Rand Paul = anti offensive war

[RonPaulCult]

You would wish there were some opposition party. But do the Democrats even have the guts to vote against the war? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to vote on the war. Rudy-McRomney and the Republican gang...one isn't enough. Not only do they want the Iraq war to go on in perpetuity, they want to bomb Iran next. What did Romney say? He wouldn't consult the congress, he wouldn't consult the constitution. He'd call up his lawyer to see if he could attack Iran.

This is the greatest moral crisis of our times, accepting a notion that we can attack other countries that haven't attacked us. It's a recipe for disaster. It's unconstitutional and the consequences are horrible and unintended. And what we will get out of it is nothing but a disaster.

- Rand Paul
12/16/2007 (Against the war even when BUSH was President)

[malkusm]

You would wish there were some opposition party. But do the Democrats even have the guts to vote against the war? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to vote on the war. Rudy-McRomney and the Republican gang...one isn't enough. Not only do they want the Iraq war to go on in perpetuity, they want to bomb Iran next. What did Romney say? He wouldn't consult the congress, he wouldn't consult the constitution. He'd call up his lawyer to see if he could attack Iran.

This is the greatest moral crisis of our times, accepting a notion that we can attack other countries that haven't attacked us. It's a recipe for disaster. It's unconstitutional and the consequences are horrible and unintended. And what we will get out of it is nothing but a disaster.

- Rand Paul
12/16/2007 (Against the war even when BUSH was President)

Yup....which is why I've been calling the naysayers trolls. :p

[dannno]

Listening to Rand it sounded like the first thing he wanted to do was a balanced budget amendment (which is noble, but pretty mainstream)..

Then I heard his dad on an interview yesterday saying that he asked Rand what the first bill they wanted to introduce first, and Rand said "End THE FED!!" (as opposed to merely auditing them)

So I'm pretty hopeful, though I always have been.

[Todd]

Listening to Rand it sounded like the first thing he wanted to do was a balanced budget amendment (which is noble, but pretty mainstream)..

Then I heard his dad on an interview yesterday saying that he asked Rand what the first bill they wanted to introduce first, and Rand said "End THE FED!!" (as opposed to merely auditing them)

So I'm pretty hopeful, though I always have been.

fingers crossed.

[Romulus]

No one should doubt unless there is a reason to. Ron has never given a reason.. should we even think Rand would?

When asked, he admits to wanting to cut spending for the DOD.

[BenIsForRon]

To be fair, Barack Obama used to say we need to bring the troops home from Iraq and restore habeas corpus.

[Patrick Henry]

Then I heard his dad on an interview yesterday saying that he asked Rand what the first bill they wanted to introduce first, and Rand said "End THE FED!!" (as opposed to merely auditing them)

So I'm pretty hopeful, though I always have been.

You can watch it here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=267188

[Matt Collins]

"I have closely analyzed and scrutinized Rand Paul's positions, and they are identical to his father's... the only difference is the wording" -- a very well known intellectual in the movement who shall for now remain nameless.

[Fozz]

"I have closely analyzed and scrutinized Rand Paul's positions, and they are identical to his father's... the only difference is the wording" -- a very well known intellectual in the movement who shall for now remain nameless.

What about terrorist trials?

[Brett85]

What about terrorist trials?

Thankfully there is a difference on that issue. Rand doesn't want to import terrorists into America. I like Ron and voted for him in the 2008 Republican primary, but that's the main issue that I disagree with him on.

[low preference guy]

To be fair, Barack Obama used to say we need to bring the troops home from Iraq and restore habeas corpus.

Not a fair comparison. Obama is a nihilist who wants to destroy the country, and that was always clear. Rand is someone who wants to return America to the principles that made her great.

[Fozz]

Not a fair comparison. Obama is a nihilist who wants to destroy the country, and that was always clear.

What a kooky comment :rolleyes:

[Brett85]

You would wish there were some opposition party. But do the Democrats even have the guts to vote against the war? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to vote on the war. Rudy-McRomney and the Republican gang...one isn't enough. Not only do they want the Iraq war to go on in perpetuity, they want to bomb Iran next. What did Romney say? He wouldn't consult the congress, he wouldn't consult the constitution. He'd call up his lawyer to see if he could attack Iran.

This is the greatest moral crisis of our times, accepting a notion that we can attack other countries that haven't attacked us. It's a recipe for disaster. It's unconstitutional and the consequences are horrible and unintended. And what we will get out of it is nothing but a disaster.

- Rand Paul
12/16/2007 (Against the war even when BUSH was President)

To be fair Rand hasn't said that he'll vote against war funding in Afghanistan. He may not want to vote against funding for our troops. People here shouldn't throw him overboard if he does that.

