Micheal Badnarik, whom is running for President under the Libertarian Platform had given an interview in the ‘Austin Chronicle’ back in June of this year. I agree with most of everything in the Libertarian party. One thing had particularly caught my attention though.
“ The military: He would bring home all U.S. troops now based in other countries. "The reason our country was attacked [on Sept. 11, 2001] was because we are an empire builder." ”
Lying in bed, thinking about that really made me question myself and what my beliefs are, and what… honestly- what is what. I am in the personal position that the world is a safer place now that Saddam Hussein is out of power. I also believe that ‘Dubya’ was not completely honest in his intentions prior to invading Iraq- whether it be because of “national sequrity” or WTF- he should have been straight up. I also acknowledge that as far as the information that I was given {i.e. the rest of the American public} most of the members of the UN, as well as our own satellites and intelligence were beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as well as capabilities of building and had privy sold plans and so forth to build some.
All in all, it didn’t look good.
I also acknowledge that there was a HUGE power shift among our own government as well as our standings with the rest of the world after the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
I also want to point out, as it had been explained to me, hypothetically, there is this guy in town that is known to start some shit. There has been a lot of murders and stuff under his belt, but none that any one can actually hold him personally accountable for. He’s generally a bad and scary dude. Now, I’m on the police force and we get some tips {from a generally reliable source} that he’s trying to build some crazy weapons and is assembling a big army of sorts. I also no for fact that because of his escapade’s in the past he is under obligation to let my detectives come through his place and search whatever they want and he’s been dicking everybody around. After these tips, am I really supposed to take his word for it that the tips are false?!?
I wrote this back in January of 2003, it is only an excerpt though.
“I watched the Daniel Pearl video of him being executed. I truly disgusted me. My first impulse was to try and retaliate and then I realized that I would be as bad as they them. What makes me so righteous? How exactly is it different for my country to go killing and bombing their country until they meet our demands that they stop killing and bombing. The end does not seem to justify the means.”
“I by no means condone the killing of an innocent man… In the video, their ‘demands’ were that we withdrawal our people from their lands. Ok, so what is the big deal about that? They don’t want us over there. That is their right, yes? The western way is not the best way to be- it is not the only way to be! Our beliefs are centered on the superficial and frivolous. We put huge ideals on how people look instead of who we are.”
“For one reason or another they feel hurt, abused, taken advantage of and not taken seriously, thus the extremity of their actions.”
Back to the present time:
Now, reflecting back on that. Who are we to liberate a group of people that don’t want to be liberated? Looking back through out {metaphorically, of course} our own country’s history, we didn’t interfere with other people’s war (unless of course we were attacked (Pearl Harbor) or we were asked to assist (Korea-by the UN led by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur) and when we ‘butted in” it almost always met with disaster (Viet Nam- Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) and that is only recent history. When we were competing for our independence from Great Britain, we requested assistance from the French. We, the new Americas, revolted, created the continental army and chose to start a war against the mother land. Regardless of the fact that people enjoy the quality of their lives much more after they are free, it is not our place to free them. If their freedom has not been met through personal sacrifice of their own, Can it honestly mean as much to them as did our own countries independence?
Looking back does no good unless it is being looked upon for the sole purpose of moving forward. We are here. We all know how we arrived, whether or not all the details are completely clear.
If we remove our troops at the beginning of next year, it is surely to mean more devastation for us as Americans because a withdrawal at this point will look to the terrorists that we’re running with our tail between our legs. That we have bitten off more than we can chew, or so forth.
…you know, the more I read the more I see how Badnarik really has his shit together.
http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/IraqWar.php
After the Gulf War, that was during Bush Sr. presidency, when Clinton took office he tried to buy off the people in the Middle East, namely Saddam who also gave money, intelligence and weapons and so forth to Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist organizations. It has been a huge back and forth battle of the new Presidency’s trying to usurp and “fix” the ‘problems’ of the previous presidency and so on and so forth.
Much like every generation of children growing up despises the generation before it for causing so many problems for them that could have easily been prevented if they had the only the privilege of hindsight and known what is was that needed to be changed as it was happening, so alas… again, here we are.
I was talking to my father a couple days ago; when I told him he was similar to that of a Democrat, which is blasphemous to even mention in this household. Then I proceeded to point out the fact that both parties ultimately what the same things for the country- and similarly their own families. The only difference between the two, is how they go about getting there. They are both on the road to the same destination, though they are taking different paths.
The solution is if we can find another, DIFFERENT path, that EVERYONE CAN AGREE WITH. If we can find another path that is not left or right, but directly down the center that should fix all the “issues” that predominately surface around election times.
