Explore Candidates → President → Bob Barr on Iraq and Foreign Policy
Bob Barr
on
Iraq and Foreign Policy
- Abortion and Birth Control
- Civil Liberties and Domestic Security
- Crime and Punishment
- Education
- Environment and Energy
- Gay Rights
- Government and Elections
- Gun Control
- Health Care
- Immigration
- Internet and Media
- Iraq and Foreign Policy
- Medical Marijuana and Drug Policy
- Religion and Public Life
- Science
- Social Security
- Taxes and Budget
- Trade and Economics
"Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world's police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation... The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare."
"For far too long and at the cost of American blood and treasure, our great military has been too willingly and quickly used for purposes other than national defense. Our fighting men and women deserve better and the integrity of our nation must be restored... Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world's police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation."
"First of all you're not going to be able to crush Iran. Iran is a very large, very diverse, very economically sound country in which there is--I believe, and I have lived over there--a solid basis to find an awful lot of commonality of interest. Not with Ahmadinejad, but with the people and a lot of the younger leaders over there."
Defusing the confrontation with Iran will not be easy, notes Barr, “but any nonproliferation strategy must begin with diplomacy and include a willingness to address the other side.”
"While recognizing that Israel has been an important and long-time ally in the Middle East, we have consistently seen the misuse of foreign aid to nations that come at the taxpayers' expense. Government must cut aid to foreign nations."
Campaign Response (9/2/08)
Barr co-sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act Declares it to be U.S. policy that: Jerusalem remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected; Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; The U.S. Embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. Makes specified amounts of such funds available until expended in FY 1996 and 1997 only for construction and other costs associated with relocating the U.S. Embassy Jerusalem.
Corresponding House bill is H.R.1595. Became Public Law No: 104-45.
At a fund raising event Sunday night in Littleton, Colorado, Libertarian nominee for president Bob Barr told a group of supporters, "I am against the Cuban embargo."
Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. Stop enforcing travel restrictions on US citizens to Cuba, only after the president has certified that Cuba has released all political prisoners, and extradited all individuals sought by the US on charges of air piracy, drug trafficking and murder.
Bill HR 2590 ; vote number 2001-270 on Jul 25, 2001
Voted YES on the Cuba Sanctions Bill (HR 927), a bill to seek international sanctions against the Castro government in Cuba, to plan for support of a transition government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba, and for other purposes.
Bill Number: HR 927, Date: 03/06/1996
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. Vote on an amendment that would transfer $156 million from foreign military financing to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries [HIPC] Trust Fund. The HIPC Trust fund is designed to help debtor countries pay off the money they owe to multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Amendment sponsored by Waters, D-CA; Bill HR 4811 ; vote number 2000-397 on Jul 13, 2000
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. Vote on a bill to provide $15.2 billion for foreign operations in FY 2000. Among other provisions, the bill would provide $1.82 billion over three years for implementation of the Wye River peace accord in the Middle East. In addition, the measure would provide $123 million in multilateral debt relief and would contribute $25 million to the United National Population Fund.
Bill sponsored by Callahan, R-AL; Bill HR 3196 ; vote number 1999-572 on Nov 5, 1999
On this day in 1945 the U.S. and other countries signed the United Nations Charter. Unfortunately, "the UN has been an enormous disappointment," says Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr. "The U.S. should push to roll back the UN's functions and slash America’s financial contribution."
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. Vote to adopt an amendment that would require that the United States be restored to its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission before the payment of $244 million in funds already designated to pay UN back dues.
Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-107 on May 10, 2001
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. Vote on a bill to provide $15.2 billion for foreign operations in FY 2000. Among other provisions, the bill would provide $1.82 billion over three years for implementation of the Wye River peace accord in the Middle East. In addition, the measure would provide $123 million in multilateral debt relief and would contribute $25 million to the United National Population Fund.
Bill sponsored by Callahan, R-AL; Bill HR 3196 ; vote number 1999-572 on Nov 5, 1999
"The reduction of nuclear arms in the United States is a noble and practical goal. However, we must only reduce the number of nuclear arms in the United States to the point that it does not jeopardize national defense."
Campaign Response (9/2/08)
Q: You take the oath of office one of the first things you do is say, 'Pull 'em out.'? A: "I sit down with the military leaders and say I want a plan presented to me within 48 hours that outlines the process whereby we can responsibly start significantly and quickly pulling troops out."
"I do believe that it is extremely important, and in the best interests of America's defenses and our security, and our relationship with our allies, that we do begin immediately setting in place a plan to draw down, dramatically decrease the military, the economic and the political footprint that we maintain in Iraq."
"Yes we need to maintain troop levels around the world to protect our sovereignty and our interests, but that does not mean occupying Iraq or any other nation."
He [Barr] praised Bush because "the surge is working."
"Yes, we need to be downsizing significantly. Does that mean pulling every armed forces personnel from everywhere in the world immediately? Absolutely not. We have to maintain a presence sufficient to defend our country and to defend our interests. But that does not mean occupying Iraq."
Unlike Republicans, who are calling for essentially permanent bases in Iraq, and Democrats, who have done nothing to counter Republican calls for an indefinite occupation, I would put in place plans for withdrawal without undue delay. While I support an exit from Iraq as quickly as possible, I would not publicly announce a timetable to our adversaries. However, as President, I would begin to immediately and significantly begin to reduce both the military and the economic security blanket we are providing the government.
"Only I will say ‘no’ when city officials come to Washington trying to pry more money from the feds. I will tell the farmers the same. That’s what I will say to Big Business as well as Big Labor. I will have the same message for defense contractors and foreign governments. And for political parties, big and small, including my own."
“What we’re going to be doing [by shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan] is using those troops to prop up another regime…. The way we defeat the terrorists is smart and focus. That is, you have good intelligence, you find where they are, you go after them, you take them out. You don’t use precious American lives and $400m a day of U.S. taxpayer dollars occupying a foreign land in order to do it.”
Q: Some libertarians will say it was OK for the United States to go to Afghanistan and beat up on the Taliban and destroy the al-Qaida training camps there, but that the Iraq war never should have been mounted. Do you make any distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq? A: I think there are differences. I'm not an isolationist. If we have evidence that a nation or a nongovernmental entity has been engaged in acts that pose a clear and present threat to the United States or to our forces, we have every right, defensively, to take action to remove that threat, to neutralize that threat. That may very well have been the case in Afghanistan. But that is certainly not the case for a continued massive presence in Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, Barr proposes to use the military "much more wisely" and isn't convinced that a massive presence of troops is required.