[K Elaine]

Would you argue that?

[sailingaway]

Thankfully there is a difference on that issue. Rand doesn't want to import terrorists into America. I like Ron and voted for him in the 2008 Republican primary, but that's the main issue that I disagree with him on.

They spoke about it at different times. Once Obama developed 'indefinite preventative detention', he was planning on not having ANY trials for the ones he didn't want trials for. At that point, bringing them to the US would have been WORSE for human rights than giving them at least military tribunals with right of counsel in Guantanamo.

[georgiaboy]

Anti-war is too broad & vague, and a is misleading term connoting over-the-top pacifism & weak defenses to many in the rank & file.

For properly declared wars in defense of this country, he's pro-war.

Anti-undeclared war? yes
Anti-proactive, preventative war? yes
Anti-nation and empire building? yes
Anti-interventionism? yes

If asked if he's anti-war, though, if forced to a one word answer, I'd say "depends".

[georgiaboy]

Every thinking man hates war. Would you argue that?

welcome to the forums!

but sadly, yes, I would argue that.

[Brett85]

Anti-war is too broad & vague, and a is misleading term connoting over-the-top pacifism & weak defenses to many in the rank & file.

For properly declared wars in defense of this country, he's pro-war.

Anti-undeclared war? yes
Anti-proactive, preventative war? yes
Anti-nation and empire building? yes
Anti-interventionism? yes

If asked if he's anti-war, though, if forced to a one word answer, I'd say "depends".

Yep. I don't call myself "anti war," because I'm not against every war. But I'm certainly "anti intervention."

[RonPaulCult]

Anti-war is too broad & vague, and a is misleading term connoting over-the-top pacifism & weak defenses to many in the rank & file.

For properly declared wars in defense of this country, he's pro-war.

Anti-undeclared war? yes
Anti-proactive, preventative war? yes
Anti-nation and empire building? yes
Anti-interventionism? yes

If asked if he's anti-war, though, if forced to a one word answer, I'd say "depends".

Of course I agree with you but, anti-the-wars-we-are-currently-in doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Matt Collins]

Yep. I don't call myself "anti war," because I'm not against every war. But I'm certainly "anti intervention."
It's called the Just War Theory. Look it up, I think you'll like it :)

[BuddyRey]

To be fair Rand hasn't said that he'll vote against war funding in Afghanistan. He may not want to vote against funding for our troops. People here shouldn't throw him overboard if he does that.

I wouldn't throw him overboard, but it would seriously undermine his credibility in my book. The American Empire is fueled not only by powerful people with nefarious intentions, but by well-meaning people who refuse to do anything to stop it. If even a small minority in Congress had the balls to stand up and say, "this war needs to be defunded immediately", things would start changing.

But, like an enabling friend or relative, Congress continues feeding the addiction, naively believing that some good will come out of it. The Dems did the exact same thing when they took over, and if Rand or any other Republican wants to set himself apart, this is the perfect opportunity to strike at the root of this thing before it grows out of anybody's control.

[AParadigmShift]

No one should doubt unless there is a reason to. Ron has never given a reason.. should we even think Rand would?

It's clear, Rand is not his father. And since his senate bid began, he's proved as much.

He's made some troubling statements, statements that could have been echoed by any number of retreaded neoconservatives, statements his father would have never dared utter.

He's expressed concern over Obama's removal - under certain circumstances - of the nuclear option as it relates to Iran, and he came out in favor of slapping sanctions on the Iranian peoples, and sanctions are an act of war.

And whatever you may think of his clandestine meeting with the Kristol-clique, he sought them out, of his own volition, much to their delight.

Now, granted, I cannot see all ends, I do not pretend to know where Rand presumes to move on this front, but I am wary of this man - we all should be.

The sainted name of "Paul" will only get you so far.

[Brett85]

He's expressed concern over Obama's removal - under certain circumstances - of the nuclear option as it relates to Iran, and he came out in favor of slapping sanctions on the Iranian peoples, and sanctions are an act of war.

That's B.S. Rand simply said that the government shouldn't subsidies companies that do business with Iran. Well, Rand is against all subsidies to all companies anyway, so he was just parsing words there. He said in a debate with Conway that sanctions don't work. He also never criticized Obama for not nuking Iran. That's an insane comment as well. All he said was that we shouldn't show our cards and tell Iran what we intend to do. Again, he was just parsing words there as well. Go back to some of his previous statements in 2007 where he said that Iran aquiring one nuclear weapon isn't a threat to our national security.