There will be no need to ‘fix’ issues from the previous tenure in the white house. It will all flow like clock work, from one elected official to the next.
Now, if there was only a party that holds THAT as it’s principle purpose… ?!?!?!?
(…if you didn’t catch that, the above line is COMPLETELY sarcastic…)
Micheal Badnarik
Moderators: bingolong, Jennifer, tamra
Forum rules
Anything goes in the visitors section. Try to play nice. Post random thoughts in here too, but be aware: NO LOGIN REQUIRED! However, spam is not allowed nor tolerated. All spammers will be blocked and reported to appropriate agencies.
Anything goes in the visitors section. Try to play nice. Post random thoughts in here too, but be aware: NO LOGIN REQUIRED! However, spam is not allowed nor tolerated. All spammers will be blocked and reported to appropriate agencies.
-
Visitor
-
Visitor
Re: Micheal Badnarik
Visitor,
Hoo, boy. Where do I begin. Actually, I am far too tired to address ALL of this, so I'll try to make my point brief. In a VERY general way, I agree with some of this (in part). But I cannot agree with any of the specifics. I'll address a few.
First and foremost, I HAVE to say what every fucker on BOTH sides doesn't have the guts to say. The world is NOT safer with Saddam gone and in many ways it is MORE dangerous. Whether or not Saddam Hussein is nuts, he is NOT stupid. Additionally, he was ALWAYS far more in love with his rule over Iraq than he was in love with the idea of taking over the world. Did everyone forget about a war we had in 1991? The man tried to take over one of the smallest nations on the planet and the ENTIRE world jumped on his ass and almost turned him into dust. How can ANYONE with an IQ over 3 believe he would ever try that again??? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! After the first Gulf War, the man had become less of a threat to the rest of the world than Pauly Shore! He knew damned well if he ever tried something like that again, he would lose his blessed rule over the one country he DID have and he would NEVER willingly give that up. After 1991, it should have been clear to everyone on the planet that the ONLY people he would ever threaten again was the people of Iraq. And as far as that goes, his iron fist over his own nation, as inhumane as it was, kept Iraq as the ONLY terrorist-free Arab nation in the Middle East. Yet, within weeks after he was removed from power, Iraq became the MOST terrorist-filled nation on Earth. The world is safer? You're a fucking moron. As is George W. Bush.
Then you say "If we can find another path that is not left or right, but directly down the center that should fix all the issues that predominately surface around election times..." I don't even know how to respond to that without my head exploding. If only there was a way to eat all you want without gaining a pound. If only there was a way to marry a woman (or man) who would cook for you and have sex with you when ever you want but then disappear whenever you don't want her around and she'd never get mad about it. If only there was a way to.... well, you get the idea. And what the fuck does "that predominately surface around election times..." mean? The war was not an issue before? The economy was not an issue before? Maybe you just didn't give a damn before, which exactly why this country is in the shape that it's in. Nobody gives a damn anymore until the media tells them it's time to. Maybe if everyone gave a damn every single day, even in non-election years, our leaders would feel a need to actually DO something!
I knew I'd run out of steam. It's far to late at night for me to be articulate. All I can say is FUCK FUCK FUCK. If you really give a damn, STOP READING OTHER PEOPLE'S POINTS OF VIEW. Fuck the politicians. Fuck the media. Just get the simple facts. Learn about history. Learn the biographies of the leaders of the current world. Actually talk to people who live in the nations of the world, and the make your OWN conclusions. I absolutely guarantee that you will come up with answers that make a hell of alot more sense than ANYTHING you are being spoon-fed. People used to do that. Now they are all sheep.
Use your own brain. Stop using others'!
Hoo, boy. Where do I begin. Actually, I am far too tired to address ALL of this, so I'll try to make my point brief. In a VERY general way, I agree with some of this (in part). But I cannot agree with any of the specifics. I'll address a few.
First and foremost, I HAVE to say what every fucker on BOTH sides doesn't have the guts to say. The world is NOT safer with Saddam gone and in many ways it is MORE dangerous. Whether or not Saddam Hussein is nuts, he is NOT stupid. Additionally, he was ALWAYS far more in love with his rule over Iraq than he was in love with the idea of taking over the world. Did everyone forget about a war we had in 1991? The man tried to take over one of the smallest nations on the planet and the ENTIRE world jumped on his ass and almost turned him into dust. How can ANYONE with an IQ over 3 believe he would ever try that again??? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! After the first Gulf War, the man had become less of a threat to the rest of the world than Pauly Shore! He knew damned well if he ever tried something like that again, he would lose his blessed rule over the one country he DID have and he would NEVER willingly give that up. After 1991, it should have been clear to everyone on the planet that the ONLY people he would ever threaten again was the people of Iraq. And as far as that goes, his iron fist over his own nation, as inhumane as it was, kept Iraq as the ONLY terrorist-free Arab nation in the Middle East. Yet, within weeks after he was removed from power, Iraq became the MOST terrorist-filled nation on Earth. The world is safer? You're a fucking moron. As is George W. Bush.
