Is Barr's Support Of Interventionism A Problem With Libertarians?
Forget about his winning Ron Paul and Campaign For Liberty supporters, that's a dead issue. But will Barr's comments on Iran signal to libertarian voters that maybe Barr isn't with them? Here's BB on Iran:
"Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone — free to support terrorist groups and regimes in other countries, including Iraq, and to develop a nuclear capability? Of course not. Even considering that our lengthy and continuing occupation of Iraq has greatly strengthened Ahmadinejad, the United States has a clear and legitimate stake in what happens in Iran and with regard to matters in which that regime is involved elsewhere."
This may gain him some recalcitrant former Bush supporters, and a stray Huckabee or McCain (or even Hillary) supporter, but I think it may backfire. Does the U.S. have a legitimate "stake" in Iran? Does having this "stake" justify invasion, or simply covert action against Iran? Does it mean we should sanction them, betraying one of the Libertarian Party's sacred principles, i.e., free trade. Should our government militarily destroy that nuclear capability, despite our Constitution's enumerated powers prohibiting an act of war by the Executive? What does this all mean for Barr? I think it hurts him, but I'm curious to see what other Ron Paul and Campaign For Liberty supporters think.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforlib... The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers
Its a problem for me too... No to Barr
I think we must keep the Revolution away from Barr and Baldwin and Nader.
Ron Paul has a message, the Revolution should stay faithful to those policies in that Freedom Message.
If it means we don't vote, so be it. Political strategists of all stripes will see what happened.
Does that mean the Revolution is now still born? That remains to be seen. I suspect we will soon have our new champion. We are all busy looking for him. I am happy that most have LOOKED at Barr, Baldwin & Nader, and found them all lacking.
If WE stay faithful to the Freedom Message with the Policies we want, our Champion will soon emerge. Count on it.
In Peace & Liberty,
Treg.
Well, it's a problem for me...
Bob Barr is a wolf and he's only half dressed in sheep's clothing. He voted for the patriot act, the Iraq war, and is nothing but a neocon that was planted in response to the success of the Ron Paul Revolution to try and distract and splinter Paul's supporters. This quote makes it pretty damn clear that he believes that the U.S. has the right to keep meddling in the affairs of other nations. Sounds a lot like Bush to me......
"Doc" Holladay
Nashville, TN
www.reverbnation.com/docholladaymusic
Truth is treason in an empire of lies.
Silly conspiracy theorist
Prove that Barr was "planted."
And, did you know that Barr was part of the effort to draft Dr. Paul to run 3rd party Libertarian when Dr. Paul's campaign was winding down. Barr only stepped up to the plate after Dr. Paul chose not to.
***************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).
Holy Diver
Save me I don't think I can hold out much longer.
Prove that he wasn't!
You can't, because he was. Look at his voting record. He voted for the 'patriot act', the Iraq war, and has a neocon running mate, history with the CIA, favors meddling in other nations' business (Iran comes to mind).
"Doc" Holladay
Nashville, TN
www.reverbnation.com/docholladaymusic
Truth is treason in an empire of lies.
It does hurt him.
he did voet for the patriot act.. he is former CIA. Cant fully trust him. He is seemingly moving in the right direction but this could be a diversion. DP'ers really need to decide who we will support.
Follow my logic and tell me if it makes sense:
Ron Paul did not actively seek our support...we went to him. Well, I dont see Chuck Bladwin actively seeking our support either. Very much like Ron Paul. Whereas, Bob Barr.... this dude is practically begging for our support and, even though we want to support an alternative to the republicandemocrat party, we dont really like Barr because he doesnt represent what we want.. which is liberty and the return to the constitution. I think Im voting for Chuck
Semper Fortis
http://www.jbs.org/
Semper Fortis
Yes
There's your answer
Big Gov't = Big Gov't. Period.
Good job DC!!!
Nice job on exposing Neocon/CIA/DrugWarrior Barr for the garbage he is.
He is starting to flip flop, telling a different story to different crows hoping to pick up allot of votes from all parts.
BOB BARR IS CIA CIA CIA CIA!!!!!!!!!!!
The truth will set you free!!!!!!!!!
Well, I'm hoping that Barr
Well, I'm hoping that Barr gets a little specific soon. I'm not utterly opposed to this guy, but this is part of the reason why LP'ers and others (such as RP supporters) aren't rushing to help him.
