Libertarian Party says ‘Iran should not be the new Iraq’
The Libertarian Party and Bob Barr are taking an aggressive stance on relations with Iran – that America should not invade it. Opening up a third front in Iran would mean disaster for our over-burdened economy as well as stretch our armed forces to the breaking point. The LP says the best solution is free trade and diplomatic relations.
Excerpts from the article in Small Gov Times:
“Iran should not be the new Iraq,” says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis. “An attack on Iran would be like opening the Pandora’s box of foreign policy. All the evils we’ve spent the last five years in Iraq trying to put back in the box would be unleashed all over again, and I fear this time the lid will never be able to be closed. Attacking Iran would be game over for our economy, our military readiness and the entire stability of the Middle East.”
Defusing the confrontation with Iran will not be easy, Barr recently stated, “but any nonproliferation strategy must begin with diplomacy and include a willingness to address the other side.” In this way President George W. Bush has failed, and Sen. McCain is set to follow in his footsteps. Sen. Obama may be more inclined to try a new approach, but “he is a weather vane, pushed around by the lightest political breezes,” says Barr. “We need new leadership that is both strong and thoughtful to meet today’s many serious foreign policy challenges, such as Iran.”
July 4th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Off topic, but Sonny Landham is running for the US Senate in Kentuckey.
http://www.sonny2008.com/
July 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Absolutely. The sanctions against Iran should also be lifted. Such a deescalation of the situation will alone force the oil price from ca. 145 USD to about 100 USD I think.
Also: as per Iran’s constitution, their president has NO CONTROL over foreign policy OR their nuclear program?
(and they, like in Turkey, adhere much more to their constitution than the Bush govt. to the US govt).
Barr and Paul’s foreign policy adviser, Doug Bandow, is part of this team and initiative:
http://www.newiranpolicy.org
July 4th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
correction: sanctions should not be lifted but military option should be out of the question.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Lift all the sanctions, everywhere—Iran, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, etc. What right does the US government have to interfere with voluntary commerce between peaceful individuals, regardless of where they live?
It’s good to hear the LP and Bob Barr saying the right things about Iran, especially with Obama backtracking daily on Iraq and everything else, as he switches from pandering to the left to pursuing the political center.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Economic sanctions is like economic warfare. Well, one could use it as a diplomatic carrot to go step by step, instead of just unilaterally announcing a lifting of it…. but essentially one should move towards lifting all sanctions everywhere, depending on the situation in each country. Sanctions do not work and hurt the whole population. Think about how many people die in say Myanmar, and with the sanctions and the disaster there, all of a suffer the US wants to help people. If there were free trade, it would have been much easier to directly offer help. If you are really for free trade, you cannot be for sanctions. You could perhaps have selected sanctions ONLY against certain government officials. There is corruption everywhere. With more trade between Cuba etc, think of how much all countries will benefit economically.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Why not invade Zimbabwe and Sudan while we’re at it? They deserve it more. Oh wait… that’s in Africa. That’s right, the French should do it.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Where’s Eric Dondero? lol
July 4th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Economic sanction is an act of warfare.
Good quote, Bob Barr. B.O. is a flyweight, empty suit with NO BUSINESS in the same room with the nuclear football, NO WAY in charge of it!
OH, America WAKE UP, please stop B.O. & McSenile and their WARMONGERING handlers!
July 5th, 2008 at 1:18 am
More hypocrisy from Barr, who has stated his intent to antagonize Iran. He has already called for “strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran.” Why, Bob? How, Bob?
How is Babar’s position any different from Obama or McCain’s, again?
July 5th, 2008 at 1:51 am
“How is Babar’s position any different from Obama or McCain’s, again?”
Let us see, McInsane calls for ‘bomb, bomb bomb Iran” and confuses shiite groups from Iran with Al Qeda, Obama excluding unconditional talks with Iran, while
Bob Barr, Ron Paul and others promoting talks with Iran … and you cannot see any difference?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgOO-88Uv4U
July 5th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Barr has criticized Obama’s willingness to talk with foreign leaders. Why would he do such a thing if that is his position?
July 6th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Strange, Barf still wants to invade other countries and be an over-all interventionist.
http://www.conservative.org/columnists/barr/070609bb.htm
Barf is full of shit and the barfers are eating it up.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Exactly.
It isn’t.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Where is Dondero? The “dream ticket” of Barr has come out publicly against waging agressive war. Dondero loves agressive war. Can Dondero support a peace candidate?
Actually I know the answer. The agression caucus has significant overlap with the reform caucus, and the candidate they supported early in the primary made rhetorical use of his initials as he said he is WAR and for war. He only changed his tune once he realized that he’d lose if he continuted to advocate anti-libertarian policies such as bombing nations that haven’t attacked us.
Some of the wiser observers think it was a change of convenience but not of conscience, that deep down WAR still supports war. The evidence is that those who supported war still supported WAR after he changed his tune.
It was more of a “wink wink yes he’s anti-war just like all libertarians wink wink.” Every time the reform candidates spoke out against war, the reformarians winked.
So now the reform ticket has come out against war. Those that support it are still winking.