[sailingaway]

That's B.S. Rand simply said that the government shouldn't subsidies companies that do business with Iran. Well, Rand is against all subsidies to all companies anyway, so he was just parsing words there. He said in a debate with Conway that sanctions don't work. He also never criticized Obama for not nuking Iran. That's an insane comment as well. All he said was that we shouldn't show our cards and tell Iran what we intend to do. Again, he was just parsing words there as well. Go back to some of his previous statements in 2007 where he said that Iran aquiring one nuclear weapon isn't a threat to our national security.

This. Really, I wanted to absolutely shake people who kept saying that during the campaign. Having said that, I do remember being disapointed that he wasn't more forthright, but he didn't lie and has been elected.

[Cowlesy]

I wish some people would just let the guy start a voting record before telling us how he's going to vote, not to mention summarily condemning him.

His statements prior to even starting a campaign pushed enough of us here to start beating the grassroots drums to convince him to run --- that would never happen if he was a "neocon" as is sometimes alleged around here.

Let's allow him to unpack his bags first and spin around once in his cool new senate chair before firing the doom and gloom cannons at him, eh?

[AParadigmShift]

He also never criticized Obama for not nuking Iran. That's an insane comment as well. All he said was that we shouldn't show our cards and tell Iran what we intend to do. Again, he was just parsing words there as well.

Parsing words? Fun. Except that's not what I said Rand said, not even close :confused:

Here's what Rand said,


“I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”

How is it that he's even pondering such, unless you suggest he's pandering?

[AParadigmShift]

Let's allow him to unpack his bags first and spin around once in his cool new senate chair before firing the doom and gloom cannons at him, eh?

I question Rand, yes. He's thoroughly untested.

But I give him the benefit of the doubt to work these things out by vote, to show himself approved or disapproved, as the case may be.

And I hope approved. I hope he'll be that classical-liberal, libertarian, Orwellian leftist, true-conservative type that we're all so very sure and/or hoping he is.

[lx43]

I wish some people would just let the guy start a voting record before telling us how he's going to vote, not to mention summarily condemning him.

His statements prior to even starting a campaign pushed enough of us here to start beating the grassroots drums to convince him to run --- that would never happen if he was a "neocon" as is sometimes alleged around here.

Let's allow him to unpack his bags first and spin around once in his cool new senate chair before firing the doom and gloom cannons at him, eh?

I agree!

[SWATH]

Yes Rand does parse his words to come across as sounding mainstream and palatable to the status quo vein of politicking. I have learned this from people I trust. We will watch him like a hawk too, but I feel much more comfortable after understanding his methods.

Lets take a look shall we:

“I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”

Ahh you're right, NEOCON!!!

Deciphered: Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon IS a threat to the stability of the Middle East, not necessarily to the US. However, saying what actions you are or are not willing to take to defend yourself is unwise.

[TheTyke]

Yes Rand does parse his words to come across as sounding mainstream and palatable to the status quo vein of politicking. I have learned this from people I trust. We will watch him like a hawk too, but I feel much more comfortable after understanding his methods.

Lets take a look shall we:

“I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”

Ahh you're right, NEOCON!!!

Deciphered: Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon IS a threat to the stability of the Middle East, not necessarily to the US. However, saying what actions you are or are not willing to take to defend yourself is unwise.


Exactly. I understand that right away... why do so many miss it? Rand has been working for liberty his ENTIRE LIFE... sheesh.

[sailingaway]

Parsing words? Fun. Except that's not what I said Rand said, not even close :confused:

Here's what Rand said,


“I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”

How is it that he's even pondering such, unless you suggest he's pandering?

He gave more detail on that in other interviews in the same time frame adding 'It's foolish to tip your hand.' which isn't the same as saying you would ever use them. And yes, he was pandaring, in that he was intentionally obfuscating, while not lying. Ron would never do that. But it doesn't go to the policy issue.

[axiomata]

You would wish there were some opposition party. But do the Democrats even have the guts to vote against the war? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to vote on the war. Rudy-McRomney and the Republican gang...one isn't enough. Not only do they want the Iraq war to go on in perpetuity, they want to bomb Iran next. What did Romney say? He wouldn't consult the congress, he wouldn't consult the constitution. He'd call up his lawyer to see if he could attack Iran.

This is the greatest moral crisis of our times, accepting a notion that we can attack other countries that haven't attacked us. It's a recipe for disaster. It's unconstitutional and the consequences are horrible and unintended. And what we will get out of it is nothing but a disaster.

- Rand Paul
12/16/2007 (Against the war even when BUSH was President)
Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source?

