Libertarian presidential candidate mounts pro-peace television commercial campaign

[tpahl]

http://www.badnarik.org/PressRoom/archive.php?p=668

"The Democrats and Republicans are presenting a united front on Iraq," says Badnarik, 50, of Austin, Texas. "They carp at each around the edges, but Bush and Kerry both want to continue a war that has already cost nearly 1,000 young Americans their lives. I want to bring the troops home."

A Rasmussen survey of 1,000 adults nationwide reveals that 20% of Republicans are unhappy enough with Bush's foreign policy to shop around. "Michael Badnarik approaches those voters without the obvious weaknesses of a leftist candidate who wants higher taxes and bigger government."

 

[5stringJeff]

Bring the troops home immediately, regardless of the consequences... a naive policy formulated by a no-chance candidate.

 

[tpahl]

Bring the troops home immediately, regardless of the consequences... a naive policy formulated by a no-chance candidate.

Much better than keep sending more troops everywhere followed by Bush and Kerry.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Much better than keep sending more troops everywhere followed by Bush and Kerry.

and leave Iraq to develop into a worse country than afghanistan was before we removed the Taliban. Real smart there, Ace.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

A Rasmussen survey of 1,000 adults nationwide reveals that 20% of Republicans are unhappy enough with Bush's foreign policy to shop around. "Michael Badnarik approaches those voters without the obvious weaknesses of a leftist candidate who wants higher taxes and bigger government."

I'm in the unhappy 20%. Unhappy that he has allowed much of the current war and national security to be politicized as opposed to "doing what needs to be done" (Fallujah, open borders, politically correct appeasement of muslims, & the Iranian mullah's threats come to mind)
Doesn't mean I would even consider voting for Kerry.............

 

[5stringJeff]

Much better than keep sending more troops everywhere followed by Bush and Kerry.

So you'd just leave Iraq to its own devices... sink or swim? And when Iraq's government fell and its people fell prey to Islamofascism or terrorist dictators, then what?

Isolationism is no longer a viable option, especially against terrorism. I am happy that Bush is fighting it proactively, even though I disagree with some of his domestic policies.

 

[tpahl]

and leave Iraq to develop into a worse country than afghanistan was before we removed the Taliban. Real smart there, Ace.

It is called not using our military as a nation building force. Bush promised not to do it in 2000. Iraq may become worse, may be better. In either case it is not our problem. What makes it our problems is when we send our troops everywhere and piss people off enough that they want to kill us.

 

[tpahl]

A Rasmussen survey of 1,000 adults nationwide reveals that 20% of Republicans are unhappy enough with Bush's foreign policy to shop around. "Michael Badnarik approaches those voters without the obvious weaknesses of a leftist candidate who wants higher taxes and bigger government."

I'm in the unhappy 20%. Doesn't mean I would even consider voting for Kerry.............

There are more people than just kerry and Bush.

Travis

 

[DKSuddeth]

It is called not using our military as a nation building force. Bush promised not to do it in 2000. Iraq may become worse, may be better. In either case it is not our problem. What makes it our problems is when we send our troops everywhere and piss people off enough that they want to kill us.

No nation building was used in earnest but the US failed to realize that the atlantic and pacific cannot protect us anymore. The terrorists of the world can go anywhere, do anything, be anyone they choose so we're left with few options. One of them is to do nothing but will result in more terrorism around the world. The US resorted to Isolationism after WW1 and look where it got us. The other is to remove the world leaders that support terrorists and provide an opportunity for terrorism to die out on its own because of better economic opportunities for people that would be terrorists. While we do that, we'll kill the ones that are too full of hate to change their lives for the better. It's an all around better deal than having a globally violent war and deaths in the hundreds of millions later.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

There are more people than just kerry and Bush.

Travis

I'm aware of that.

You've got your Die hard loony left Dean/Dem supporters

You've got your moderate "old school dems" (ala Lieberman, Miller, etc)

You've got people who will vote their party's ticket no matter what.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You've got your Die hard right wing Buchanan supporters

You've got your moderate "conservative/repubs" who just want the government to get off our backs and protect the country

You've got people who will vote their party's ticket no matter what.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


You've got Nader and his hodge podge of supporters

You've got your boy Badnarik

--------------------------------------------------------------------

There is the realistic voter, who wants to know which is the less of 2 evils between the GOP and the Dems who feels that a vote on a third party candidate at this juncture is a wasted vote.

Until perceptions and the attitude of the populace of this country changes on its own (doubtful) or a seismic event causes a radical change in the peoples priorities, I'm afraid we will be stuck with the status quo.

