Comments on: Reason.tv Interview with Bob Barr http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/ Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:15:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Mike http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340546 Mike Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:55:25 +0000 http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340546 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. 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.

]]> By: Langley http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340544 Langley Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:53:23 +0000 http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340544 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. 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.

]]> By: Mike http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340543 Mike Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:51:22 +0000 http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340543 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? 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?

]]> By: Langley http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340541 Langley Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:41:33 +0000 http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340541 You and I both know that what you propose simply isn't politically feasible, either domestically or on the world stage. You and I both know that what you propose simply isn’t politically feasible, either domestically or on the world stage.

]]> By: Mike http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340540 Mike Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:32:24 +0000 http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340540 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. 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.

]]> By: Langley http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340537 Langley Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:16:45 +0000 http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340537 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. 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.

]]> By: Mike http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340536 Mike Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:00:38 +0000 http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340536 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? 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?

]]> By: Langley http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340534 Langley Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:50:23 +0000 http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340534 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. 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.

]]> By: Mike http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340533 Mike Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:43:11 +0000 http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340533 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? 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?

]]> By: Langley http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340532 Langley Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:23:30 +0000 http://www.savethegop.com/2008/04/29/reasontv-interview-with-bob-barr/#comment-340532 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. 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.

]]>