Badnarik on 'Spreading Democracy'

[tpahl]

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik http://www.badnarik.org is likely to be on the ballot in all 50 states. He recently won the Libertarian party nomination after a superb showing in their primary debates.



The following is a question asked of him regarding 'spreading democracy'. The full debate can be watched by going to http://www.cspan.org and searching for Badnarik. You can also read it at http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=tpahl&static=193871

Badnariks answer provides a drastically different approach to this issue than both Bush and Kerry. It is surprisingly similar to Bush's promise to not do 'nation building' if elected to office back in 2000. Bush has lied. Badnarik is the best choice this year!

Moderator: one of the things when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq was that we were bringing the benefits of democracy, the free market and social tolerance. We have insisted that women be included in government councils in Afghanistan and imposed a flat tax on Iraq. Can you export ideas like that and what larger responsibility does our country have to bring two other parts of the world the ideas that we believe in|?

Badnarik: First of all, the Founding Fathers loathed a democracy, calling it a tyranny of the majority. The United States is not a democracy. The United States is a constitutional Republic based on private party and individual rights. In the 1860’s we passed the 13th amendment, which presumably eliminated slavery and it took well over 100 years to erase the racial hatred between the whites and the blacks. How does the American government think that they can go into another country and override thousands of years of culture? It is not our job to export anything except products and services.

 

[nycflasher]

Badnarik: First of all, the Founding Fathers loathed a democracy, calling it a tyranny of the majority. The United States is not a democracy. The United States is a constitutional Republic based on private party and individual rights. In the 1860’s we passed the 13th amendment, which presumably eliminated slavery and it took well over 100 years to erase the racial hatred between the whites and the blacks. How does the American government think that they can go into another country and override thousands of years of culture? It is not our job to export anything except products and services.

--I was just thinking about this today. With all the problems we face in our country, now we are attempting to democratize a nation of 70 million people who could not have a more different culture. No easy task.

And then there is the fact that we attempt to do this after overthrowing their government and in the midst of daily suicide bombings of civilians and our military. Not to mention murder of their own newly appointed political leaders.

 

[Avatar4321]

but if you notice we are setting up a constitutional republic there or rather letting them do it.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
but if you notice we are setting up a constitutional republic there or rather letting them do it.

Yep, I noticed that we are TRYING to.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
but if you notice we are setting up a constitutional republic there or rather letting them do it.

That is ignoring the main point of Badnariks argument. The point is that it took over 100 years to get over some differences here in our own country that had not even been established that long. The differences in Iraq are rooted much deeper and will take a long time to overcome. They are not our problems and we should not be there trying to overcome them in a year.

And to respond to your comments, we are not really letting them do anything. We destroyed their last government and are requiring they set up a new one.

Of course the previous dictatorship was there because of our support as well. And our support for that dictator was there because our supported dictator in iran had recently been overthrown. And of course that dictatorship in iran was there because we had helped overthrow their previous government.


Travis

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by tpahl
That is ignoring the main point of Badnariks argument. The point is that it took over 100 years to get over some differences here in our own country that had not even been established that long. The differences in Iraq are rooted much deeper and will take a long time to overcome. They are not our problems and we should not be there trying to overcome them in a year.

And to respond to your comments, we are not really letting them do anything. We destroyed their last government and are requiring they set up a new one.

Of course the previous dictatorship was there because of our support as well. And our support for that dictator was there because our supported dictator in iran had recently been overthrown. And of course that dictatorship in iran was there because we had helped overthrow their previous government.


Travis

He-he.
This kid's pretty sharp.

Night all.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by nycflasher
He-he.
This kid's pretty sharp.

Night all.

If you consider recognizing a pattern sharp. I do not think it takes that much intelligence to recognize that we have been overthrowing and installing governments without the desired results each time we do it. We can keep pretending that the past attempts were mistakes and this time we are doing it correctly and morally, but I would rather just stop trying.

And even besides the fact that we are unlikely to succeed, the real question is SHOULD we be doing it? G. Washington said no. He recommended FREE TRADE with all nations and entangling alliances with none. They are words that our current presidential candidates would be wise to follow. Unfortunately only Badnarik http://www.badnarik.com to my knowledge beleives this.

Travis

 

[sitarro]

question tpahl. . .
What should the U.S. have done about Germany in the 1940s? Germany didn't attack us , should we have just left old Adolph alone and stepped up trading with him . Should the most powerful nation in the world , with interests all over the world , ignore homicidal maniacs that are hell bent on screwing up everyone's lives around them .
Do you "anti-war on terrorism" know-alls remember anything ? Saddam deserved to be turned into a bloody spot in the desert just on the environmental disaster he caused as revenge for his pussy army getting their ass handed to them in Kuwait . Nearly 700 oil wells blown up and burned . These wells spewed oil and smoke for as long as 9 MONTHS ! If a drop of oil is spilled in the Gulf of Mexico , you hypocrites would cry like stuck pigs (Michael Moore?) and demand the head of that offender . Saddam gave us all a great prevue of a nuclear winter sky and Sean Penn rushes over to kiss his ass . I remember the one well in Iraq that was sabotaged early in the conflict . Estimates were that it was spraying over a million and a half dollars of crude a day , that is a lot of oil . Multiply that by 700 for NINE MONTHS !
He also drained the Marshes in southern Iraq to get back at the Marsh Arabs
and destroyed a ecosystem that has been there for thousands of years ( scientist and theologians believe that this area was the Garden of Eden mentioned in the Bible).
None of the "environmentalist " bother to criticize Saddam for these very real atrocities but go balistic at the mention of drilling in some of the most desolate , mosquito infested waste land on the planet.
But I digress . . . The problem with Liberatarians is their extremist views about the role of government in a civilized country . Many times it is in our best interests to side with what an educated guess would say is the better of two evils hoping that with a little help they will wipe each other out. Truthfully , if the countries of the middle east would disappear tomorrow , who would care . What have they contributed in this century or last except for oil which westerners discovered and had a use for ? The world has made these goat herders rich beyond comprehention and what have we gotten for it ? Religious nut cases that believe crap that only people with a retarded sense of mind could believe in .
And the Liberatarians just want to leave them alone . Gee , that fills me with such a great feeling of security .

