Q&A With Steve Kubby: Foreign Policy

Third Party Watch: If elected President, how would you deal with the current military situation in Iraq?

Steve Kubby: I’d order an immediate, unilateral and unconditional withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, with the only time limitation factor being the security and safety of the troops in movement.

————————————————————-

Third Party Watch: If you had been the President of the United States on September 11, 2001 - how would you have responded differently than President Bush?

Steve Kubby: The response would have been immediate and overwhelming, as was the Bush administration’s response. There would, however, have been differences. Rather than spending six weeks toppling the Taliban and setting up “nation-building” operations in Afghanistan before going after Osama bin Laden, I’d have directed the US armed forces to target al Qaeda from the beginning, and to ignore the Afghan government forces except to the extent that they interfered with that objective. And I’d have begun the process of correcting America’s foreign policy away from global intervention and back toward national defense. Bush went the other way in both instances.

————————————————————-

Third Party Watch: To what degree should the United States participate in organizations like NATO, the UN, and the WTO?

Steve Kubby: It shouldn’t, at least to any extent that such participation binds the US to entangling alliances, guarantees the defense of other nations at US expense, commits the US to military intervention in arguments to which it is not a party, or ties the US down in restrictions or regulations which damage or reduce market commerce.

————————————————————-

Check back tomorrow for round 2 of this Question and Answer session in which we ask both Mr. Phillies and Mr. Kubby about their stands on domestic issues. And then Wednesday the topic shifts to the future of the Libertarian Party.

35 Responses to “Q&A With Steve Kubby: Foreign Policy”

  1. globalist_elitist Says:

    B.S. The Taliban/Al Qaeda link was/is so strong that they are virtually one in the same. The Taliban needed to be toppled as a matter of national security. I would not trust Kubby to be commander in chief.

    Also, while I was 100% opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and all of the anti-war voices have been proven 100% right, I am beginning to realize that if/when we abandon Iraq, it is going to present serious national security concerns going forward. Saddam’s Iraq was not dangerous - the the mess we leave behind IS going to be dangerous. Honestly, I think that the responsible thing to do - no matter how regrettable - is to anihilate all of the non-secularist forces in the country. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invade, but it’s there now. Saddam the Thug kept the theocrats in check, but they are dominating now. And Iraq - which was not a haven for terrorists before - will become one when we leave. There is no political will to finish the job we started (and never should have started), and guess what - the anti-war case is going to take a huge kick to the balls when we have to fight a third Iraq War in ten years. That’s the real travesty.

    Kubby = Not credible on foreign policy.

  2. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 14th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
    B.S. The Taliban/Al Qaeda link was/is so strong that they are virtually one in the same. The Taliban needed to be toppled as a matter of national security. I would not trust Kubby to be commander in chief.”

    BS, yes. Your entire post above was pure BS.

  3. Joe Says:

    I definitely trust Kubby more on foreign policy than I do the Bush administration. It sounds like his and Phillies’ plans for Iraq are pretty similar. Neither of them mentioned Ron Paul’s response at the time: letters of marque and reprisal - essentially outsourcing the hunt for non-state aggressors like Al Queda. I like Kubby’s answer to the NATO/UN/WTO question better than Phillies’, but I like Phillies’ foreign policy better than the status quo.

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    Andy,

    you can agree with parts of his posting, but the Taliban/Al Queda link WAS strong. Period.

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    So if my “entire post” was B.S., then Andy apparently thinks:

    1. The anti-war voices have been proven wrong (“all of the anti-war voices have been proven 100% right”)

    2. Saddam’s Iraq WAS a danger to the U.S. (“Saddam’s Iraq was not dangerous”)

    3. Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq before we invaded (“Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded”)

    4. Saddam’s Iraq WAS a haven for terrorists (“And Iraq - which was not a haven for terrorists before”)

    5. There IS political will to win the war in Iraq (” There is no political will to finish the job we started”)

    6. We SHOULD have invaded Iraq in the first place (“and never should have started”)

    7. Steve Kubb - a hash-bash attendee with no prior history in elected office - IS a credible commander in cheif in the eyes of the American people (“Kubby = Not credible on foreign policy”)

    1-7 = Andy is living in a fantasy world where seatbelt laws don’t save us money and are a legitimate threat to liberty, BUSH PLANNED 9/11, and the Taliban did not give safe harbor to Al Qaeda.

    ANDY AND PEOPLE LIKE HIM = Why the LP is a joke and will never be successful.

  6. [email protected] Says:

    global_elitist (if that’s really you—there’s a Donderoism in the opening paragraph, so I can’t be sure. The phrase is “one AND the same,” not “one in the same”) ...

