Iraq.

.
.
The typical anti-war crowds are banging the drums of surrender.  Democrats, as a general rule, are isolationist and anti-American.  Basically, if a policy would actually support U.S. interests, allies, practical or realistic solutions to naked aggression, they are against it.  They honestly don't care if every Christian in the Middle East were to be butchered, and we could have done something about it.  Or Jews.  Actually, I do believe they literally support such things.  Libertarians, as a rule, could care less about Christians.  As a rule, they don't consider themselves Christians, more like humanists of the milquetoast variety.  And they seem quite antagonist against Jews, so there is that.  Dems might support humanitarian aid to the losing side among some of our enemies.  Libertarians are almost as bad.

Libertarians couch it as an economic thing, which is bogus.  No, true, the US is broke and beyond.  As am I.  And yet, if I saw a man being beaten on the side of the road, and could reasonable expect to be able to intervene, I would.  I wouldn't try to suggest that I couldn't afford the gasoline for a stop, and restart, of my engine.  A risk, sure.  Though I don't think Libertarians care about risk, save for their own elitist status.  I am beginning to believe that much of the Libertarian movement is split between supporting chaos as with Democrats, saving nickles while not caring about dimes, quarters, and hundred dollar bills being spent on much more foolish things, and tongue in cheek anti-Americanism based on the European model, and typical elitist pacifism.  Plus, as a group that has no real power, talk is cheap.  I do believe they would do some of what they suggest, just not half as much as they promise, or less.

I supported attacking Iraq, and removing Saddam.  If I had had my way, after that, we would have planted a number of bases there, then left the rest to the people.  Pressure would have been put on Syria, next.  Help would have been available, to Iraq, for rent.  Further, Kurdistan would have been supported, probably to several conflagrations.  A new country would have been born, essentially an Arab Israel.  We wouldn't be in this mess, though we would eventually have been in messes.  There isn't a way to avoid that.  The thing is to look far enough ahead to see what is most likely, and loose diplomats to soften the blows.  None of which is, or has, been done.  As is, we are being superseded by Germany and another country, who are arming the Kurds.  We are having tiny, weak, nations go in while our president vacations.  Hell, the secular Pope and perhaps even the Dalai Lama are doing more saber rattling regarding isis.  And, yes, all of that adds up to very bad press for Dems and Libertarians.  Scandalous, unscrupulous, and scurrilous.  But whatever works to their ends.

If we were a powerless people, not just wishing to be, that would be one thing.  Power comes, and goes, as does wealth.  It doesn't matter what you have, but what you do with what you have.  This government, and some political movements, aren't using, but abusing, what they have.  Advocating surrender.  And while force isn't a thing that should be used for greed, or furtherance of power, once it is obtained, simply letting it go is almost as bad as not using it rightly.  It isn't an honor, power, wealth.  Those are gifts given for doing certain things, and there is an expectation with the gift.  So I expect that to be used rightly.  Yeah, I am a bit grumpy about it all.