PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul: ‘I wouldn’t question’ Israel




cajuncocoa
07-24-2014, 04:37 PM
By SARAH SMITH | 7/23/14 12:14 PM EDT Updated: 7/23/14 4:35 PM EDT

Potential GOP presidential contender Rand Paul said Wednesday that no one should question Israel’s actions in a time of war.
“I wouldn’t question what they need to do to defend themselves,” the Kentucky Republican told conservative radio host Glenn Beck on “The Blaze.” “These are difficult decisions people make in war when someone attacks you. It’s not our job to second guess.”

Beck played into the buzz around a potential Paul bid for the White House in 2016. He laid out the situation in Israel and his grievances with the Obama administration’s handling of it, then asked, “What would President Paul do?”

“The first thing I do is say absolutely no money goes to Hamas, no foreign aid gets in the hands of Hamas,” Paul responded. He added that he’d make sure Israel’s defense was well-supplied and funded — and even proposed an Iron Dome equivalent for the United States.
Beck extended the “President Paul” scenario to the second foreign policy crisis on the world stage: Russia.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/rand-paul-israel-mideast-glenn-beck-109284.html#ixzz38QbyNBEH[/FONT][/COLOR]

dannno
07-24-2014, 04:44 PM
Yay, he just passed the litmus test to become President.

thoughtomator
07-24-2014, 04:54 PM
Given the hand we have had in causing the problem, STFU is indeed our best policy.

juleswin
07-24-2014, 04:54 PM
Now I want to hear him say he would not question Russia, Palestine, Syria or any other country and I will be fine. No special treatment, what I am saying? He would have to suck up to Israel or else the media would turn the people against him and believe you me, they can still do it even now that he is sucking up hard to them.

cajuncocoa
07-24-2014, 05:00 PM
He's really doing all of the right things to win the nomination now. It's his for the taking.

tsai3904
07-24-2014, 05:01 PM
“I wouldn’t question what they need to do to defend themselves,”

Isn't that the non-intervenionist foreign policy position?

William Tell
07-24-2014, 05:02 PM
Ron Paul was one of the few who did not vote to reprimand Israel, for taking out an Iraqi Nuclear Reactor in the 80's.

juleswin
07-24-2014, 05:03 PM
Isn't that the non-intervenionist foreign policy position?

That part is,


He added that he’d make sure Israel’s defense was well-supplied and funded — and even proposed an Iron Dome equivalent for the United States.

The section above isn't.

Tywysog Cymru
07-24-2014, 05:13 PM
I guess America isn't ready to question it's support for Israel yet:(.

Natural Citizen
07-24-2014, 05:35 PM
It seems to me that some folks may actually want the U.S. geopolitically, economically, and militarily isolated. The U.S. is alienating the two most powerful nations in Europe while attempting, and failing, to dictate policy to Russia and it cannot dictate policy to China.

I'm not sure if anyone is paying attention to the language of some of these Senators and Congressmen but by fudging around with attempting to dictate policy to Russia and China and India and Brazil and France and Germany and Argentina there are some things to consider. Take from it what you will but whatever you take from it, be sure to place into perspective with Post WWII history.

US Set To Alienate Angry Germany Next, As Crackdown Shifts From BNP To Commerzbank, Deutsche Bank (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-08/us-set-alienate-angry-germany-next-crackdown-shifts-bnp-commerzbank-deutsche-bank)


“As we reported over the weekend in “By “Punishing” France, The US Just Accelerated The Demise Of The Dollar (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-04/punishing-france-us-just-accelerated-demise-dollar-0)“, following the record $9 billion fine against French BNP, the outcry has been fast and furious, with virtually everyone in the local chain of command, from the CEO of Total (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-05/ceo-one-worlds-largest-energy-major-sees-no-reason-petrodollar)to the head of the Bank of France (and ECB member) Christian Noyer, all saying that the US is now clearly abusing the reserve power of the dollar and it is time to move away from a dollar-based reserve currency (how that jives with concurrent French demands for a lower EUR is a different, incomprehensible matter entirely).

“It appears that having pushed France forcefully into the Russia-China Eurasian, and anti-US camp, the US will now do the same with Germany. Because after infuriating the German population by first refusing to return their gold contained (the legend goes) at the New York Fed, and then with scandal after spying scandal, most recently involving the CIA directly soliciting a German double agent, now the time has come to “punish” Germany’s largest banks for the same kind of money laundering that BNP was engaged in. As the NYT and Reuters report, the time has come to shift away from the BNP scandal and focus on what will soon be the Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank fallout.”