    I don’t see anything in Kubby’s answer that belies a connection, even a strong one, between the Taliban and al Qaeda. That’s irrelevant to what the best approach was to dealing with the whole thing.

    Yes, there was a strong connection between the Taliban and al Qaeda. However, that connection did not represent a two-way street with respect to destroying one being a sound way to destroy the other.

    Liquidating al Qaeda would likely have resulted in the toppling of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance as a side effect, since the Taliban relied to a degree on al Qaeda to provide it with combatants and since the Taliban would have almost certainly intervened to some degree versus US troops, weakening themselves in the process. And even if it had not, it would have certainly mitigated any danger the Taliban presented to the US, since that danger was primarily expressed through al Qaeda.

    Toppling the Taliban, however, did not result in the liquidation, or even the substantial handicapping, of al Qaeda, and there was no reason to think it would. The Taliban are an Afghan national phenomena for the most part, albeit with some extension into Pakistan. Al Qaeda is a bona fide transnational entity, and destroying one of its hosts didn’t really have much of an effect on it. What needed to be destroyed was al Qaeda infrastructure proper—its leadership and command/control/communications/intelligence apparatus, before that could be relocated. Instead, the US spent six weeks fucking around with Kabul while al Qaeda threw some of its bottom-grade cannon fodder into the fight and moved its important stuff out.

    The Taliban should have been, at MOST, a second priority. Instead, the US made them the central focus. That harmed the main mission of liquidating al Qaeda, and it ended up committing the US to what has become a six-year light-intensity war with no end in sight and no likelihood of any permanent resolution along the lines allegedly sought.

  7. Robert Milnes Says:

    How is it that these two candidates were selected for this debate here to the exclusion of about 10 others?

  8. globalist_elitist Says:

    Donderism? That’s a low blow.

    I hate militarism. I am a capitalist dove. But the Taliban gave refuge to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. What were we supposed to do? Say “don’t ever do that again, or you’ll be sorry?” That’s ridiculous. Al Qaeda and bin Laden should have been priority #1, but getting to them is easier said than done. The Taliban - which gave refuge to terrorists - was easy to hit. It should have been destroyed. Iraq was the diversion that we couldn’t afford.

    Do not accuse me of being Donderian. I am against militarist machismo. I think that 99% of people in the army now are duesh bags, so I’m not a soldier sniffer by any means. I hate war. But I’m not an ideological pacificist who is blind to reality (Andy, Kubby, etc.), and I am becoming increasingly convinced of two things: 1) Al Qeada is in Iraq; and 2) If we abruptly leave Iraq, we’re going to be fighting the war again in ten years. I don’t want that.

    Milnes - You don’t exist.

  9. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 14th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
    So if my “entire post” was B.S., then Andy apparently thinks:”

    OK, I should rephrase that. I should have said that SOME of your post was BS.

    “1-7 = Andy is living in a fantasy world where seatbelt laws don’t save us money and are a legitimate threat to liberty, BUSH PLANNED 9/11, and the Taliban did not give safe harbor to Al Qaeda.”

    I haven’t seen any evidence that seat belt laws save “us” any money. I have seen plenty of evidence that they cause the police to harrass and fine people. I’m quite skeptical when it comes to giving up liberty for the promise of government provided safety.

    I never said that Bush himself “planned” 9/11. I have a feeling that Bush himself would have a hard time planning diner. I have said that factions within the government planned and carried out 9/11. Bush was likely in on it, but I doubt that it was something that he came up with on his own.

    al Qaeda is a CIA creation. The Taliban actually offered to turn in al Qaeda is the US government provided them with evidence of guilt. The truth is that the entire invasion of Afganistan was a SHAM. It was really about gaining control of the opium fields and putting an oil pipeline across Afganistan and being able to use the country as a military base.

    “7. Steve Kubb - a hash-bash attendee with no prior history in elected office - IS a credible commander in cheif in the eyes of the American people (‘Kubby = Not credible on foreign policy’)”

    How is Kubby any less credible than George “AWOL” Bush and Dick “Chicken Hawk” Cheney?

    Steve Kubby would do every thing he could to prevent the US from getting into wars in the first place. This is the best thing that a President could do.

  10. [email protected] Says:

    global_elitist,

    You write:

    “Donderism? That’s a low blow.”

    Um, no—an observation of English usage. I wasn’t accusing you of thinking like Dondero. I was accusing Dondero of impersonating you, and not because of the ideological content of the post, but because a mal-formed phrase that he uses frequently appeared in your comment. Sorry about that.