 

[tpahl]

No nation building was used in earnest but the US failed to realize that the atlantic and pacific cannot protect us anymore. The terrorists of the world can go anywhere, do anything, be anyone they choose so we're left with few options. One of them is to do nothing but will result in more terrorism around the world.

I am guessing by doing nothing you are refering to badnariks plan. His plan is a bit more than nothing. it is in essence Washingtons plan...Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none. And in addition to that he plans on having a strong military for defense. The advantage to this is obvious, the free trade builds the nations abroad into better places, they lack of entangling alliances means that any anger from lack of great conditions abroad will not be directed at the US, and the strong defensive military will prevent any nation from thinking of attacking us.

The US resorted to Isolationism after WW1 and look where it got us.

about 20 years of peace which is better than we have had since then. And the war was a result of the crappy interventionist settlement made at Versaise predominately by Wilson and Lloyd George.

The other is to remove the world leaders that support terrorists and provide an opportunity for terrorism to die out on its own because of better economic opportunities for people that would be terrorists. While we do that, we'll kill the ones that are too full of hate to change their lives for the better. It's an all around better deal than having a globally violent war and deaths in the hundreds of millions later.

Do you think those ones we kill (both the ones filled with hate, and the others that were not so hate filled) have no freinds, and relatives? Every person we kill (and even ones that die indirectly from our actions) have freinds and relatives. Some (not all) will blame the US and become filled with hate. Even if a small percentage of them become filled with hate, we have more terrorists looking to attack us than before we went into the country. Unless we kill everyone else in the world, war will not end terrorism.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

There is the realistic voter, who wants to know which is the less of 2 evils between the GOP and the Dems who feels that a vote on a third party candidate at this juncture is a wasted vote.

You do not need to be such a person. Even if Badnarik does not win, every vote he gets still helps the cause of smaller government. Republicans will see that if they do not start giving us SMALLER budgets, elliminate gun laws, etc... they will get less and less votes because the libertarian will get those votes.

Until perceptions and the attitude of the populace of this country changes on its own (doubtful) or a seismic event causes a radical change in the peoples priorities, I'm afraid we will be stuck with the status quo.

The two party system may never go, but by voting for a third party you can get change in the major parties. Look at Perots effect at getting a balanced budget into the debates and later into clintons policy. look at the democrats choice of Kerry this year rather than a moderate like in 2000. A strong showing for Badnarik will result in a better candidate in the GOP later. Bush is quite frankly the most liberal republican I have seen outside of the pseudo republicans they have in NY. If we do not send the GOP a strong message by voting in large numbers for Badnarik, they will go even more liberal next election. Soon we will have nothing from the two parties but two liberals. Oh wait, that IS WHAT WE HAVE!

 

[JIHADTHIS]

What do you honestly think would happen if we pulled ALL US troops out of every corner of the planet and brought them back to the US? Total, complete pullout. Dismantle all bases, pack up 100%.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I am guessing by doing nothing you are refering to badnariks plan. His plan is a bit more than nothing. it is in essence Washingtons plan...Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none. And in addition to that he plans on having a strong military for defense. The advantage to this is obvious, the free trade builds the nations abroad into better places, they lack of entangling alliances means that any anger from lack of great conditions abroad will not be directed at the US, and the strong defensive military will prevent any nation from thinking of attacking us.

You cannot have free trade with a country that supports terrorists. The risks of financial and economic loss will prohibit a company from doing business there, hence a free trade deal is paper mache.

about 20 years of peace which is better than we have had since then. And the war was a result of the crappy interventionist settlement made at Versaise predominately by Wilson and Lloyd George.

It wasn't 20 years of peace, it was 20 years of ignoring the build up and aggression in europe. It made WW2 even more expensive and life costly.

Do you think those ones we kill (both the ones filled with hate, and the others that were not so hate filled) have no freinds, and relatives? Every person we kill (and even ones that die indirectly from our actions) have freinds and relatives. Some (not all) will blame the US and become filled with hate. Even if a small percentage of them become filled with hate, we have more terrorists looking to attack us than before we went into the country. Unless we kill everyone else in the world, war will not end terrorism.

Travis

Bombs and bullets will not put a complete end to terrorism in the world, but it will significantly reduce it so that efforts at improving the overall lives of those 'friends and relatives' will override the desire for revenge.

 

[tpahl]

What do you honestly think would happen if we pulled ALL US troops out of every corner of the planet and brought them back to the US? Total, complete pullout. Dismantle all bases, pack up 100%.