“Still, while one can debate the idiocy of US foreign policy, eager to push European allies into the willing hands of Russia and China at the worst possible moment, when regional and civil wars and conflicts are suddenly breaking out across all key geopolitical hotspots, one wonders: in the case of BNP, the “fine” was as a result of French unwillingness to halt the Russian amphibious warship deal despite US demands. So it would be curious just what the US blackmail against German banks is for: one really does wonder just what punishment Angela Merkel deserves behind the scenes in the eyes of John Kerry et clueless al, to punish her and Germany so blatantly for the entire world to see.

“One thing is clear: if the US thinks that Germany will continue to consider America its BFF and make zero contingency plans for when the alliance with the US finally crashes and burns, it will be truly surprised when the Eurasian alliance of Russia and China finally announces its final, all-important, missing link member: the manufacturing and export powerhouse that is Germany itself.”


Some of these political folks tend to get over comfortable with using the term isolationist in context with just one country and cherry pickings from issues that relate to special political interest in that single country (in this case, physical war) but the fact is that just because they like to frame it the way that they do and just because all it takes to frame it is discussion limited to a single aspect of a single country, it certainly doesn't remove the reality...and scope of the matter or the term. Isolationaism is a very, very broad subject.

It's not just a term to be mentioned in context with war rattling in Israel or Iran or whatever for convenience sake in dumbing down the phenomenon in whole.

satchelmcqueen
07-24-2014, 05:38 PM
read between the lines rand doubters.

HVACTech
07-24-2014, 05:50 PM
He's really doing all of the right things to win the nomination now. It's his for the taking.

he has some REALLY good coaches. :)
Israel is NOT a subject to be questioned in this country today.
even simply making factual statements about Israel has gotten me into hot water with people. I made the statement,
"before 1948, the last time that area was known as Israel was 2000 years ago."

jtstellar
07-24-2014, 05:57 PM
yawn

Ronin Truth
07-24-2014, 05:59 PM
Yeah Rand, risking pissing off the Rothschilds would not be a particularly smart political tactic.

Jamesiv1
07-24-2014, 06:15 PM
Yeah Rand, risking pissing off the Rothschilds would not be a particularly smart political tactic.
Reported.

Brett85
07-24-2014, 06:26 PM
That's definitely the non interventionist position.

thoughtomator
07-24-2014, 07:26 PM
That's definitely the non interventionist position.

Yet it doesn't satisfy those with a particular axe to grind against Israel.

Vanguard101
07-24-2014, 07:28 PM
Now I want to hear him say he would not question Russia, Palestine, Syria or any other country and I will be fine. No special treatment, what I am saying? He would have to suck up to Israel or else the media would turn the people against him and believe you me, they can still do it even now that he is sucking up hard to them.

I would love if he did this, but sadly, it's not realistic.

newbitech
07-25-2014, 12:37 AM
Isn't that the non-intervenionist foreign policy position?

non-interventionist is what conservatives are supposed to be.

Influenza
07-25-2014, 01:52 AM
Only non-interventionist when it comes to allowing Israel do whatever they damn well please with the arms we provide them :rolleyes:
The US obviously is not so mute when it comes to other situations ----- i.e. Saddam, Bashaar, Gaddafi, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia etc...

PierzStyx
07-25-2014, 03:28 AM
Keeping Israel well funded is not a non-interventionist stance.

NIU Students for Liberty
07-25-2014, 09:04 AM
Yet let's continue to give money to Israel. How non-interventionist/"conservative" (whatever the fuck this means anymore) of Rand :rolleyes:

r3volution 3.0
07-25-2014, 09:38 AM
To succeed in cutting aid to some regimes, or to fail trying to cut aid to all regimes - those are the choices.

Rand wisely chose the former.

mit26chell
07-25-2014, 10:04 AM
Isn't that the non-intervenionist foreign policy position?

I think it would be if Rand wasn't also for subsidizing Israel's atrocities in the same breath.

thoughtomator
07-25-2014, 10:13 AM
Yet let's continue to give money to Israel. How non-interventionist/"conservative" (whatever the fuck this means anymore) of Rand :rolleyes:

We need to unwind this mess... let's start by no longer funding BOTH sides of the conflict. You may be surprised at the impact of defunding on the actions of one side and how that can undermine the arguments for continuing to fund the other.

juleswin
07-25-2014, 11:28 AM
We need to unwind this mess... let's start by no longer funding BOTH sides of the conflict. You may be surprised at the impact of defunding on the actions of one side and how that can undermine the arguments for continuing to fund the other.