    As far as the content of Kubby’s answer goes, read it again. I don’t know where you’re picking up this “pacifist” horseshit, but it’s not from his answers. All he said was that the focus of a US invasion of Afghanistan should have been liquidating al Qaeda rather than displacing the Taliban. The latter probably would have happened due to the former anyway—just like spiking the ball often follows a touchdown That doesn’t mean spiking the ball is the touchdown. In Afghanistan, the US spiked the ball at the 20-yard line and did its little victory dance … while the ground crew rolled up the sod and carted the end zone off to another stadium.

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    For once, I can agree with Milnes on this. Dispite the fact that I couldn’t give less of a crap about what Milnes thinks about foreign policy—was he offered a chance?

  12. globalist_elitist Says:

    The old expression “they are one and the same” is now often mangled into the roughly phonetic equivalent “one in the same.”

    My bad. At least I don’t say “was” when I should say “were.”

    DISS.

  13. Robert Milnes Says:

    globalist_elitist, you think…I think, therefore, I am.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    “al Qaeda is a CIA creation. The Taliban actually offered to turn in al Qaeda is the US government provided them with evidence of guilt. The truth is that the entire invasion of Afganistan was a SHAM. It was really about gaining control of the opium fields and putting an oil pipeline across Afganistan and being able to use the country as a military base.”

    Wow,i’d love to see the documentation for this crap! IT’d be in a folder labeled “top secret” and stuff i’ll bet!

  15. Robert Milnes Says:

    Trent, the first I heard about this was when Austin announced it. I don’t know about the other real libertarian candidates.

  16. Andy Says:

    “Wow,i’d love to see the documentation for this crap! IT’d be in a folder labeled “top secret” and stuff i’ll bet!”

    Tent, do some research on-line. It is all a part of the public record. All of the information is out there for those who are willing to look.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    Online documentation? Really?
    ....

    Did you know Lizardmen control the world?

    No no! Its true! Seriously.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_humanoid
    http://www.thecomingoftan.com/
    http://getvegan.com/blog/ickereptoid.pdf

    I want DOCUMENTATION Andy. Or at least reasonable cause.

  18. Tom Bryant Says:

    Andy writes:

    “do some research on-line”

    ...the surest way to fall for some dumb conspiracy crap.

    School kids today are being taught how to use the internet to do research. They are taught that over 99% of the websites out there are not credible for research purposes. Folks who didn’t grow up doing research papers with the internet (the vast majority of us) seem to really fall for any crap someone posts on a website.

    When folks fall for some BS website, one question that usually comes up is “why doesn’t anyone else believe this?” This leads to the conspiracy growing in size exponentially. Because they believe something, it must be the work of thousands of powerful people keeping everyone else from believing what the conspiracy theorist believes. This in turns leads to bigger conspiracy. For example, it was posted here that high school and colleges are in on a grand conspiracy because they don’t require “The Creature from Jeykel Island” in economics courses.

    Web communities then form that reinforce the conspiracy theory. These guys create webpages that all same more or less the same thing - often text is copied and pasted directly. The conspiracy theorist uses the sheer number of websites as validation of their beliefs.

    It is these websites that you’ll be referred to to do your “research” on. And those with poor research skills will fall for it and be brought into the fold.

    It will only be a matter of time until someone enters these communities with a scam to make money. Usually they have some magic bullet lawsuit that needs funded that will make their conspiracy theory a reality (“We The People” is great at that scam).

  19. Andy Says:

    US Government Planned Invasion of Afganistan Months Before 9/11
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/preplanned.html

  20. Andy Says:

    The Myths of al Qaeda
    http://www.rense.com/general61/myths.htm

  21. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy says “Go to snopes.com. But the thing is - everything they say is false is actually true, and everything they say is true is actually false. It is the only way they can stay under the Illuminati’s radar. 2Pac lives.”

  22. sam i am Says:

    Try reading Jude Wanninski. Archive at Lew Rockwell, and elsewhere.

  23. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 15th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
    Andy says “Go to snopes.com. But the thing is - everything they say is false is actually true, and everything they say is true is actually false. It is the only way they can stay under the Illuminati’s radar. 2Pac lives.’”

    I’ve never been to snopes.com.

  24. Andy Says:

    Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand bin Laden Over
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html

  25. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy - Check it out. I’m sure you’ll love it.

  26. Trent Hill Says:

    Andy,

    Wow. That WAS some good evidence. The website is even named “What Really Happened?” which basically means they are going to tell you what ACTUALLY happened. Fascinating.

    Id be willing to bet the CP has just as many crazies as the LP—maybe they should all get together start a vast Right-wing conspiracy/Lizardmen revolution/9-11 Truth Search!

  27. sam i am Says:

    Did you read it Trent? It cites Jane’s Defense Weekly, BBC, MSNBC etc.

