Rand Paul comments on military strikes in Iraq

[tsai3904]

Video update:

Rand's comments on August 12:


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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oWYtJjabdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oWYtJjabdw


----



...

Paul spoke to several from the Campbellsville Chamber of Commerce about a number of issues including the situation in Iraq.

"I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to helping with arms or maybe even bombing, but I am concerned that ISIS is big and powerful because we protected them in Syria for a year. Do you know who also hates ISIS and who is bombing them? Assad, the Syrian government. So a year ago, the same people who want to bomb ISIS wanted to bomb Syria last year. Syria and ISIS are on opposite sides of the war. We're now bombing both sides of one war that has spread into another country," said Paul.

...

More:
http://www.wbko.com/home/headlines/Sen-Rand-Paul-Responds-to-Flip-Flopping-Criticism-270818741.html

[Crashland]

Hoping that Rand will clear out the fog in his "big" foreign policy speech coming up in October.

[mit26chell]

He needs to be unequivocally opposed to illegal wars, period. End of discussion.

[Crashland]

He needs to be unequivocally opposed to illegal wars, period. End of discussion.

He is already unequivocally opposed to illegal wars. He has always supported the need to go back to the Congress for authorization for each separate use of force.

[TaftFan]

He needs to be unequivocally opposed to illegal wars, period. End of discussion.
This is ambiguous since he proposal to officially end the Iraq war got voted down.

[Vanguard101]

" I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to helping with arms or maybe even bombing"
You are on thin ice man.....thin ice....

[lakerssuck92]

" I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to helping with arms or maybe even bombing"
You are on thin ice man.....thin ice....

I wouldn't be opposed to strikes on ISIS if President Rand Paul went to Congress first and got a declaration of war against ISIS...

[phill4paul]

Shit or get off the pot.

[Natural Citizen]

Hoping that Rand will clear out the fog in his "big" foreign policy speech coming up in October.


I'd only add that a "big" foreign policy speech would demand more than the middle eastern skullduggery that we see aired on terrorvision 24/7. There is much to be said with regard to foreign policy in whole. The world is a very big place. And, of course, foreign policy is so much more than bullets, bombs and brown people.

[LibertyEagle]

Hoping that Rand will clear out the fog in his "big" foreign policy speech coming up in October.

There's not a bit of fog in what he said. Most people don't realize that ISIS are the same people that McCain, et al took pictures with and who Obama has been sending guns and aid in Syria. Rand is telling them that here.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I wouldn't be opposed to strikes on ISIS if President Rand Paul went to Congress first and got a declaration of war against ISIS...

Why would it matter if Congress approved? It doesn't make the strikes justified in the first place.

[Brett85]

Not as bad as I feared. I thought he might come out fully in support of the air strikes.

[phill4paul]

Not as bad as I feared. I thought he might come out fully in support of the air strikes.

It's a good thing he slid by on that one. Otherwise, I might not be able to support him.

[Christian Liberty]

Not as bad as I feared. I thought he might come out fully in support of the air strikes.

Rand did decently OK. Not great, but decent. My dad's response was worse...

[Brett85]

Yeah, I didn't really expect him to give a Ron Paul type answer. So his answer was fairly decent.

[jjdoyle]

Can he just say "Nuke the middle east."? Come on. Play the game, or quit!
There are not enough of "us", to win. GO ALL THE WAY!

"I think we should not only destroy ISIS, but as President I would have our ships lined up to evacuate the country, then make it the middle east nuclear waste dump."
"Our troops and personnel that went into Iraq to make a democracy tried their best, but the government ended up being a demoCRAZY."

Followed up with, "If you're not with us, you're against us and our Constitution. My oath was to protect this country against foreign enemies, and ISIS is a threat that won't survive to see the end of the week."

"While President Obama is golfing, ignoring this threat, we are not safer. We are in more danger now, than yesterday. We need firm actions now, not later. Justice delayed, is justice denied."

[Christian Liberty]

Can he just say "Nuke the middle east."? Come on. Play the game, or quit!
There are not enough of "us", to win. GO ALL THE WAY!

"I think we should not only destroy ISIS, but as President I would have our ships lined up to evacuate the country, then make it the middle east nuclear waste dump."
"Our troops and personnel that went into Iraq to make a democracy tried their best, but the government ended up being a demoCRAZY."