Interesting you mention CIA, especially given Barr's opposition to a "military confrontation." Does he mean covert activity, such as assassination, buying influence, subverting certain political activity? I don't know, and he hasn't said, yet.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Why don't you put a link up there so people can see
that quote in the full context? He specifically says he opposes military action, which is the largest concern.
Here's the link:
http://bobbarrblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/we-rush-to-war-in-ir...
I'm starting to suspect that you're trying to lead people to believe he's talking about military intervention, since you don't provide context, and pick out the only couple of sentences from that article that you could use to make it look like that.
*****************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).
Then You Haven't Read My Posts
I can't help that.
Anyway, I've got some work to do, I'll be back later, thanks.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
You're Free To Post The Link
if you want. I gave a pretty lengthy quote, which is what I've addressed, and which I think he needs to clarify. He say he won't "initiate a military confrontation." Nowhere does he state specifically what he WOULD do, or why he thinks that "of course" we can't "leave Iran free" to govern itself regardless of U.S. "interests."
_____________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Now, I beg to differ...
Barr has several times insisted non-interference and a diplomatic role. Take a look at this PR:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/23/stop-the-...
Did you know about this combined "left-right" red phone calling in DC with people in Iran, where Paul and Barr were also part of?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgOO-88Uv4U
Where did you find this statement by Barr? Read closely, he does not threat with any military action at all. "The "legitimate stake" probably means security in terms of nuclear weapons, as information. This does not necessarily mean he will attack Iran in case they build a nuclear bomb. In any case, it takes 5-10 years. The "not sit bacK could mean action like diplomatic pressure with other countries, involvement of Middle Eastern countries etc.
Also, consider a strict non-interventionist libertarian like Doug Bandow is Bob Barr's foreign policy adviser. Bandow is/was also one of Dr. Paul's foreign policy advisor's and he publishes on antiwar.com
If you closely follow Barr's comments there is a closer move to Dr. Paul's positions and also phrases that he use. So be open...
I'm not sure what you're
I'm not sure what you're differing on -- are you saying you don't agree that such a view hurts him?
I'm willing to concede, as I stated before, that it doesn't "necessarily" mean he'd invade (although it doesn't mean he won't either). He does, of course, make the obvious statement that he wouldn't want to "initiate" a military confrontation. But doesn't that beg the question? "Initiate" in these times is a murky term.
But even given that, how can he state we have an "interest" in their activities? We don't -- isn't that Ron Paul 101? If they want to develop a nuclear weapon, or support one nation's government over another, that's their business. He may merely be talking about "diplomacy," but his choice of words leads me to believe he means something else. What can't we "leave them free" to do? And what steps would he take to stop it? That's the question he needs to answer, and he does not in his article.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Wow DC
You really pulled all the Trolls with thread didn't you. Good job.
The war on your mind -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
If we can't vote for Dr. Paul consider a vote for Constitutional Freedom, consider Chuck Baldwin -- http://baldwin2008.com
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Lol, I didn't mean to. I
Lol, I didn't mean to. I was hoping to spark some general discussion, and hopefully see if anyone could give an opinion on whether this hurts him at a crucial point in his campaign.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
It depends
Certainly non-interventionism does not mean "No Diplomacy".
I don't think anyone in the US thinks that a nuclear Iran is a good thing. Personally, I don't think it matters that much, but given a choice I would prefer they don't develop nuclear weapons.
Shouldn't a libertarian president seek to sign a treaty - directly with Iran - concerning limiting nuclear weapons. It could be in exchange for technology, education oppurtunities, non-aggression pact, some things like that.
No
His comment indicates that he thinks we have an "interest" in keeping Iran nuclear-free, and from engaging in undefined activities that we shouldn't "leave them free" (interesting choice of words) to do. What is he prepared to do to enforce that "interest."
I, like Ron Paul, think we have no authority to tell another nation what to do, and I'm pretty sure such sentiment is about 100% among LP members. Don't you see this as a problem among LP'ers?
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Telling vs asking
I suppose the line is at a use of force.
A president can say, "gee, I wish you wouldn't do that, because here are all the bad things that might happen."
They might even say, "well, if you do that, I'm going to have to watch you very carefully"
Most aggressively, one might say, "Okay, build your nukes, but know if one of them goes off (your fault, my fault, nobody's fault) we are going to wipe your country out. - some might call this last one a threat and a use of force, but for me, this is still just a hair on the side of not using force.
Of course, sanctions and pre-emptive military action are force.
The one I am not sure about is the - "if you don't stop building nuclear weapons I'm going to get all my friends to stop talking to you." I don't like this, would probably agree it is a use of force, but can see the other side.