    This one’s good too

    http://www.rense.com/general17/spp.htm

  28. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Tom writes: “The Taliban should have been, at MOST, a second priority. Instead, the US made them the central focus. That harmed the main mission of liquidating al Qaeda,...”

    Quite likely the ‘main mission’ was exactly what was accomplished - the creation of a new bugaboo (‘global turrism’ or ‘islamofacism’, take your pick) to replace the laughable Russian Bear.

  29. Tom Bryant Says:

    Andy,

    The links you provided are not considered proper research sources.

    That is why you fall for a lot of BS on the internet, you seem to think that any website is a credible source. Whatreallyhappened and rense are not credible sources. The article from the Guardian does not provide any evidence to backup your statement that the US government planned 9/11. In fact, it does quote people believe AQ’s threats against the US are effectively an admission of guilt.

    So your research consists of:
    1) A conspiracy theory website
    2) An amatuer website of a conspiracy/UFO believer
    3) A newspaper article that does not support your thesis

    Now folks…did I call this one or what?

    Andy doesn’t know how to properly use the internet to do research, and so he falls for just about anything.

  30. sam i am Says:

    The question was did the US have plans before 9/11 to invade Afganistan.

    The answer is yes and the links do bear it out.

    As for US regime planning 9/11, we could be here all week just typing in the links on that one.

  31. Trent Hill Says:

    Plans? Probably. The CIA/Millitary infrastructure probably has a plan to invade EVERY country. It is part of why we can respond so quickly. We don’t need a plan, we just need to know how to execute it,and if we should. You think we didn’t have a plan long before the Lusitania was sunk? You think we didn’t have a plan for invading Germany before Pearl Harbor was bombed. Obviously we did, that is called Military Preparedness. Don’t be a tool.

    Yea, you could type in 100,000 links about 9/11 being planned by the U.S. Government….but that is all they would be…obscure website links.

  32. Tom Bryant Says:

    Trent is absolutely correct.

    This doesn’t mean that we are going to invade a ton of nations, it means that there are plans laid out that we can use if the need should arise to invade a country.

    They didnt start scoping out the landscape and gathering information on major cities, power plants, communication infrastructure, political leaders/factions, and such after 9/11. That homework was already done.

    Sam, I have no doubt you could spend a week posting links. I doubt that you would be able to produce valid research though. Knowing the difference is key.

    I will note that you incorrectly identified the question at hand:

    “al Qaeda is a CIA creation. The Taliban actually offered to turn in al Qaeda is the US government provided them with evidence of guilt. The truth is that the entire invasion of Afganistan was a SHAM. It was really about gaining control of the opium fields and putting an oil pipeline across Afganistan and being able to use the country as a military base.”

    Another very common tell of a conspiracy loon is that they will constantly shift positions and issues. Their arguments are very week that it cannot withstand a proper length of scrutiny. “Hit and run” is the preferred tactic - make a point and run far away before you have to back it up.

    For example, Sam says “We could be here all week just typing in the links on that one”. 1) he’s trying to deflect the current issue and 2) he’s trying to scare off any scruntiny of the new issue with claims about the size of his links.

    If you do ever get one of these conspiracy guys cornered, rather than admit that they are wrong, they will just assume you’re a secret agent of the Masons, Mormons, Illuminati, Jews, Bankers, Nazis, Lizardmen, Aliens, or whatever.

  33. globalist_elitist Says:

    According to David Icke reptilian humanoids are the force behind a worldwide conspiracy directed at manipulation and control of humanity. He contends that most of the world’s leaders, from George W. Bush to members of the British royal family, are in fact 7-foot tall, blood-drinking reptilians from the star system Alpha Draconis.

    According to an interview with David Icke, Christine Fitzgerald, a confidante of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, claims that Diana told her that the Royal Family were reptilian aliens, and that they could shapeshift. [11] David Icke and others have claimed that U.S. President George W. Bush and his family are part of this same bloodline (Icke, 2004).

    Icke claims, based on his exploration of genealogical connections to European royalty, that many presidents of the United States have been and are reptilian humanoids. In his view, United States foreign policy after September 11 is the product of a reptilian conspiracy to enslave humanity, with George W. Bush as a servant of the reptilians.

    He also theorizes that the reptilians came to Earth from the constellation Draco. One type of reptilian entity that people see during alleged encounters resembles reptoids similar to those that are addressed in the studies of John Rhodes and the Reptoids Research Center. Like most conspiracy theories, proving Icke’s hypotheses is impossible, but he continues to sell books and give speaking engagements based on concepts ranging from the New Age to his political opinions.

  34. Tom Bryant Says:

    G_E, you should give attribution to the source you copied and pasted from.

    That way people can click it to learn more about the subject by following the links there.

  35. celebrity poker Says:

    nice site keep it on ;)

Leave a Reply