Followed up with, "If you're not with us, you're against us and our Constitution. My oath was to protect this country against foreign enemies, and ISIS is a threat that won't survive to see the end of the week."

"While President Obama is golfing, ignoring this threat, we are not safer. We are in more danger now, than yesterday. We need firm actions now, not later. Justice delayed, is justice denied."
I don't know if I would think whoever said that was sarcastic.

[fr33]

Maybe.... just maybe.... Rand could have brought up that according to the constitution a declaration of war authorized by congress is required to bomb another country.

[twomp]

Not as bad as I feared. I thought he might come out fully in support of the air strikes.

Is it bad that you were concerned he might be for the air strikes? It's a shame he didn't come out against the air strikes out of his fear of looking "weak on Iraq", he could at least complain about congressional authorization. He should speak out against it now so when Iraq turns to shit (which it will), he can say he was against it from the beginning.

[jjdoyle]

Maybe.... just maybe.... Rand could have brought up that according to the constitution a declaration of war authorized by congress is required to bomb another country.

Nope. This isn't about educating the populace. They are stupid. Speak to them in terms they know, and understand. FEAR.
"If we don't act now, with each passing day ISIS grows stronger, and could likely use the WMDs they stole before the Iraq war, to use as an attack on us."
"We must answer evil, and threats to our country, where they are, not where we want them to be. ISIS today, could be Al-CIAduh Al-Qaeda tomorrow. We must stop them, at all costs."

[Peace&Freedom]

Is it bad that you were concerned he might be for the air strikes? It's a shame he didn't come out against the air strikes out of his fear of looking "weak on Iraq", he could at least complain about congressional authorization. He should speak out against it now so when Iraq turns to shit (which it will), he can say he was against it from the beginning.

Rand should, from our point of view. But from the perspective of seeking victory, he's doing only that which is sufficient to connote a different position than the "let's invade and bomb, and always presume to have authority to do so" crowd, in order to win the primary and election. Rand is betting that the most pro-peace sounding, "time for change" candidate will prevail anyway, so he doesn't have to outright say fully pro-peace things. Kind of like how Obama didn't have to say "I'm black" in order to get those votes, or the "change" vote.

[fr33]

Nope. This isn't about educating the populace. They are stupid. Speak to them in terms they know, and understand. FEAR.
"If we don't act now, with each passing day ISIS grows stronger, and could likely use the WMDs they stole before the Iraq war, to use as an attack on us."
"We must answer evil, and threats to our country, where they are, not where we want them to be. ISIS today, could be Al-CIAduh Al-Qaeda tomorrow. We must stop them, at all costs."
I mean, you are exaggerating since that's not even close to what he said. What I mentioned about the constitution and declarations of war is bullshit too because ISIS in Iraq poses no threat to the US but if Rand is "playing the game" he could at least play the game that is allegedly the law of the land.

[jjdoyle]

I mean, you are exaggerating since that's not even close to what he said. What I mentioned about the constitution and declarations of war is bullshit too because ISIS in Iraq poses no threat to the US but if Rand is "playing the game" he could at least play the game that is allegedly the law of the land.

Exactly, my quotes are what should be being said, because it's what they (the GOP base) understand. I mean, this middle ground game? Nope. Not gonna work.
ISIS in Iraq is a direct threat to the U.S., just like Saddam's regime before it. Why? ISIS stole the WMDs before the U.S. invaded Iraq, to make the U.S. look stupid. ISIS has been preparing to attack the U.S., for more than a decade now. Sitting on WMDs, we were looking for.
WE MUST go after them. Leave no stone unturned. Leave no mud hut standing. The stolen WMDs they have, cannot remain in their hands.

If "we broke it", "we bought it". It is our responsibility to this generation, and every future American generation to fix, no matter the cost.

The Constitution and this issue of a declaration of war does not apply in this situation, as this is not a country, but a group that is a direct threat to our country. They could get a crop-duster, fly it across the Atlantic Ocean, and destroy our entire nation with a single plane full of their WMDs. This is a threat, we CANNOT ignore.

[devil21]

Sounds like some nicely packaged truth.

[acptulsa]

They could get a crop-duster, fly it across the Atlantic Ocean, and destroy our entire nation with a single plane full of their WMDs. This is a threat, we CANNOT ignore.

Tell you what. You try to fly a crop duster across the Atlantic Ocean.

