archaic if not taboo.  I suggest that anyone with 51 minutes to spare take a look at this video, the 25th episode from the BBC's infinitely excellent World at War series documenting WW2. It does 1000x better job than I ever could explaining how drastically the global political order changed between 1939 and 1949.  And Laurence Olivier is just about the best narrator ever.
 
 
It seemed to me the Tea Party and Occupy people were always opposing the same system of injustice but from opposite ends, they just couldn't see past the massive machine of corporate-government entanglements to see eye to eye.
 
 
I could never stomach registering as a voting Democrat or Republican.  I voted for Ralph in '00; if the Dems put up Hillary in 2016 and the G.O.P. someone equally useless I expect I'll vote 3rd party again.

 
We are in full agreement on your last point. I've voted Libertarian almost since the party's inception.
 
Next to last point you have to throw in the Ron Paul Liberty Movement in as well, but you hit it pretty well I think.
 
I've watched that BBC episode more times then I can recall and it does make some great points. I also agree that a policy of strict Non Intervention is unworkable. We've been intervening since Jefferson sent the Navy and the Marines to the Barbary Coast in 1801. We need to back off from where we are now and heed the lessons history gives us.
 
I'm not real well versed in the "Just War" concept either. There is a boatload of articles online.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Well it's beginning now. The fall out from Ferguson and the Garner Case
 
DELRAY BEACH, Florida – Around twenty people spontaneously formed a “human shield” to protect a Florida man from police who wanted to arrest him for smoking marijuana.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/group-forms-spontaneous-human-shield-block-cops-arresting-man-pot/
 
I'm not anti police, even through I am often quite critical of their conduct and this article helps to show why. This incident is but a tiny example of what can and IMO will happen with alarming regularity unless our thin blue line is above reproach. In to many cities and towns they often are not. From brutality to being used as a revenue generator every infraction causes a slight erosion of trust of the population.. 
 
The actions described in the article are tiny seeds that could grow into a full blown rebellion. The police can not kill all of us. Their culture needs to change and officers need to be held accountable just as any other citizen. To do less is to invite chaos.

 

[777 fixer]

I've never completely understood the Libertarian/isolationist fetish with war declaration; in its history the United States Congress has only ever declared war five times.  Like it or not, the U.S. has a history of engaging in non-declared conflicts and interventionism of varying shades and degrees since it became a country. A good example of this is the Quasi-War with France from 1798-1800.  Declared wars are not automatically just wars.  The Spanish-American War is an example of a declared war that had questionably expansionist aims and made the U.S. an imperial power with its acquisition of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
 
A case can be made for the Korean War, or Korean Intervention if you like, since there are now about 52 million free people living in the Southern democracy enjoying the benefits of good international relations and a market economy.

 
It's completely ludicrous for anyone to think that the only way a war can be "just" is if Congress makes a declaration of war.  The Spanish-American War might have been so if we had given the Philippines and Cuba complete and total independence after it was over.  The Korean War while not declared IMO was a just war because now South Korea is a democracy and an economic powerhouse.

 

[Ms Tree]

It's completely ludicrous for anyone to think that the only way a war can be "just" is if Congress makes a declaration of war.  The Spanish-American War might have been so if we had given the Philippines and Cuba complete and total independence after it was over.  The Korean War while not declared IMO was a just war because now South Korea is a democracy and an economic powerhouse.

This seems to imply that the result dictates if the war is just or not. Shouldn't the justness of a war be on the war it's self rather than its out come? Would the Korean War have been any less just had N Korea lost and became communist?
I'm not sure I can justify US lives to save S Korea. Was it a humanitarian act? Yea, probably so. So was Vietnam Nam in that regard.

Come to think of it, we probably need to define "just". Do we mean legal or something else?

 

[ChockJockey]

This seems to imply that the result dictates if the war is just or not. Shouldn't the justness of a war be on the war it's self rather than its out come? Would the Korean War have been any less just had N Korea lost and became communist?
I'm not sure I can justify US lives to save S Korea. Was it a humanitarian act? Yea, probably so. So was Vietnam Nam in that regard.

Come to think of it, we probably need to define "just". Do we mean legal or something else?

 
Technically speaking the Korean War never ended, it's just under a cease-fire that's happened to hold for 60 years.  One could argue that this constant state of war has had the effect of helping the North Korean regime stay in power for as long as it has.  In 1950 the question was whether or not the U.S. (and the UN) would stand by while communist nations used armed aggression to expand territory and threaten its allies; at the time this was deemed unacceptable and Truman committed U.S. forces to fight the invasion from the North.  It was not strictly "humanitarian", and I think any idea of humanitarian war is a contradiction in terms.
 
I don't think you can rightfully assess the "justness" of a war without considering its long-term results.  One must consider the premise, goals, and means of fighting as well.  A war with just aims or lofty goals doesn't mean it's 'legal' or that the fighting won't become cruel or brutal or that it won't have disastrous ends.  A war in which one is fighting for their survival can be more easily considered just than one fought for the cynical purposes of imperial expansion.  I don't think that a war fought on the grounds of religious claims can be just by any measure.  Here we can make a distinction between a war being just, legal, or good; and these distinctions change with contemporary values.
 
Vietnam had similarities and differences to the Korean War, so many so to fill volumes.  The major difference in my thinking (besides Korea being a conventional conflict and Vietnam a guerrilla one) is that the U.S. willfully inherited what was an anti-colonial war the Vietnamese had previously been fighting with the French.  As far as the Vietnamese were concerned, they'd been fighting one long war for independence since the Japanese occupation of Indochina in WW2, first against the Japanese, then the French, and then finally the Americans.  It wasn't so much an issue of ideology as it was independence, though that they were in fact communist brought the Soviets and Chinese to their cause.  The Vietnam War anyone would have a lot more difficult case for saying it was ultimately just, legal, or good.