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by sitarro
question tpahl. . .
What should the U.S. have done about Germany in the 1940s? Germany didn't attack us , should we have just left old Adolph alone and stepped up trading with him .

germany and its allies were attacking us in both the atlantic and pacific.


[/quote]Should the most powerful nation in the world , with interests all over the world , ignore homicidal maniacs that are hell bent on screwing up everyone's lives around them.[/quote]

No. And Saddam never fit that descritption. He had plenty of oppurtunity to attempt to screw up american lives and never chose to do so. The two times he attacked other countries were done first with US support (Iran), and then with US knowledge beforehand with explicit statement saying it was not our concern.

[/quote]Do you "anti-war on terrorism" know-alls remember anything?[/quote]

First of all I am not anti-war on terrorism. I am for a war on terror, but I chose to attack the root cause of terrorism against the US (US foriegn policy), not random countries that support terrorism. Please do not try to frame me as someone who supports terrorism just because I do not support the same methods of fighting it as you.

Saddam deserved to be turned into a bloody spot in the desert just on the environmental disaster he caused as revenge for his pussy army getting their ass handed to them in Kuwait . Nearly 700 oil wells blown up and burned . These wells spewed oil and smoke for as long as 9 MONTHS ! If a drop of oil is spilled in the Gulf of Mexico , you hypocrites would cry like stuck pigs (Michael Moore?) and demand the head of that offender. Saddam gave us all a great prevue of a nuclear winter sky and Sean Penn rushes over to kiss his ass . I remember the one well in Iraq that was sabotaged early in the conflict . Estimates were that it was spraying over a million and a half dollars of crude a day , that is a lot of oil . Multiply that by 700 for NINE MONTHS !

Have you ever heard me cry about spilled oil? I can not stand Michael Moore. I much prefer Michael Badnarik http://www.badnarik.org Please do not assume that everyone that opposes the war in Iraq is a green/liberal. The opposition to the war is much wider than that.

He also drained the Marshes in southern Iraq to get back at the Marsh Arabs
and destroyed a ecosystem that has been there for thousands of years ( scientist and theologians believe that this area was the Garden of Eden mentioned in the Bible).
None of the "environmentalist " bother to criticize Saddam for these very real atrocities but go balistic at the mention of drilling in some of the most desolate , mosquito infested waste land on the planet.
But I digress . . .

Yes you do. If you REALLY want to make an argument that saddam should be attcked for enviromental reasons I could destroy that argument just as well. However I do not think you are sincerely making that argument though.

The problem with Liberatarians is their extremist views about the role of government in a civilized country.

Their views are only extreme when put in context of the modern republican party. Go back 40 years or so to Barry Goldwaters campaign and it is not nearly so extreme. In fact Goldwater had a nice quote saying something like this... "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" It is unfortunate that the republican party abandoned Goldwater and his principles. He was the last republican candidate that I consider to have been a decent candidate.

Many times it is in our best interests to side with what an educated guess would say is the better of two evils hoping that with a little help they will wipe each other out. Truthfully , if the countries of the middle east would disappear tomorrow , who would care.

making a good guess might have been a good idea the first few times before we knew the outcome. Now that we have nearly 60 years of failures to show us otherwise, such decisions are becoming tiresome and increasingly dangerous.

Also if the goal is to have the two sides hopefully wipe themselves out, then it would make more sense to give BOTH sides weapons and money. Yet as Badnarik wisely points out, this leads to BOTH sides hating us.

What have they contributed in this century or last except for oil which westerners discovered and had a use for? The world has made these goat herders rich beyond comprehention and what have we gotten for it ? Religious nut cases that believe crap that only people with a retarded sense of mind could believe in .
And the Liberatarians just want to leave them alone . Gee , that fills me with such a great feeling of security.

hmm, so the last hundred years the arab world has stopped giving the world anything of use. And what happened about 100 years ago? Well actually I think the date you are really looking for is 1919. That was when the Ottoman empire finally fell apart and the US, France, Britian, and Italy decided how the Mid East would carved up into Mandates for the west to control.

So as the West began imposing its imperialism on the mid east we began seeing more violence and less productive ideas and products coming out of the arab world. The libertarians want to get out of the region and leave it alone hoping it will return back to its relatively non violent, no terrorists ways. And they are considered crazy and extreme by people that want to continue to attack them and impose their own governments on the people hoping that this time[/i] will be different.

Travis