| |
  
|
||||||||||
No Military Entanglements in Georgia, Says Bob Barr
Submitted by bfling on Sat, 08/16/2008 - 16:46
I like his statement on this: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/92/no-milita... Too bad they're not allowing him in the next debate coming up. He could argue against McBama on this, in support of the non-interventionist policy we support. » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
As I understand it...
we're already 'militarily entangled' in Georgia. We have several hundred of our own special forces there with a like amount of Israeli special forces training and arming the Georgian puppet state.
They are a CIA resource intended to poke Russia in the eye (along with the Ukraine).
We're already broke and now were teasing the big dogs?
What's next? Allow Hong Kong into NATO??
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
If he were against the War
If he were against the War on Drugs then why did he advocate foreign interventionism in South America to stop the *narco terrorists*. He had already claimed to be against the War on Drugs when he made this statement about the Narco Terrorists so that right there shows that he is inconsistent in his stances.
I don't think he's as sincere as he claims about Russia/Georgia either. Or he might be, then might change his mind later.....as he did with the War on Drugs and Narco Terrorist battling bs.
All that matters is his final position that he's going to carry
into the debates, if he can get in. People are allowed to change their minds on things. If he's going to advocate non-intervenionism in debates, that's all that matters. It takes time for people to work through their ideas.
I'm sure a very large number of of Dr. Paul's supporters didn't subscribe to his non-interventionist philosophy, but became gradual converts by hearing his arguments. I'm not going to reject Barr or Paul's other supporters because of their past positions.
He's not going to get into
He's not going to get into the debates unfortunately. It would be nice if he could and bring the freedom message with him, but I just don't think he's going to be able to :(
Yes, but...
do you believe him?
Semper Fortis
http://www.jbs.org/
Semper Fortis
nope
freedumb is not free!none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe there free
freedumb is not free!
No, I don't believe him at
No, I don't believe him at all. He has already shown he is inconsistent with his stances by advocating a foreign policy of intervention in South America to deal with the *Narco Terrorists* AFTER he had already stated that he was against the War on Drugs. A politician documented flip flopping. A troll pwned. Priceless!
So why become a Libertarian Candidate?
The power? The prestige? The war chest of financial backing? Maybe the ease of getting on the ballot? Perhaps because the Libertarians liked him so much and he felt appreciated?
Or maybe he likes an uphill battle. Or not being able to get on the news. He probably converted because after we helped cost him his seat in Congress, he wanted to infiltrate us and destroy us.
Seriously, why would he join if he didn't see the Light of Liberty? Nobody joins this party for the power.
IMissLiberty
IMissLiberty
All that matters is his final statement.
People are allowed to change their minds on things. If he's going to advocate non-intervenionism in debates, that's all that matters. It takes time for people to work through their ideas.
I'm sure a very large number of of Dr. Paul's supporters didn't subscribe to his non-interventionist philosophy, but became gradual converts by hearing his arguments. I'm not going to reject Barr or Paul's other supporters because of their past positions.
Does it matter?
He just wants to be able to get in the debate. If everything that came out of Dr. Paul's mouth in the debates was insincere it wouldn't matter, because the message is the message. Don't attack the messenger.
I believe Dr. Paul and MY Heart No
Freedom is not FREE!!
One else. From an anti-organized religion person, my heart is more important than any BS. It is not just about the debate. It is About getting rid of PARTIES!!!
Freedom is not FREE!!
Well it certainly isn't about becoming president.
Everyone with their sensiblity intact knew that the chances of Dr. Paul becoming president were extremely small, and even smaller for Barr since he's in the Libertarian Party. Dr. Paul's goal was really no more than to influence the debate and convert more people to his philosophy. I'm sure Barr has no higher expectations than that. I sure don't.
Do I believe G. Bush, O'Bam Bam or Mc Shame. I trust_
Freedom is not FREE!!
No politician. I trust the constitution. I trust my neighbor. I trust my children. I TRUST my wife. I trust my heart(a supreme being) in knowing what is right.
Without the knowledge, and without the contact with the individual I have no answer to your question. If this Man would look me in the eye and answer my questions I would give my support to that individual and shout it from the roof top. That individual could be Barr or Baldwin. It could be someone else. I have the ability to read TRUTH and forget the BS.
This country needs a leader and that leader needs the publicity.
Freedom is not FREE!!
All it would take is 100,000 people to e-mail their view to
Freedom is not FREE!!
show the MSM is F#$$@^d up. Time to rule once again! I remember just short time ago that we made the MSM do what we wanted. It is time to have BALLS(or not) and blast the MSM about this issue. I personally have not decided whom I am going to vote for(will NEVER be McShame,O"Bam Bam) but we MUST get on board and show our displeasure with the TWO parties.