When you're done, let me know and I'll worry about it then. If you don't let me know, I'll assume you ran out of fuel before you were halfway across, and you're very, very wet.

[jjdoyle]

Tell you what. You try to fly a crop duster across the Atlantic Ocean.

When you're done, let me know and I'll worry about it then. If you don't let me know, I'll assume you ran out of fuel before you were halfway across, and you're very, very wet.

ISIS probably possesses futuristic crop dusters. Iran has been 6 months away from a nuclear bomb, for like 12 years now. Their technology is just incredible. And, they're coming from the Middle East, so we can assume they'll simply run a gasline that will trail the plane the entire time over the ocean, so fuel is not a problem.

[liberty jungle]

Lol Rand has become total joke flip flopping all over the place . He is more desperate to be president for personal glory than Mitt Romney. He has no principle whatsoever . He's just running for president to satisfy his ego of being called the most powerful man in the world. Both democrats and republican voters are tired of war, why don't he side with the people rather than this establishment warmongers.

[CaptUSA]

They played the evangelical trump card. "ISIS is killing Christians"

To come out firmly against stopping that would be political suicide. The best we could hope for is a statement to follow the Constitution, and to question why we are helping these people in one arena and fighting them in another. It seems to me, he is trying to turn the conversation away from the things we should do to hurt ISIS and put the focus on the things we could do to stop helping ISIS.

Yeah, it sounds a little mushy, but he's steering an unfavorable political situation back into his wheel house.

[Brett85]

Is it bad that you were concerned he might be for the air strikes?

Yeah, that's a good point.

[TomtheTinker]

"As long as I sit at Henry Clay’s desk, I will remember his lifelong desire to forge agreement, but I will also keep close to my heart the principled stand of his cousin, Cassius Clay, who refused to forsake the life of any human simply to find agreement." Rand Paul


I'm going to be honest if he keeps kissing the interventionist asses by being afraid to stand his ground I may have to find another candidate.

[tsai3904]

Here's a little bit more during the same event:


...

Discussing war, Paul questioned whether or not it was a wise decision for our nation to go to war so easily. “We go to war as a last resort,” said Paul, stating his opinion on how the executive branch handles and declares war so quickly. He also discussed while at war with Libya, the United States may have eliminated threat Muammar Gaddafi, but now there are multiple leaders joining together which has created more problems in Libya. Although Gaddafi is no longer a threat to the United States, what replaced him are 24 frenzied groups in Libya that are threats the United States still has to worry about.

...

http://www.campbellsville.tv/2014/08/senator-paul-speaks-at-chamber-meeting/

Remember, it is entirely possible the two articles may not have quoted everything he said on the issue.

[liberty jungle]

They played the evangelical trump card. "ISIS is killing Christians"

To come out firmly against stopping that would be political suicide. . are you for real ? what a nonsense Lol. is your real name Jennifer Rubin ? Some people will say anything to justify their war mongering postion. Like syria the vast majority of American people doesn't want to get involved in interventionist war. Evangelical Christians are a tiny fragment off GOP and only tiny minority of them will say let's have a global war to protect Christians around the world.

[Warlord]

are you for real ? what a nonsense Lol. is your real name Jennifer Rubin ? Some people will say anything to justify their war mongering postion. Like syria the vast majority of American people doesn't want to get involved in interventionist war. Evangelical Christians are a tiny fragment off GOP and only tiny minority of them will say let's have a global war to protect Christians around the world.

The irony is most of them supported the Iraq war to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

[CaptUSA]

are you for real ? what a nonsense Lol. is your real name Jennifer Rubin ? Some people will say anything to justify their war mongering postion. Like syria the vast majority of American people doesn't want to get involved in interventionist war. Evangelical Christians are a tiny fragment off GOP and only tiny minority of them will say let's have a global war to protect Christians around the world.

Wait? What?

You really don't think that dog whistle works for the GOP? Did you actually read any of the posts on this subject? Even Ron Paul's FB page was getting blown up by people who think we need to intervene in this case because they are killing Christians!

