barr is PRO-Interventionist Foreign Policy

Well I guess the guy who is running for office who just posted that information about Ron Paul not being able to endorse is lyin then right? Do ya'll only read the posts of your buddies on here? tones
 
Well I guess the guy who is running for office who just posted that information about Ron Paul not being able to endorse is lyin then right? Do ya'll only read the posts of your buddies on here? tones

I'm not sure what post you're talking about, and I doubt he is lying. If he said that, he is wrong though. Do you agree?
 
Well.. I posted an article about that ..a week or so ago and nobody responded and very few read it..so it went to the annals of the forum. It said that Ron Paul can't endorse anyone out of the GOP or he could lose his seat. THAT is why he won't endorse. TONES
 
Nope. Ron Paul is not for interventionism..neither is Bob Barr. TONES (or Baldwin)

You can't read can you?

you are the only one spreading this message.

I haven't missed a single speech or article from Bob Barr since he got the Libertarian Nomination, and all you do is continue to post about things from 2007 and prior.......

If you don't count 2007 as part of barr's current "changed" self,
when exactly did barr become this new and improved "libertarian"
he claims to be?

I'm sorry, I read the Iran bit he wrote, and have yet to see anything clandestine.

Get some glasses. Here it is again:


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).



What do you guys call "quietly but actively"?




You're no doubt a troll. Show me what he did in the CIA.


He was with the CIA from 1970 to 1978. Of course we don't know what he did with them.

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000169
 
Last edited:
I dont have a problem with using the CIA in foreign countries against known NGO enemies. This is far less expensive and far less damaging than a broad policy of invasion.

Lets remember that even Jefferson authorized small scale military campaigns against the Barbary pirates. Even Dr. Paul supports the Christian just war theory.
 
Or we could just deal with whats in our country, if that shit comes into our country THEN we deal with it. Why should we be able to go into other countries and do that shit?

Expense or not who cares, its not on our soil.

Iran could sit and kill their own people for all I care BUT what does that have to do with forced American control? or democracy or whatever else the media pitches.

People die by the minute everywhere BUT what the hell does that have to do with US making sure to stick our nose in it?


Come and attack us here and we can fuck them up, if they play OUTSIDE our country then why would it be our business? We think we need to get into everything. If it were really needed then don't you think OTHER nations would do something as well?

I still don't get why OTHER countries can stay out of shit except us... We want to rule and democratize every nation BUT that is not our business or right.

Stay on our own land and trade with them, import export and let them kill who they want on their land. If their people have a problem with it then let THEM stand up to it. We have too many things to fight for on our own turf to play national nanny to the world.

I dont have a problem with using the CIA in foreign countries against known NGO enemies. This is far less expensive and far less damaging than a broad policy of invasion.

Lets remember that even Jefferson authorized small scale military campaigns against the Barbary pirates. Even Dr. Paul supports the Christian just war theory.
 
Or we could just deal with whats in our country, if that shit comes into our country THEN we deal with it. Why should we be able to go into other countries and do that shit?

Expense or not who cares, its not on our soil.

Iran could sit and kill their own people for all I care BUT what does that have to do with forced American control? or democracy or whatever else the media pitches.

People die by the minute everywhere BUT what the hell does that have to do with US making sure to stick our nose in it?


Come and attack us here and we can fuck them up, if they play OUTSIDE our country then why would it be our business? We think we need to get into everything. If it were really needed then don't you think OTHER nations would do something as well?

I still don't get why OTHER countries can stay out of shit except us... We want to rule and democratize every nation BUT that is not our business or right.

Stay on our own land and trade with them, import export and let them kill who they want on their land. If their people have a problem with it then let THEM stand up to it. We have too many things to fight for on our own turf to play national nanny to the world.

I think you have misunderstood me. Im talking about OUR enemies. If the POTUS has solid intel that there is a group in Somalia or somewhere else that is planning an attack on us, I have no qualms with surgical strikes. Protecting sea lanes from Piracy is also another important role of the US armed forces.

Step back 200-300 years, and think about the problems they had with pirates. (which was their general term for international criminals). It was common knowledge that civilized nations were at war with these bandits, and that anyone who could kill them should. Today should be no different.

There is a distinct difference between defending the legitimate interests of the security of the United States, and trying to 'democratize the world". If I was POTUS, the CIA would have many foreign nationals on the payroll to feed us humint, and when we found one of these scumbags, I would be dispatching two teams. 1. an assasination team to wipe them off the face of the planet with little or no collateral damage, and 2. a diplomatic mission to that nations capital to a. explain ourselves, b. offer cash renumeration for any damages, and c. tell them that if they werent harboring criminals, I wouldnt have had to cross their borders.

That might cause some hurt feelings, but so long as we have applied the right bandages, I have no problem with that.

Regime change, invasions, occupations, influencing local politics, and buying local politicians is what earns us hatred. Everyone understands when you protect yourself.
 
I dont have a problem with using the CIA in foreign countries against known NGO enemies. This is far less expensive and far less damaging than a broad policy of invasion.