[DeadheadForPaul]

It's clear, Rand is not his father. And since his senate bid began, he's proved as much.

He's made some troubling statements, statements that could have been echoed by any number of retreaded neoconservatives, statements his father would have never dared utter.

He's expressed concern over Obama's removal - under certain circumstances - of the nuclear option as it relates to Iran, and he came out in favor of slapping sanctions on the Iranian peoples, and sanctions are an act of war.

And whatever you may think of his clandestine meeting with the Kristol-clique, he sought them out, of his own volition, much to their delight.

Now, granted, I cannot see all ends, I do not pretend to know where Rand presumes to move on this front, but I am wary of this man - we all should be.

The sainted name of "Paul" will only get you so far.

Oh give me a break.

How on earth could you be fearful of him after his rousing speeches in 2007? Were you there? Do you have a memory as short as that of the average voter? I find your lack of faith...disturbing ;)

Rand was simply playing the game for the past year and a half.

He would have been stuck at 5% in the primary if he had listened to the purists over in the general forum

When you're running a major statewide race that receives international attention and scrutiny from the national media, you simply cannot approach politics like Ron does. You cannot come out as say "American Empire", "End the Fed", and "marijuana should be legal"

I love that Ron says what he wants, but Rand simply could not do that. First of all, he had absolutely no record, so he had to reach people with his positions. Second, since he was running state-wide, all eyes were on him, and he had to take positions while staying somewhat vague. If you know our positions and see his statements through that lens, you can clearly see every word choice or left out word is an attempt to conceal the revolutionary motives behind this man.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Parsing words? Fun. Except that's not what I said Rand said, not even close :confused:

Here's what Rand said,


“I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”

How is it that he's even pondering such, unless you suggest he's pandering?

First off, Rand was making the point that you never let your enemy know your potential military strategies

Second, would you really take nuclear weapons off the table if Iran declared their intention to bomb us, acquired those weapons, and then were prepared to fire? You seem to assume that he made this statement about the current tension/situation rather than a far more ramped up one in which Iran has gone nuclear, declares its intent to attack, and aims nuclear weapons at us

[AParadigmShift]

First off, Rand was making the point that you never let your enemy know your potential military strategies

Need more be said past this?

:confused:

[AParadigmShift]

And yes, he was pandaring, in that he was intentionally obfuscating, while not lying. Ron would never do that.

Well, such is the makings of a fine politician :D

[Brett85]

Need more be said past this?

:confused:

So Iran is our friend?

[AParadigmShift]

So Iran is our friend?

Well, they're not my enemy.

But then again, I've a hard time reconciling the people of Iran as their gov't. And even at that, their gov't poses no direct or immediate threat to these United States proper.

Is Iran your enemy?

[Brett85]

Parsing words? Fun. Except that's not what I said Rand said, not even close :confused:

Here's what Rand said,


“I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”

How is it that he's even pondering such, unless you suggest he's pandering?

Obama took nuclear weapons off the table even in the event that we get nuked by a country like Iran. That's what Rand was talking about in this situation. He wasn't talking about preemptively nuking Iran.

[Brett85]

Well, they're not my enemy.

But then again, I've a hard time reconciling the people of Iran as their gov't. And even at that, their gov't poses no direct or immediate threat to these United States proper.

Is Iran your enemy?

The people of Iran are not my enemy, but there's no doubt that Iran's leaders are hostile to the United States. That said, I agree that they don't pose an immediate threat to us. But I just think it's pretty obvious that Iran's leaders are hostile to us.

[RonPaulCult]

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source?

YouTube - Rand Paul at Ron Paul Tea Party 2007 - Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCB7PA3ruz8&feature=player_embedded#)!

[axiomata]

I like that line at the end.

"Except for a few, most will go unnoticed and remain nameless in the pages of history, as I am sure I will be."

*long pause*

[Brett85]

YouTube - Rand Paul at Ron Paul Tea Party 2007 - Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCB7PA3ruz8&feature=player_embedded#)!

Wow, Rand sounded completely different back then. That was inspiring. I really hope that he goes back to being more free wheeling now that the election is over.

[Dystopia]

Rand Paul is a politician first and foremost and that was proven in this election. He is not a libertarian ideologue, so I definitely do not expect him to become one once he starts voting in the Senate. If you believe that he's going to vote just like Ron then you are naive.

[Brett85]

Rand Paul is a politician first and foremost and that was proven in this election. He is not a libertarian ideologue, so I definitely do not expect him to become one once he starts voting in the Senate. If you believe that he's going to vote just like Ron then you are naive.

He won't vote just like Ron, but he'll still be the most libertarian Senator we have by far.

