12 Responses for "Reason.tv Interview with Bob Barr"

1. Mike April 29th, 2008 at 1:18 pm 1

   I can find no good reason to not vote for this man for president. The differences between him and the three liberals running for president are so stark that I could never in good conscience turn my back on my core values just to try and keep the lesser of two evils out of office.

   Why vote for evil at all when good is in the race?

2. Mike April 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm 2

   “I don’t see how invading the country and deposing Saddam Hussein and then leaving wouldn’t lead to just another dictator popping up.”

   I think it would, but what is the problem with that? The US props of dictators all over the world already, what is different about Iraq?

3. Langley April 29th, 2008 at 1:23 pm 3

   Because the previous dictator who “popped up” in Iraq, who the U.S. at one time supported during the Iraq-Iran War, became a thorn in our side and led to us having to depose him in the first place. Why encourage the same thing happening again? Now, one could argue that the “nation-building” could have been done in a more efficient way, but I fail to see how simply invading, taking out Saddam Hussein, then leaving the country to the dogs wouldn’t propagate the same thing happening all over again 10 years down the road.

4. Mike April 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pm 4

   What prevents any of the dozen or so dictators we currently prop up from turning on us once it becomes convenient for them to do so? How do we determine whom to invade? Do we seek out and invade every country that engages in anti-american activity that could imperil our national security?

   That would be quite a list of countries, among them Italy, Israel, China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and even nations like Mexico would fall into that category.

   Yes invading and leaving presents the risk of another dictator arising, but how is that any different that the current state of affairs over the bulk of the world?

5. Langley April 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm 5

   Look, I don’t dispute that we play nice with plenty of nations that we’d be prudent not to do so. That doesn’t excuse invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein and just leaving the place to despair, probably leading to another situation much like the one we were trying to remedy.

   The old saying goes, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” We can debate our international relations with these other countries until our heads explode. But if the Armed Forces are going to go into a sovereign nation and depose a dictator, it makes absolutely no sense to just leave it after that initial objective is obtained. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good, Mike.

6. Mike April 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm 6

   This isn’t about the perfect or the good, but rather what is in the best interest of this nation. You make it sound as if simply leaving after the initial invasion and set up of a new government would have been a near impossible task. We have invaded countries in the past and not rebuilt them and yet the sun still rose the next day.

   Invading nations are under no obligation to rebuild the territory they conquer.

   You say: “. . . it makes absolutely no sense to just leave it after that initial objective is obtained.”

   My question is why not?

7. Langley April 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm 7

   Because Iraq and the Middle East is full of power-hungry “religious” people who would love to take advantage of a country with no firm government in place and use it to their own ends to further terrorism against this country and many others.

   Because Iran would love to make Iraq a puppet-state to further its murderous goals even beyond their support for Hamas and Hezbollah. I know you are going to point out the Administration’s refusal to properly engage Iran on this front, and I agree with you, and this doesn’t change what I just stated.

8. Mike April 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm 8

   Well then we would just have to invade again until they got it right. It would cost us less money and troops to invade twice in five years than to invade once and rebuild the country over 10-15 years.

9. Langley April 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm 9

   You and I both know that what you propose simply isn’t politically feasible, either domestically or on the world stage.

10. Mike April 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm 10

    Politically feasible? The main reason it isn’t politically feasible is because not enough people desire that their government follow this course of action. It starts with you Langley.

    As for the world stage . . . come on. The world frowns on Sudan in Darfur and does nothing, they they frown on China in Tibet and do nothing, they frown on Zimbabwe and do nothing, they frown on North Korea, Iran, Syria in Lebanon, Burma and ultimately they do nothing because words have zero meaning in international affairs, only power matters.

    Besides, how much worse could it possibly get for the USA on the world stage?

11. Langley April 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm 11

    My emphasis was on the domestic front, not on the world stage. I know that appealing to the world stage is a futile and ridiculous activity in today’s climate.

    Domestically, not everyone is as bold as you or I Mike. You have to take political realities into consideration here.

12. Mike April 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm 12

    This is just a blog post Langley, I suggest you argue against the merits of the action itself, not the idea that the idea could never gain traction. The pendulum has a way of swinging back the other way.