But are we really funding Hamas military or is the fund we give them go to humanitarian aid? I say this because I believe we give Israel weapons not food. So if this is true, it would make no sense at all to use ending humanitarian aid to the Palestinians as a justification for ending Israel military aid.

Brett85
07-25-2014, 11:51 AM
Yet let's continue to give money to Israel. How non-interventionist/"conservative" (whatever the fuck this means anymore) of Rand :rolleyes:

When has Rand ever said that we should keep Israel well funded? He introduced his own budget several years ago that ended all foreign aid.

Constitutional Paulicy
07-25-2014, 11:55 AM
http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01996/horsem_1996126a.jpg

cajuncocoa
07-25-2014, 12:18 PM
When has Rand ever said that we should keep Israel well funded? He introduced his own budget several years ago that ended all foreign aid.
Re-read the 3rd paragraph in the article of OP

NIU Students for Liberty
07-25-2014, 04:49 PM
When has Rand ever said that we should keep Israel well funded? He introduced his own budget several years ago that ended all foreign aid.

From the article:

"He added that he’d make sure Israel’s defense was well-supplied and funded — and even proposed an Iron Dome equivalent for the United States."

LibertyEagle
07-25-2014, 05:01 PM
His goal is to get rid of ALL foreign aid. Problem is, that legislation failed miserably. So, his plan is to chunk away at it, one nation at a time. Starting with Israel is not a workable idea. It would not only NOT go over, it would shove him over to the sidelines where he wouldn't be able to get anything at all accomplished. But, he has made his position extremely clear for anyone who has ears and any cognitive ability at all.

jjdoyle
07-25-2014, 05:13 PM
That part is,



The section above isn't.


From the article:

"He added that he’d make sure Israel’s defense was well-supplied and funded — and even proposed an Iron Dome equivalent for the United States."


Re-read the 3rd paragraph in the article of OP

Just so we're clear though, the article doesn't QUOTE him, just paraphrasing what he said. The only way to know what he actually said, in full context, is to quote him directly from the interview on that piece.

asurfaholic
07-25-2014, 05:26 PM
His goal is to get rid of ALL foreign aid. Problem is, that legislation failed miserably. So, his plan is to chunk away at it, one nation at a time. Starting with Israel is not a workable idea. It would not only NOT go over, it would shove him over to the sidelines where he wouldn't be able to get anything at all accomplished. But, he has made his position extremely clear for anyone who has ears and any cognitive ability at all.

I personally don't understand why this is so hard for some people to comprehend. I don't like Israel or what we have created through then any bit as much as anyone, but I can clearly see Rand's reasoning and thinking here. Its makes very good sense, not just politically but psychologically people as a whole will accept this easier than just playing into the "isolationist" ideas that some people would LOVE to paint him with.

I know that they still try, but at least Rand is not providing then with the ammo they need to broadcast that label truthfully...

Its crystal clear

satchelmcqueen
07-25-2014, 07:21 PM
when rand says something like " i wouldn question israels right to defend its self" he isnt saying he supports them in the way this government has for the last few decades.

whats more important to listen to is WHAT HES NOT SAYING. he also isnt saying that he wouldnt question iraq or irans right to defend it self either. see what im saying? ron would come out and say it loud and clear. if rand does this, then he is DONE as of this very day.

this is what i mean when i say "read between the lines". rand is the same guy he was when ron was running. give him time. trust me, i was the one puking when he endorsed romney, but look at what doors thats opened for him. NO ONE can ever say he didnt support the gop nom. for me that doesn matter, but today, i see how this worked out for him. he is still the same guy. as president he will make us proud. i dont think im wrong on this.

Brett85
07-25-2014, 07:48 PM
Re-read the 3rd paragraph in the article of OP

I don't see a direct quote from Rand in the article.

cindy25
07-25-2014, 08:26 PM
Israel has a right to defend itself, but the emphasis should be itself. no aid. and then the war will stop. let Adelson and Zuckerberg pay for their damned iron dome

cajuncocoa
07-25-2014, 08:59 PM
His goal is to get rid of ALL foreign aid. Problem is, that legislation failed miserably. So, his plan is to chunk away at it, one nation at a time. Starting with Israel is not a workable idea. It would not only NOT go over, it would shove him over to the sidelines where he wouldn't be able to get anything at all accomplished. But, he has made his position extremely clear for anyone who has ears and any cognitive ability at all.
I understand he's caught between a rock and a hard place here. I don't know if there is any way for our country to disentangle itself from Israel.

