Posted on 07/24/2008 12:19:12 PM PDT by pissant
Bob Barr, the U.S. presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, said the Bush administration's diplomatic engagement with Iran is "long overdue."
Iran appears to be years away from possessing nuclear weapons, giving time for diplomacy to work, Barr said in a release. He said that war with Iran would be a disaster.
"American troops in Iraq would be at risk. U.S. citizens would be targeted for terrorist acts," he said. "Tehran could retaliate against Israel. Oil shipments would be disrupted, causing energy prices to soar even higher. Allied states in the Persian Gulf would be vulnerable to attack. Chances for democratic change in Iran would be set back."
A former Republican, Barr represented Georgia in Congress from 1995 to 2003, serving on the House Judiciary Committee and was known for his commitment to civil liberties.
Barr became a critic of the Bush administration when he left Congress and endorsed the Libertarian candidate for president in 2004.
This guy has gone waaaaaaaaaaay over the edge
It’s nice when a candidate says something so clearly and concisely that I can look at it and say within a second, “Yeah, that’s why I won’t be voting for you.”
See Tag.
Bob Barr = Ron Paul with a funny mustache
Barr should go into a very quiet retirement.
I’m not worried about what Iran might do by way of retaliation, but I AM worried that thanks to Clinton we may not have enough troops.
It’s a shame. This is a year in which Libertarians could really be a factor in the election. But Barr is more intent on pandering to the anarchist wing, rather than welcoming the more pragmatic libertarians that identify themselves as conservatives.
It sure bothers me to see people I once respected melt down.
Yes, war with Iran would be a pain in the ass Bob. And a nuclear capable Iran giving nukes to terrorists wouldn’t be?
What choice do we have if Iran won’t listen to reason?
Every neighbor or Iran would be in jeopardy. No Middle-East states are going to want a nuclear Iran in the neighborhood.
And if folks like Barr and Obama think Israel is the only nation that’s nervous about it, they’re not using their heads.
“. U.S. citizens would be targeted for terrorist acts,”
Yeah it’s not like US citizens were targeted before 911 or anything. What a dope.
And his answer is to go over there and kiss their boots?
A word hasn’t been invented to describe how bad a Bob Barr presidency would be, so at the end of the day I’ll pretend this insignicant person didn’t say anything at all.
Bob, how precisely do you have normal, productive, meaningful diplomatic engagement over the long term with people who think it’s okay to kidnap your diplomats?
Barr isn’t much like Paul.
No question it would be tough. Oil would go through the roof and Americans would have to sacrifice, but it’s necessary. We sacrificed before in WWII, and we can do it again. But no rationing this time, let the market decide.
War with Iran would be a disaster
By definition, war is always a disaster.
Whether or not a war is justified lies in imagining the world if the war does not take place.
WWII was a disaster. Fifty million people died! But it was far less a disaster than a global Nazi regime would have likely been.
Carterial. kar teer eel
Adj.
Resembling or mirroring the presidency of a certain peanut farmer.
It would be tough. Its something you do when the alternative is worse.
American troops in Iraq would be at risk.
Iran is already attacking Americans in Iraq. Talk to the soldiers there.
U.S. citizens would be targeted for terrorist acts
I think we are there now.
"Tehran could retaliate against Israel.
They've threatened annihilation several times over the last few years. Not once, several times. Their belief is that Iran can survive nuclear war and Israel can't. So they are looking forward to it.
Oil shipments would be disrupted, causing energy prices to soar even higher.
Iran attempted that before, and failed. They could try it again and fail again.
Allied states in the Persian Gulf would be vulnerable to attack.
They are right now and they know it. Talk to them. Don't take my word for it.
Iran appears to be years away from possessing nuclear weapons
How many years? And when they finally get them, what will be your policy toward them? I think once they get them, your policy will be the same as it is now. Appeasement. Right now you want to appease them because they don't have a nuclear weapon. Later you will appease them because they do. The common thread in your policy is appeasement. You aren't the Bob Barr I once thought you were.
I’m sure that Bob Barr was jealousy from all the attention that Ron Paul got from the star trek and taco bell gang, so Barr is trying to catch the same wave. Since he already works for the ACLU, why not try and get the kook base from Ron Paul, generate some web interest, and get the donation pool going again since Ron Paul 08’ is pretty much stale bong water?
Funny, Paul disagrees with you.
I think that the biggest blunder of the Iraq war is that it is a war in Iraq and not against the real enemy. I think Bush missed an enormous opportunity to deal with our enemies in the region in one campaign. Instead we are now left with having to deal with Iran in far worse circumstances with far heavier consequences. Too bad.
But now Barr agrees with Paul on all those things.
You have insulted us star trek and taco bell fans..
GO TO YOUR ROOM...
Her government has been calling for the death of Israel and the United States for the last 30 years.
Its time we start to believe what they are telling us before its too late.
He is also in favor of amnesty.
I don’t believe that he does. If I rob your house each time you leave the door unlocked and then ask you to support my candidacy on a platform of putting all burglars in jail for life, do you believe me?
Barr has a mustache and has never performed OBGYN exams.
Git your facts straight son.
..............................Oil shipments would be disrupted, causing energy prices to soar even higher...........
An even better idea as to why to:
DRILL HERE
DRILL NOW
DRILL DEEP
In a coupl’a years we can tell the ragheads, and Chavez:
“Go screw, We don’t need your stinkin oil!”
“the Bush administration’s diplomatic engagement with Iran “
“Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ whilst you find a rock.”
-———Attributed to Talleyrand
Nah. It would be a cakewalk. Just like Iraq.
That's the best post I've seen for a looong time.
Evaporating Israel, on the other hand.... no problemo.
We toppled the Baathist regime in three weeks. It was a cakewalk.
So, you would've attacked Iran -- instead of Afghanistan and Iraq -- post-9/11?
On what basis?
And have you perchance noticed which countries abut Iran on either side?
In addition, how many thousands of Islamofascists have been slaughtered in Iraq? Were they the "real enemy"? And where would you have chosen for a killing ground?
I will point out that it's been 8 years and the current administration has done nothing to rectify that.
he’s either got a dead girl or a live boy in his FBI files.
Then why not let them do something about it for a change?
Why must it always be our blood and treasure that must be spilt?
Do you want a major army to be created in the Middle-East that could go up against Iran? I don’t. I want Iraq able to defend itself. Other than that, I’m not a big fan of Middle-East power.
Bob Barr is full of $hit. He's just saying that.
Because like it or not, right now, about a third of our energy comes from the Middle East and it is in our interest to at least attempt to keep things stable.
What I want is for their countries to start paying for their own defense. If they can't defend themselves against Iran too bad.
Maybe we cut a deal with Iran saying that as long as you leave Israel alone and keep the oil flowing you go ahead and do whatever you want in the Middle East.
Yep, we're doing a bangup job of keeping the Middle East stable.
Compared to how it could be, yep. Oil is still flowing, other than Israel, country's border lines haven't changed a whole lot in the past fifty years, none of the wars have escalated into an all out regional war, some nations like the UAE and Qatar are very US friendly. So yea, it isn't perfect, but it could be a lot worse.
True, back when Bob Barr was in office, his voting record was quite different from Paul's. Barr was not a libertarian back then.
However, since being defeated, Barr has official lost his mind and drunk the LP kool-aid. He has "adjusted" his views (after vowing he would not) and now agrees with Ron Paul. He has disavowed all his earlier conservative votes on marriage protection, war on drugs, war on terror, etc.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.