Now is a nuclear Iran a problem for the U.S. - theoretically no, however, given that it will take some time to disentangle ourselves from the middle east, a suppose a practical argument could be made that it is since a nuclear Iran is clearly a problem for the region.
He says he opposes military intervention in Iran in that article
He concludes: "Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran, and increased efforts to quietly but actively build on the deep base of political understanding that already exists among a large segment of the Iranian population (and including the more than one million Iranian-Americans). Unlike the Iraqi population before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, which had never enjoyed a participatory political system, millions of Iran's citizens have tasted and understand the benefits of such freedom. It would be a shame if, in a rush to prove something politically at home or abroad, the U.S. were to initiate a military confrontation that would not only destroy that base of support, but lead to a conflict vastly more costly and lengthy than the invasion of Iraq has turned out to be."
The date is from October 07.
*******************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).
I'll Concede That He Doesn't Want To "Rush To Invade"
. . . (which anyone could say) but he states we have interests at stake. What is he, then, advocating we do to intervene? And, pointedly, he doesn't rule out invasion -- he simply states he doesn't want to "initiate a confrontation." What, then, does he have in mind? And, more significantly for the LP'ers, how can a libertarian claim the U.S. has an "interest" in how another nation runs its affairs, including its nuclear development? I think he needs to repudiate that statement.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Why don't you just read it?
It's in the quote that I just copied and pasted.
Also, note that Dr. Paul is not a PURE non-interventionist. He supported invading Afghanistan. That's intervention.
**************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).
Yes, I did read it. Didn't
Yes, I did read it. Didn't you read my response?
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Yes, but you apparently didn't read what I pasted
Read the very first sentence. That's what he "has in mind."
**********
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).
That Doesn't Answer The Question
It's disingenuous to say what "positive steps could include." And what are the specifics of our interfering in order to "quietly but actively build on the deep base of political understanding." Could he possibly be more obscure? And what is the "political and economic pressure?" Sanctions, in defiance of LP principles of free trade? Covert activity (it sure sounds like it)? This all is part of my question: what specifically is he proposing? Platitudes and generalities don't cut it. What if those "positive steps" don't work? Do we just stop? How can we if we have an "interest" to protect, and we can't "leave them free" to, among other things, develop nuclearly. . . . .The bottom line is that his inaccurate premise is the basis for much mischief, and much anti-LP policy.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with frauds Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
I would think
that "political and economic pressure" refers to sanctions. Though that may not be the best policy, that would definitely be a superior alternative to invasion. Also, we don't know if he's changed his mind since then. Maybe he's rethought that after read Dr. Paul's book. Like you, I'd be interested in knowing too. But, given all his other positions, I'd still support him if he's supporting economic pressure and vocally opposing military intervention. That's not nearly as dangerous to America as a war. He's also saying he wants to remove military bases from around the world. I don't think Dr. Paul is a perfect candidate either. As long as someone generally represents my position, I'm going to support them.
***********
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).
This troll should in no way be taken serious.
Nor Debated with. He dosen't support Constitutional Freedom.
See for yourself. He has never posted the words in conjunction either.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/52856
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I support liberty.
Therefore I support those elements of the Constitution that protect liberty. I oppose those elements that don't, such as the 16th Amendment which allows an income tax. I believe, like Dr. Paul, that should be repealed. The Constitution should be amended to be more protective of liberty.
Idiot.
************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, lik
If you are what you say.
They you would be a part of the Constitutional party. Notice you said "more" protective of liberty is why the constitution should be amended.
IT SHOULD PROTECT FREEDOM. Therefore the original document is what we need to go back to not just merely amended to sorta protect our liberties.
Once again you can't put Constitutional and Freedom in the same sentence in any of your answers.
The war on your mind -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
If we can't vote for Dr. Paul consider a vote for Constitutional Freedom, consider Chuck Baldwin -- http://baldwin2008.com
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Liberty and Freedom mean the same thing, Idiot!
And no I should not be part of the Constitution Party. Their platform is unconstitutional. Read the platform on their website. They advocate regulating and censoring speech for obscenity, which would mean regulation of the internet. That's a violation of the 1st Amendment. Also they are for regulating/prohibiting gambling. Again, that would be more interference with the internet. Baldwin reveived an 'F' score by the American Poker Alliance, whereas Paul and Barr both got 'A+'.
They hide behind the "Constitution Party" name, but they're not constitutional, and they're not interested in liberty/freedom for anyone that wants to exercise their freedoms in other ways than they want to.
***************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).