Ok - in my view you are mixing libertarian views with conservative views
The "Libertarian" wing of the republican party is simply the conservative wing of an otherwise liberal party. Changing names only leads to mission creep and confusion.
With the possibility of WMD - both nuclear and biological - I see it a responsibility of our government to take pro-active stances in protecting our few allies abroad...
Should we invade North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel - and any other soverieng nation that our 'intelligence' deems to have dangerous weapons?
We have MANY allies abroad, most of whom rely on our welfare system to fund their own defenses. We have to borrow money to extend our defense perimeter to our allies. Why don't they just borrow the money themselves and spend it on their defenses as they see fit.
especially in the Middle East - and in some instances, removing threats from hostile regimes.
ESPECIALLY horse shite.
How much money do we have to borrow to protect THESE (rich) gangsters...? Image: http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUexItYKO8l2Xvl9nSjtXQWWfj1nMoo2AcpIGwv7exP7bqQiATBw
...and as far as going into Iraq in the first place, was it REALLY a matter of liberating the people of the Arab EMIRATE?
I see the role of government as protecting our PEOPLE, not just our borders
More liberal mission creep. You go abroad as an American citizen, you take your own risks.
The trick is to stop interfering in the internal affaiors of soveriegn nations in order to minimize the resentment generated against us as a nation, and us as individuals travelling abroad. We should strengthen our economy and stop meddling such that everyone in the world wants to trade with us and our 'emissaries' are welcome anywhere. THAT, my friend, is TRUE conservatism. Any other rationalization for global empire is liberalism regardless of what you want to call it.
I don't envision it to be even remotely possible for anyone to INVADE this nation.
I agree, which is why we need to SEVERLY downsize our military - a very conservative view that is often confused with liberalism.
The only invasion we should fear is the illegal invasion from across the Mexican border which is going to collapse our economy.
Do you suggest we invade Mexico? After all, they pose more of a direct threat to our borders than any other nation on earth - including theones we've invaded on the pretense of defending our 'national interests'?
The problem with Mexico is VERY simple. The government is corrupt and the economy concentrates wealth at the very top of the population. The economics for those on the bottom are extremely bleak. Therefore, since the lower class has virtually no political power, they vote with their feet and leave. This is an economic problem that requires an economic solution. A fence on the border is ridiculous, a wall has NEVER stopped economic forces in the past, and won't now. SEE: Great Wall of China and Hadrians Wall.
In addition to the lower classes leaving due to economic problems, there are also political problems that are driving Mexicans away from their homes (remember, it takes an enormous stress in order to get a population to leave their home), these problems arise from the economic concentrtion of wealth as well as the corrupt political climate which leaves political vacuums locally. These vacuums are being filled by gangsters/'drug lords'. These gangsters want to increase their political power within the vacuum through force arms. In order to obtain arms, these gangsters need some commodity with which to trade for these arms. They look at the market and see where there is market demand for commodities they have available to them - drugs. Not only is there a high demand for drugs across their northern border, but the illegal nature of which acts as a price support. Presto, supply of commodities at virtually no cost, proximal market demand for product, government price support for the commodities.
The 'invasion' from Mexico is not 'illegal', it is completely in accordance with the laws of economics.