I had a dream that the Repub party will cease to exist(36 years) before the Demo but, both are evil! Their day is coming.
Barr may just what we need, or not, but publicity is what counts. Can we get that. I personally will try to write in Ron Paul. My state may or may not allow this . If not I will decide between between Barr and Baldwin. ( Wish they would run together) Would'nt that SCREW things up.
Just someone that likes to F things up!
Freedom is not FREE!!
I would like to see the other side of each debate take place
right outside the debate headquarters in real time with Barr, Baldwin, and Nader answering each debate question followed by a brief individual summary at the end. This would spark alot of interest and could be promoted through C-Span, cable, and all interested internet sources.
Love (consciousness) is in everything.
"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner
Ya, he wants to save the
Ya, he wants to save the troops for his South American adventures against the "narco terrorists".
Before or after
Dr. Paul converted him to a non-interventionist foreign policy?
after
after
Impossible,
since that would interventionist.
exactly. he never converted
exactly. he never converted in the first place.
Obviously he did.
He's saying now that the U.S. military should not be involved in anything any conflict where there's not a direct link to our national security. He saying the same things as Dr. Paul.
He's now against Federal involvement in the war on drugs so why would he still support now what you're claiming he supports?
I have no idea. Perhaps ask
I have no idea. Perhaps ask him why he wishes to send troops down to South America to stop the *narco terrorists*. Keep in mind whilst you are asking him that he had already claimed to be against Federal involvement in the war on drugs when he made that statement about the *narco terrorists*. What a sterling track record on consistency this guy is eh.
Sounds to me like the guy has no idea wtf he thinks and is just being the typical politician/salesman that he is. Ok with non-intervention at one point, not ok at another time. You trying to convince me that Ron Paul converted him just isn't going to work so you can drop that idea :) You have no f**king clue if Ron Paul has converted him or not. You are just some f**king dumb@ss on the internet with no more clues than anyone else as to what the hell is going on in Barr's mind or personal life. You are talking out your @ss bro.
Wow
You realized your position doesn't make any sense, so you resort to personal attacks. You short-circuited. Easy game you are.
Hey, I'm just telling you
Hey, I'm just telling you how Barr's position doesn't make any sense.
If he were against the War on Drugs then why did he advocate foreign interventionism in South America to stop the *narco terrorists*. He had already claimed to be against the War on Drugs when he made this statement about the Narco Terrorists so that right there shows that he is inconsistent in his stances. Got one word for ya in terms of trying to win this one buddy.............FAIL.
All that matters is his final statement.
People are allowed to change their minds on things. If he's going to advocate non-intervenionism in debates, that's all that matters.
I don't..it is the same
I don't..it is the same waffling I heard on Beck. We are a DIFFERENT sort of country, and should NOT get involved in the other's affairs. Barr obviously does not believe that. He talks against it in a round-about-way, but no hard core policies. Poo poo
Did you not read it?
He said "Although America must always be prepared to use military force to defend itself, doing so should be the last rather than first resort, and the U.S. should not risk military involvement in such a tragic and unnecessary war, and one with so little direct or immediate relevance to America’s own security."
He said point blank saying we should not be involved in that conflict, and any other conflict that isn't a direct threat to our national security. There's no waffling there.
I saw it as wafflement. He
I saw it as wafflement. He says THAT war is tragic and unnecessary, but implies one that has more relevance to our security is ok.
Of course a war that is has a clear link to our
national security is ok. You don't think so? You're disagreeing with Dr. Paul too, if you do. Dr. Paul's position is that we shouldn't engage in military actions unless there is a direct link to our national security. Not only is a conflict that has direct relevant to our national security permissible under the non-interventionist policy, it's obligatory. It's the federal government's duty to go to war to protect the national security of the U.S. if there's truly a threat to our national security.
He says "Statements from both the Bush Administration and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain regarding the continuing conflict between Russia and Georgia indicate once again their shared predisposition to involve America’s armed forces in foreign conflicts with no clear link to our country’s vital national security interests."
He said "once again." Obviously he's referring to Iraq there, because he has spoken against the Iraq engagement many times.
Well, you miss my point. OF
Well, you miss my point. OF COURSE if someone "invaded" us, we should certainly do a lot better than we did on 9/11. Just that his words were NOT strong. I mean, one could take from that that it is OK with Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan and, and, and, because they hate us and that means our national is not secure.
I listened to his entire talk on Beck and saw waffling a lot of times. He tries to be "politically correct" even though he has some good thoughts that are against the status quo, AND that I agree with. I just do not trust him. Anyway, I am not a Libertarian...