Lets remember that even Jefferson authorized small scale military campaigns against the Barbary pirates. Even Dr. Paul supports the Christian just war theory.

What can the CIA learn that can't be learned through open source?

What you seem to be talking about is covert ops, spying, etc. If not, why do we even need a CIA?
 
What can the CIA learn that can't be learned through open source?

What you seem to be talking about is covert ops, spying, etc. If not, why do we even need a CIA?

I am talking about covert ops, spying, etc. and killing terrorists. Was I unclear?
 
I am talking about covert ops, spying, etc. and killing terrorists. Was I unclear?


Yea because CIA covert OPS always have great outcomes. We certainly need to trust a secretive police force to go around the world preemptively killing foreign leaders without the consent of American citizens. I can't think of anything wrong with this.
Just look at the great friend to America Iran has become since our CIA covertly overthrew democratically elected Mosaddeq 50 years ago.
 
Yea because CIA covert OPS always have great outcomes. We certainly need to trust a secretive police force to go around the world preemptively killing foreign leaders without the consent of American citizens. I can't think of anything wrong with this.
Just look at the great friend to America Iran has become since our CIA covertly overthrew democratically elected Mosaddeq 50 years ago.


Who said anything about killing foreign LEADERS? I said kill terrorists. The problem with the CIA is that they have overstepped their mission. There is a distinct difference between assassinating outlaws and overthrowing governments.
 
Who said anything about killing foreign LEADERS? I said kill terrorists. The problem with the CIA is that they have overstepped their mission. There is a distinct difference between assassinating outlaws and overthrowing governments.

Well what the hell is a "terrorist"? It is such a vague word, and it only has value as propaganda. According to our government, Mosaddeq, Bin Laden, Hussein, HAMAS, and Achmedinijad (sp?) are all terrorists. They are also foreign leaders.
 
Well what the hell is a "terrorist"? It is such a vague word, and it only has value as propaganda. According to our government, Mosaddeq, Bin Laden, Hussein, HAMAS, and Achmedinijad (sp?) are all terrorists. They are also foreign leaders.

Simple. Plan violent action against the US. Die.
 
Simple. Plan violent action against the US. Die.

In theory this sounds good, but it wouldn't work. How do we know when someone is planning violence against us? What if we are wrong? What if the government lies to us and claims so and so is planning to killsus(as they did with Iraq)?

We need a STRICT policy of non-interventionism. We also need to be prepared to completely and instantly annihilate any country in the world, without regard for civilian casualties, if they should attack us.
 
I am talking about covert ops, spying, etc. and killing terrorists. Was I unclear?
Yea because CIA covert OPS always have great outcomes. We certainly need to trust a secretive police force to go around the world preemptively killing foreign leaders without the consent of American citizens. I can't think of anything wrong with this.
Just look at the great friend to America Iran has become since our CIA covertly overthrew democratically elected Mosaddeq 50 years ago.

+1776

Well what the hell is a "terrorist"? It is such a vague word, and it only has value as propaganda. According to our government, Mosaddeq, Bin Laden, Hussein, HAMAS, and Achmedinijad (sp?) are all terrorists. They are also foreign leaders.

"... Terrorism is a tactic. You can't have a war against a
tactic... It's deliberately vague and non-definable in order
to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere and under any
circumstances. Don't forget, the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein
had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us,
including that on 9-11." -- Ron Paul



In theory this sounds good, but it wouldn't work. How do we know when someone is planning violence against us? What if we are wrong? What if the government lies to us and claims so and so is planning to killsus(as they did with Iraq)?

We need a STRICT policy of non-interventionism. We also need to be prepared to completely and instantly annihilate any country in the world, without regard for civilian casualties, if they should attack us.


The best way to deal with such nations, is free trade! Free
trade has MUCH more positive influence over national policy
change and creating "friends" than any covert operation or
military option do, including blockades and embargoes.
 
In theory this sounds good, but it wouldn't work. How do we know when someone is planning violence against us? What if we are wrong? What if the government lies to us and claims so and so is planning to killsus(as they did with Iraq)?

We need a STRICT policy of non-interventionism. We also need to be prepared to completely and instantly annihilate any country in the world, without regard for civilian casualties, if they should attack us.

I agreed with you up until your last sentence. Total war is both unnecessary and disgusting. Instead, we need a STRICT policy of noninterventionism, and we also need to be prepared to completely and instantly annihilate the leadership of any country in the world - whether through sleeper cell assassins/spies or whatever other means. After a few future wars are solved entirely by regime change (without any subsequent nation building on our part - let their country sort out the mess) and it becomes the standard, world leaders will start being VERY polite with each other. If you make it their personal problem, and not the problem of their 18 year old infantry troops or their civilian population, wars will cease to occur.

I mean, could you imagine some foreign George Bush ever wanting to invade a country if he knew that the moment he did, he and his entire administration would be slaughtered? ;)
 
Back
Top