Europe would have to start fully supporting its defense and would thus cut some of their welfare programs we have essentially been supporting. the middle east would continue to fight but their anger and terrorism would not be directed at us anymore. we would have a stronger national defense. And we would be able to give ourselves a HUGE tax cut from the savings.

Travis

 

[DKSuddeth]

Europe would have to start fully supporting its defense and would thus cut some of their welfare programs we have essentially been supporting. the middle east would continue to fight but their anger and terrorism would not be directed at us anymore. we would have a stronger national defense. And we would be able to give ourselves a HUGE tax cut from the savings.

Travis

Europe has already shown the world that they will not fight terrorists (look at spain and france) and some countries are even starting to work with them (phillipines and malaysia). isolating ourselves will only allow global criminals (read that as terrorists) an ever widening base of support around the world until like a chess game, we're the only opposing piece on the board.

 

[tpahl]

You cannot have free trade with a country that supports terrorists. The risks of financial and economic loss will prohibit a company from doing business there, hence a free trade deal is paper mache.

Free trade does means that people are free to trade if they chose to. If everyone is so scared then obviously not many would trade there. The people in that country might suddenly take care of their terrorism problem themselves in order to get more trade.

It wasn't 20 years of peace, it was 20 years of ignoring the build up and aggression in europe. It made WW2 even more expensive and life costly.

It was 20 years of peace. The build up as I said before was a result of interventionist solution to wwi that wilson and george created.

Bombs and bullets will not put a complete end to terrorism in the world, but it will significantly reduce it so that efforts at improving the overall lives of those 'friends and relatives' will override the desire for revenge.

Why not improve the overall lives through trade and thus make the current terrorists not want to kill us, rather than kill the current terrorists in the hopes that their relatives do not get upset because we also gave them some trade? In other words why is it this generation of terrorists can not change, but the next generation will be oh so happy to forgive us?

We have tried what we are doing right now all before. That is how we got here in the first place.

Travis

 

[DKSuddeth]

Free trade does means that people are free to trade if they chose to. If everyone is so scared then obviously not many would trade there. The people in that country might suddenly take care of their terrorism problem themselves in order to get more trade.

Iraqi's had the opportunity for 12 years and did nothing out of fear. Afghani's had the same opportunity and fear kept them from any progression. To see a current example of what I talk about, look at Iran.

It was 20 years of peace. The build up as I said before was a result of interventionist solution to wwi that wilson and george created.

Now you're just deluding yourself. Hitlers rise to power was due to the failure of germany in WW1. It was also our failure to become a more pervasive influence in the league of nations to help protect poland making them easy targets for invasion at the start of WW2 in europe.

Why not improve the overall lives through trade and thus make the current terrorists not want to kill us, rather than kill the current terrorists in the hopes that their relatives do not get upset because we also gave them some trade? In other words why is it this generation of terrorists can not change, but the next generation will be oh so happy to forgive us?

We have tried what we are doing right now all before. That is how we got here in the first place.

Travis

You're not reading. You CAN'T have free trade with a nation that supports terrorists that already hate the US and western interests and you CAN'T rely on an oppressed people to rise up against a tyrannical despot who has little qualms about killing his/her own citizens.

 

[tpahl]

Europe has already shown the world that they will not fight terrorists (look at spain and france) and some countries are even starting to work with them (phillipines and malaysia).

Europe has not shown the world that they will not fight terrorists. Spain, Poland, Britian, Italy, all have or had troops in iraq. Spain left after they realized that having troops in iraq was putting them in danger more than not having them there.

But if as you say, Europe will not protect itself from terrorists attacks, then so be it. Let them get attacked, It is not our responsibility to protect europe. They have the resources to do it themselves if they wish.

isolating ourselves will only allow global criminals (read that as terrorists) an ever widening base of support around the world until like a chess game, we're the only opposing piece on the board.

Isolating ourselves is a bad idea. Badnarik is not supporting that. He supports free trade with all. We would be trading and making every country in the world better through free trade of products, services, and ideas. The only thing we would not be doing is putting our troops all around the world invading countries every few years.

And actually terrorists have more power when we give them recruitment material (such as the invasion of iraq, troops in saudi arabia, financial support to isreal, invasion of afghanistan, support of saddam hussien, financial support to egypt, overthrowing the government in Iran to install the shah, support of Pakistans Leader (who came to power in a military coup), troops in the philipines, etc...) Take all this away and what do terrorists have to recruit people to fly planes into our buildings? Nothing.

 

[Annie]

With the exception of Turkey, tell me a strong Islamicist country that has anything to trade? The people are held down too much to produce much of anything. These are not regimes begging for a change to trade...