[presence]

Video might show up here:

http://www.campbellsville.tv/tag/video/

There are SLIDESHOW Photos here:

http://www.campbellsville.tv/2014/08/chamber-of-commerce-luncheon-august-2014-photos/?wppa-occur=1&wppa-album=69&wppa-photo=10145

Here's another link to the articles:

http://www.wbko.com/home/headlines/Sen-Rand-Paul-Responds-to-Flip-Flopping-Criticism-270818741.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-has-mixed-feelings-on-iraq-airstrikes-2014-8
http://www.campbellsville.tv/2014/08/senator-paul-speaks-at-chamber-meeting/

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/514a082b6bb3f75a69000007-800-/rand%20paul.jpg

http://www.campbellsville.tv/wp-content/uploads/wppa/10145.jpg?ver=1

[jllundqu]

Maybe.... just maybe.... Rand could have brought up that according to the constitution a declaration of war authorized by congress is required to bomb another country.

What a crazy idea? WHere have I heard that before??? :toady:

If Rand Paul can't get THIS right, meaning exactly that "It must pass Constitutional Muster" before ordering the government to kill people who we are helping in Syria and fighting in Iraq.... I'm going to lose my mind!

Rand Paul should have a simple, principled answer about escalating/bombing ISIS: Absent a Declaration of War or, as Ron Paul argued, Letters of Marque and Reprisal, the President HAS NO GOD DAMNED CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE IN A FOREIGN NATION'S CIVIL STRIFE!

[jllundqu]

It's one thing to be wishy washy on things like domestic policy, be in 'campaign mode' and 'play the game' to pander to the electorate, but when it comes to this Government killing people, arming people, bombing people, Rand Paul had better be crystal clear on constitutional authority...

His stance on issues like this will be a deal breaker for me if he is not every bit as anti-war and principled as his father.

[jct74]

What a crazy idea? WHere have I heard that before??? :toady:

If Rand Paul can't get THIS right, meaning exactly that "It must pass Constitutional Muster" before ordering the government to kill people who we are helping in Syria and fighting in Iraq.... I'm going to lose my mind!

Rand Paul should have a simple, principled answer about escalating/bombing ISIS: Absent a Declaration of War or, as Ron Paul argued, Letters of Marque and Reprisal, the President HAS NO GOD DAMNED CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE IN A FOREIGN NATION'S CIVIL STRIFE!


Rand has already introduced a resolution to repeal the authorization for use of military force in Iraq, so he definitely wants congress to have control over that. My guess is he does not think the original AUMF applies but won't push extremely hard on that point here because it is still kind of a murky area whether the original AUMF applies, it is not as clear cut it was with bombing Libya which was definitely unconstitutional and which Rand pushed very hard against.




It's one thing to be wishy washy on things like domestic policy, be in 'campaign mode' and 'play the game' to pander to the electorate, but when it comes to this Government killing people, arming people, bombing people, Rand Paul had better be crystal clear on constitutional authority...

His stance on issues like this will be a deal breaker for me if he is not every bit as anti-war and principled as his father.

sorry to burst your bubble, but Rand is not the 100% non-interventionist that Ron is. that's been pretty clear for a while.

[tsai3904]

Rand's been clear on needing Congressional authorization. This is from his editorial less two months ago:


No matter what the administration is planning, I also insist that it go through Congress. President Obama declared this war over and even asked Congress to rescind its 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, something I agreed with. If he or others want a new war or military action, they need a new approval, from Congress, or I will oppose them.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/sen-rand-paul-america-shouldnt-choose-sides-in-iraqs-civil-war-1403219558

[jct74]

Lol Rand has become total joke flip flopping all over the place . He is more desperate to be president for personal glory than Mitt Romney. He has no principle whatsoever . He's just running for president to satisfy his ego of being called the most powerful man in the world. Both democrats and republican voters are tired of war, why don't he side with the people rather than this establishment warmongers.

Hi, welcome to the forums liberty jungle. Since you are new here you might not be familiar with the guidelines, but an important rule is that if you do not support Rand then do not post in his forum. Treat Rand Paul Forum as its own separate website dedicated to supporting Rand... so just as a website dedicated to supporting Rand Paul would not tolerate anti-Rand people posting there the same applies to the Rand Paul Forum. The owner of this website is working on splitting the Rand Paul Forum into its own separate website randpaulforums.com by the way, but until then this rule still applies.


Members who dissent from the underlying principles or goals of any site supported candidate or politician must:
• Not use the candidates or politicians forum.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989

[Brett85]

His stance on issues like this will be a deal breaker for me if he is not every bit as anti-war and principled as his father.

Well, you're not going to be able to support him then, because he certainly won't be as anti war as his father.