Then you say "If we can find another path that is not left or right, but directly down the center that should fix all the issues that predominately surface around election times..." I don't even know how to respond to that without my head exploding. If only there was a way to eat all you want without gaining a pound. If only there was a way to marry a woman (or man) who would cook for you and have sex with you when ever you want but then disappear whenever you don't want her around and she'd never get mad about it. If only there was a way to.... well, you get the idea. And what the fuck does "that predominately surface around election times..." mean? The war was not an issue before? The economy was not an issue before? Maybe you just didn't give a damn before, which exactly why this country is in the shape that it's in. Nobody gives a damn anymore until the media tells them it's time to. Maybe if everyone gave a damn every single day, even in non-election years, our leaders would feel a need to actually DO something!
I knew I'd run out of steam. It's far to late at night for me to be articulate. All I can say is FUCK FUCK FUCK. If you really give a damn, STOP READING OTHER PEOPLE'S POINTS OF VIEW. Fuck the politicians. Fuck the media. Just get the simple facts. Learn about history. Learn the biographies of the leaders of the current world. Actually talk to people who live in the nations of the world, and the make your OWN conclusions. I absolutely guarantee that you will come up with answers that make a hell of alot more sense than ANYTHING you are being spoon-fed. People used to do that. Now they are all sheep.
Use your own brain. Stop using others'!
-
Visitor
Re: Micheal Badnarik
Visitor 1,
by: George S. Hishmeh
Seventy-four years ago last month, a keen observer of the Arab world noted that his countrymen “have been led in (Iraq) into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour” all because “they have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information”.
Sounds familiar?
The writer was the fabled T. E. Lawrence. He wrote the article upon the request of the London Sunday Times to explain Britain's “Mesopotamian (Iraqi) commitments” since he organised and directed the liberation of the Hijaz — Saudi Arabia — from the Turks, which the paper described as “one of the outstanding romances of the war”.
Lawrence's opening paragraph is very appropriate for today's bloody events in modern-day Iraq. “The people of England have been misled in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiquÈs are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster.”
This probably explains the double-edged decision of George W. Bush and his Republican Party in highlighting his admirable, though short-lived, stewardship of the country in the weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington rather than his ill-fated war in Iraq which has so far cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of Americans dead and wounded.
But the Bush administration has unwisely abandoned its war on Al Qaeda, which was solely responsible for the horrendous events here three years ago this month, and thereby its assertion that this American president is the best candidate to keep Americans safe may ring hollow.
Even holding the convention in New York City, scene of the devastation of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, may not be very convincing to the divided American electorate that President George Bush — not Democratic John Kerry — is the one who can keep Americans safe from any future threat from Al Qaeda.
All opinion polls show that the two candidates are locked in a tight race and the president's approval rating is languishing below the 50 per cent mark, according to the respectable National Public Radio. A recent survey by The New York Times has surprisingly found that family members of the Sept. 11 victims are more critical of the Bush administration's efforts to protect the nation from terrorism than the rest of the public.
But the most serious challenge to the president's credibility has come from the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission whose six-week-old findings have yet to be acted upon by both the administration and Congress. Similarly, the findings of two additional commissions, one by an independent panel and another by a four-star army general — investigating the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib seem to have raised more questions than answers about the so-called lapses in and oversight of the detention and interrogation system in Iraq and the level of responsibility. No heads have rolled, thus giving rise to calls for an independent commission.
Adding further to Bush's foreign policy woes — and detractions — on the eve of the Republican convention has been the case of the Defence Intelligence Agency analyst, Lawrence Franklin. The Iran specialist and former air force colonel is being investigated by the FBI for possibly providing classified information to Israel, including a draft of a presidential directive on US policies towards Iran, through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an influential Israeli lobby in Washington. Franklin works at present in the office of Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defence who has been described as a key neoconservative in the Bush administration. He had previously worked on prewar intelligence on Iraq, including purported ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda.
