Posted on 08/18/2004 7:14:45 AM PDT by Undertow
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's plan for a massive realignment of U.S. troops is half right, says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik: All U.S. forces should be re-deployed -- right back to the United States.
"Bush wants to remove U.S. troops from places where they don't belong, then put them in other places where they don't belong," says Badnarik. "It's time to bring all of our men and women home and start using them for defensive purposes only."
In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday in Cincinnati, Bush announced that in order to make the military more agile in the war on terrorism, approximately 70,000 U.S. troops would be shifted from Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia. Some would be stationed in the United States, while others would be sent to the Middle East, the former Soviet republics and South Asia.
But moving more U.S. troops into the Middle East and volatile central Asian nations may provoke more terrorism than it prevents, Libertarians say.
"The U.S. military presence in the Middle East has been used as a justification for several terrorist attacks, including the September 11 tragedy," Badnarik said.
"How long can politicians pretend to be surprised when terrorist threats turn into bloody reality? How many more innocent Americans have to lose their lives before U.S. policy makers come to their senses and stop interfering in other nations' affairs?"
While removing U.S. troops from Germany 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet threat is a positive development, putting them in harm's way elsewhere makes no sense, Badnarik says.
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the goal of Bush's plan is to create more 'deployment locations' for U.S. troops," he notes. "But what politicians call deployment locations are actually wars waiting to happen.
"In recent history, presidents have deployed our troops to locations like Vietnam, Lebanon, Bosnia, Somalia and Iraq, and each time Americans died needlessly. The lesson is that politicians can't be trusted to distinguish between national defense and military adventurism.
"Bush's plan is nothing more than more military adventurism, and it's only a matter of time before innocent Americans pay the price -- again."
Wonder if this is ok with the seeds n stems division of the L party?
Yea...Lets fight them terrorists on OUR shores!!! Go Badnarik!!!!!!! WHoo hoo!!!!1
*cough*
Uh, libertarian party? The best defense is a good offense.
"U.S. forces should be re-deployed -- right back to the United States"
I agree 100%
AMERICANS FIRST
Huh is this michael moore or Michael Badnarik.
Both the same, IMO.
There is no division; that is their main agenda.
"It's time to bring all of our men and women home and start using them for defensive purposes only."
As long as they close the border first when they get here. Next they can round up all the illegal immigrants already here.
But that isn't what he wants is it?
The 9/11 plot was formulated, researched, planned out in many nations; Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Germany, England, Spain, and the U.S.
When other nations support terrorists, provide them money, training, transportation, communication, etc so they can plot and pull off an attack on American soil, then it's our duty to "interfere in their affairs."
War is not longer just 1 or 2 nations against others... this is world-wide. So we'll stick our noses anywhere we must to keep our people safe.
George Bush: Saving your ass... like it or not!
That plan guarantees that we'll eventually need them for defensive purposes - in the streets of Los Angeles.
I have great affinity for the Libertarian positions on many issues, but some of them are completely clueless on conducting foreign policy.
I'd prefer our troops at home as well, but's more xenophobic than we, the world power, should be. Rogue nations are less impressed when all our troops and carriers are nowhere in their vicinty than when they're only a few day's sail away.
As a liberservative, or is it a conservberal, I find that very funny, I truly lol'ed.
We'd ahve to have all the troops here if he was in charge, because they'd throw the borders open to everyone and anyone.
We'd need the military in our cities and towns.
(The open border policy of the Libertarian Party is just one of the reasons I think they have gone off the deep end and diminished what could have been a true 3rd party in America, and one of the reasons I can no longer support them)
"Open borders" would be a good policy if the borders enclosed something like a libertarian nation. What kills me about groups like the LP is that they haven't a sense of priorities.
The LP would rather stand around pointing at the flames licking at our shores saying, "Ooooh... pretty!"
Their anti-war stance is one of the major black marks against the LP in this libertarians viewpoint.
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.