[Dystopia]

Yes Rand does parse his words to come across as sounding mainstream and palatable to the status quo vein of politicking. I have learned this from people I trust. We will watch him like a hawk too, but I feel much more comfortable after understanding his methods.

Lets take a look shall we:

“I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”

Ahh you're right, NEOCON!!!

Deciphered: Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon IS a threat to the stability of the Middle East, not necessarily to the US. However, saying what actions you are or are not willing to take to defend yourself is unwise.





I have a very low bullshit threshold when it comes to politicians saber-rattling against Iran. And Rand Paul definitely crossed it with this retarded chickenhawk statement. If he was concerned about speaking the truth then he would have acknowledged that ISRAEL is a threat to the stability of the middle east, but of course that wouldn't be politically expedient.

[Brett85]

I have a low-bullshit threshold when it comes to politicians saber-rattling against Iran. And Rand Paul definitely crossed it with this retarded chickenhawk statement. If he was concerned about speaking the truth then he would have acknowledged that ISRAEL is a threat to the stability of the middle east, but of course that wouldn't be politically expedient.

Yep. Senator Conway would've been much better.

[Modern_Matthew]

Rand Paul is a politician first and foremost and that was proven in this election. He is not a libertarian ideologue, so I definitely do not expect him to become one once he starts voting in the Senate. If you believe that he's going to vote just like Ron then you are naive.

If not, I will never support either again.

Sorry, but supporting someone just because they're family is NOT being principled.

I, unlike most, though, will not jump the gun and monitor his voting record very closely.

Right now, there's nothing to go on but vague statements on the campaign trail and libertarian statements he made outside the public spotlight.

[sailingaway]

If not, I will never support either again.

Sorry, but supporting someone just because they're family is NOT being principled.

I, unlike most, though, will not jump the gun and monitor his voting record very closely.

Right now, there's nothing to go on but vague statements on the campaign trail and libertarian statements he made outside the public spotlight.

Matthew, I really don't know if you'll have a problem with his VOTE so much as his words might downplay libertarian influence in some cases, like voting to cut military and to debate turning Afghanistan over to the Afghan government.. for cost reasons. Ron might make the exact same moves but with a call to noninterventionism as a philosophy -- as WELL as for cost reasons.

During the campaign some were calling Rand a 'gateway drug' to the liberty movement, easier for other conservatives to hear.

[Brett85]

If not, I will never support either again.

Sorry, but supporting someone just because they're family is NOT being principled.

I, unlike most, though, will not jump the gun and monitor his voting record very closely.

Right now, there's nothing to go on but vague statements on the campaign trail and libertarian statements he made outside the public spotlight.

So you won't support him if you don't agree with every single vote he takes? You can't expect him to always vote the same way Ron does. He's his own man. But he'll still be the best Senator we have by far. Who's left if we turn our backs on Rand?

[TVMH]

There's a very simple solution to all this "antiwar-o-rly?-ur-not-anti ENOUGH" stuff.

Start using "pro-peace" in lieu of "anti-war". ;)

I'd be interested to hear anecdotes regarding the difference it makes in normal conversations. :cool:

[CUnknown]

To be fair Rand hasn't said that he'll vote against war funding in Afghanistan. He may not want to vote against funding for our troops. People here shouldn't throw him overboard if he does that.

I, for one, would be very upset if he votes for the war supplementals. Especially given that these are supplementals -- that is, piled on top of an already unbalanced budget. How can he possibly rail against DC's spending problem for the entire election cycle and then immediately become part of the problem?

He would lose credibility. He does need to provide some sort of alternative, something that will still allow him to be seen as "supporting the troops", but he needs to vote against the supplementals.

[sailingaway]

On this topic, you might want to read this. It discusses Rand's positions. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/tea-party-obama-make-strange-bedfellows-afghanistan-war/

[AParadigmShift]

Well, for whatever it's worth, this is a healthy discussion. And it speaks volumes that one can dare air such concerns on this forum without having political commissars shout you down.

I think what attracted most of us, if not all, to the senior Paul was his candor - whether you agreed or not. It was/is refreshing to here a politico speak truth to power, and say uncomfortable things aloud - and mean them. And get elected, year after year for their saying, or in spite of saying them. And such, to some of us, is Pauline 101 - we expect it, even demand it.

(And most of us understand quite well that there exists no perfect politician, but there are certain things that cannot be transgressed)

We've put our hopes, blood, sweat, tears and monies into the younger Paul, and his metal will be tested fairly soon on issues near and dear to the heart of the cause of liberty. And when those votes are cast and recorded for posterity, we can then measure with certainty if he's got the goods :)