LibertyEagle
07-25-2014, 09:15 PM
I understand he's caught between a rock and a hard place here. I don't know if there is any way for our country to disentangle itself from Israel.

There's a way, but it's not going to work to put them first for having aid withdrawn.

jjdoyle
07-25-2014, 09:27 PM
I understand he's caught between a rock and a hard place here. I don't know if there is any way for our country to disentangle itself from Israel.

There might be a way, but that might actually involve a full 9/11 investigation or simply releasing 28 pages that are "classified" of what our government already knows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo

Chieppa1
07-26-2014, 05:31 AM
Jeez, the Rand apologizing has become a disease here. The actual non-interventionist views of his father are being supported by a larger and larger number of people in this country (latest Gallop poll on Israel). And Rand is trying so hard to make sure he gets that Neo-Con vote. And still Jennifer Rubin attacks him. The Israel-firsts crowd will never support Rand Paul. Ever. Ever. Ever. So can we stop pretending he's tricking the bad guys into voting for him. It's really comical. When the debates start they will bring up how he didn't go to some speech by Netanyahu when the rest of Congress was there clapping for him.

THE WAY America's government supports Israel is borderline treason. And Rand needs to mimic those talking points to win the nomination? And no one here cares?

Even Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com is doing the "if that helps the campaign" thing. Really? The antiwar.com guy is okay with the "liberty candidate" pushing policies that 3-4 years ago EVERYONE on this site would consider pro-war and interventionist policy.

The beltway effect is grabbing hold just in time for the election cycle to hit full swing. Let's all make sure we shave, put on that suit and head down to the next political action event in D.C. and hug all the "principled" Tea Party folks who couldn't find the Bill of Rights if they had it in their pocket.

The Liberty Movement can still be principled without having to be isolated. The country is coming our way, and we are busy running toward the country of last election.

emazur
12-19-2014, 08:27 PM
“I wouldn’t question what they need to do to defend themselves. These are difficult decisions people make in war when someone attacks you. It’s not our job to second guess.”

This is a very dangerous statement by Rand if applied to the United States government (and logically - why would this statement apply only to Israel and not the US?). Imagine if he had been a senator under Bush Jr. after 9/11 and the Patriot Act, torture, "authorization" to invade Iraq, drone strikes, indefinite detentions, and out-of-control spending were all going on and he said this:

“I wouldn’t question what Congress does to defend America. These are difficult decisions people make in war when someone attacks you. It’s not my job to second guess.”

We'd all think he's made out of chicken-shit. (I guess this moves to the anti-Rand subforum now. So be it I guess).

CaptainAmerica
12-19-2014, 08:29 PM
http://www.therightperspective.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ron-paul-fairbanks-anchorage-alaska-visit-600x420.jpg

Warlord
12-20-2014, 06:17 AM
Jeez, the Rand apologizing has become a disease here. The actual non-interventionist views of his father are being supported by a larger and larger number of people in this country (latest Gallop poll on Israel). And Rand is trying so hard to make sure he gets that Neo-Con vote. And still Jennifer Rubin attacks him. The Israel-firsts crowd will never support Rand Paul. Ever. Ever. Ever. So can we stop pretending he's tricking the bad guys into voting for him. It's really comical. When the debates start they will bring up how he didn't go to some speech by Netanyahu when the rest of Congress was there clapping for him.

THE WAY America's government supports Israel is borderline treason. And Rand needs to mimic those talking points to win the nomination? And no one here cares?

Even Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com is doing the "if that helps the campaign" thing. Really? The antiwar.com guy is okay with the "liberty candidate" pushing policies that 3-4 years ago EVERYONE on this site would consider pro-war and interventionist policy.

The beltway effect is grabbing hold just in time for the election cycle to hit full swing. Let's all make sure we shave, put on that suit and head down to the next political action event in D.C. and hug all the "principled" Tea Party folks who couldn't find the Bill of Rights if they had it in their pocket.

The Liberty Movement can still be principled without having to be isolated. The country is coming our way, and we are busy running toward the country of last election.


GIve it a rest. No one is folding -around here

philipped
12-20-2014, 02:10 PM
GIve it a rest. No one is folding -around here

Thank you.

willwash
12-20-2014, 03:24 PM
Isn't that the non-intervenionist foreign policy position?

Yeah, but so is "don't give them money." Where does Rand stand on that?