The Franklin case attracted additional attention because it surfaced as another prominent neoconservative, John R. Bolton, undersecretary of arms control and international security, was making threatening remarks against Iran. He told the Hudson Institute on Aug. 17 that Iran “has concealed a large-scale, covert nuclear weapons programme for over 18 years”. Describing it as “one of our most fundamental proliferation challenges”, he added: “All of Iran's WMD efforts chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, and ballistic missiles pose grave threats to international security.”
Whether these foreign issues will complicate Bush's neck-and-neck race with his Democratic challenger remains to be seen. The first sign of where things may be heading may come in the early polls after the convention. The jump start that Kerry received after the Democratic convention was not impressive and Bush may be counting on the Christian fundamentalist, rather than the undecided few, to give his bid for a second term a boost.
[Font size=3 face=s color=Navy]This is from the Jordan Times. How is it that what seems so obvious to the rest of the world isn't obvious to half of Americans? [/font]
http://www.jordantimes.com/fri/opinion/opinion4.htm - Jordan Times: Opinion'
by: George S. Hishmeh
Seventy-four years ago last month, a keen observer of the Arab world noted that his countrymen “have been led in (Iraq) into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour” all because “they have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information”.
Sounds familiar?
The writer was the fabled T. E. Lawrence. He wrote the article upon the request of the London Sunday Times to explain Britain's “Mesopotamian (Iraqi) commitments” since he organised and directed the liberation of the Hijaz — Saudi Arabia — from the Turks, which the paper described as “one of the outstanding romances of the war”.
Lawrence's opening paragraph is very appropriate for today's bloody events in modern-day Iraq. “The people of England have been misled in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiquÈs are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster.”
This probably explains the double-edged decision of George W. Bush and his Republican Party in highlighting his admirable, though short-lived, stewardship of the country in the weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington rather than his ill-fated war in Iraq which has so far cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of Americans dead and wounded.
But the Bush administration has unwisely abandoned its war on Al Qaeda, which was solely responsible for the horrendous events here three years ago this month, and thereby its assertion that this American president is the best candidate to keep Americans safe may ring hollow.
Even holding the convention in New York City, scene of the devastation of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, may not be very convincing to the divided American electorate that President George Bush — not Democratic John Kerry — is the one who can keep Americans safe from any future threat from Al Qaeda.
All opinion polls show that the two candidates are locked in a tight race and the president's approval rating is languishing below the 50 per cent mark, according to the respectable National Public Radio. A recent survey by The New York Times has surprisingly found that family members of the Sept. 11 victims are more critical of the Bush administration's efforts to protect the nation from terrorism than the rest of the public.
But the most serious challenge to the president's credibility has come from the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission whose six-week-old findings have yet to be acted upon by both the administration and Congress. Similarly, the findings of two additional commissions, one by an independent panel and another by a four-star army general — investigating the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib seem to have raised more questions than answers about the so-called lapses in and oversight of the detention and interrogation system in Iraq and the level of responsibility. No heads have rolled, thus giving rise to calls for an independent commission.
Adding further to Bush's foreign policy woes — and detractions — on the eve of the Republican convention has been the case of the Defence Intelligence Agency analyst, Lawrence Franklin. The Iran specialist and former air force colonel is being investigated by the FBI for possibly providing classified information to Israel, including a draft of a presidential directive on US policies towards Iran, through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an influential Israeli lobby in Washington. Franklin works at present in the office of Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defence who has been described as a key neoconservative in the Bush administration. He had previously worked on prewar intelligence on Iraq, including purported ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda.
The Franklin case attracted additional attention because it surfaced as another prominent neoconservative, John R. Bolton, undersecretary of arms control and international security, was making threatening remarks against Iran. He told the Hudson Institute on Aug. 17 that Iran “has concealed a large-scale, covert nuclear weapons programme for over 18 years”. Describing it as “one of our most fundamental proliferation challenges”, he added: “All of Iran's WMD efforts chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, and ballistic missiles pose grave threats to international security.”
Whether these foreign issues will complicate Bush's neck-and-neck race with his Democratic challenger remains to be seen. The first sign of where things may be heading may come in the early polls after the convention. The jump start that Kerry received after the Democratic convention was not impressive and Bush may be counting on the Christian fundamentalist, rather than the undecided few, to give his bid for a second term a boost.
[Font size=3 face=s color=Navy]This is from the Jordan Times. How is it that what seems so obvious to the rest of the world isn't obvious to half of Americans? [/font]
http://www.jordantimes.com/fri/opinion/opinion4.htm - Jordan Times: Opinion'