[jjdoyle]

Well, you're not going to be able to support him then, because he certainly won't be as anti war as his father.

Good! I hope he isn't anti-war at all. Because this is simply about winning the GOP nomination, and losing the general election like McCain and Romney before him. There is simply not enough of "us" to win it. He needs the pro-war, pro-government, big government, anti-constitutional, pro-Constitution, conservatives, to win the nomination. As long as we "grow the party", or whatever the reasoning is. He needs to come out now and say we should send ISIS a clear message, by dropping a weapon more powerful than any nuclear bomb into their presence, Hillary Clinton.

Once she arrives, they will leave. And there will be peace. PROBLEM solved. No need for bombs. Or, arming certain groups. No need for Congress voting. Former President Clinton probably already has her bags packed, and would probably be very supportive of this as well. Reaching ACROSS the aisle, and winning support.

[Brett85]

Good! I hope he isn't anti-war at all. Because this is simply about winning the GOP nomination, and losing the general election like McCain and Romney before him. There is simply not enough of "us" to win it. He needs the pro-war, pro-government, big government, anti-constitutional, pro-Constitution, conservatives, to win the nomination. As long as we "grow the party", or whatever the reasoning is. He needs to come out now and say we should send ISIS a clear message, by dropping a weapon more powerful than any nuclear bomb into their presence, Hillary Clinton.

Once she arrives, they will leave. And there will be peace. PROBLEM solved. No need for bombs. Or, arming certain groups. No need for Congress voting. Former President Clinton probably already has her bags packed, and would probably be very supportive of this as well. Reaching ACROSS the aisle, and winning support.

I basically agree with those who are saying that Rand is being way too timid on these issues. I was just telling jllundqu that Rand has made it clear for quite some time that he's not as non interventionist as Ron on foreign policy issues. So he shouldn't expect Rand to be just as anti war as Ron.

[klamath]

I like what I am seeing from Rand. If he manages to get elected he will be one huge step in the right direction that will save lives I will take that to Ron Paul who stopped zero wars and passed not one piece of legislation in 30 years. I want results not eloquent flowery speeches on how the world should be.

[Brett85]

I sure hope the reporting in this article is incorrect.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/26262943/us-sen-rand-paul-says-he-would-support-presidents-decision-to-order-airstrikes-in-iraq?fb_action_ids=10152395149488800&fb_action_types=og.comments&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B885293334833615%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.comments%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D


President Obama is going above Congress to order airstrikes and aid to opponents of the terror group ISIS in Iraq.
Still, U.S. Senator Rand Paul says if lawmakers were given a chance to vote, he would have sided with the President.

"One of the great ironies is we've been actually funding and giving arms to people who are allied with this group and allowed this group to grow," Paul said.

As the airstrikes continue, the Pentagon admits they may do little to slow down the terror group.

"I in no way want to suggest that we have effectively contained or that we are somehow breaking the momentum of the threat posed by ISIS," said Lt. Gen. William C. Mayville Jr., Dir. of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But that's just one of two conflicts in Iraq. The country's new president has named his choice for prime minister, but former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki isn't going away quietly; he accuses the Iraqi president of violating the country's constitution.

President Obama says the only way for Iraq to solve its problems is with the formation of a new government.

[tsai3904]

I sure hope the reporting in this article is incorrect.

If they're going to report that, they really should have a quote from Rand backing that up.

[tsai3904]

Here's Rand in his own words today:


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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oWYtJjabdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oWYtJjabdw

Source:
http://mycn2.com/politics/paul-criticized-president-s-executive-order-approach-to-iraq-and-other-big-issues

[Brett85]

If they're going to report that, they really should have a quote from Rand backing that up.

Yeah, that's what Rocco said in the comment section.

[Brett85]

It seems to me like Rand is just in favor of cheap intervention. He's not opposed to foreign military interventions as long as they don't involve a lot of ground troops and cost a large amount of money.

[tsai3904]

It seems to me like Rand is just in favor of cheap intervention. He's not opposed to foreign military interventions as long as they don't involve a lot of ground troops and cost a large amount of money.

Given his WSJ editorial, his comments about attacking both sides of a war, and his comments today, to me, he seems extremely reluctant to get involved overseas.

[Brett85]

Given his WSJ editorial, his comments about attacking both sides of a war, and his comments today, to me, he seems extremely reluctant to get involved overseas.

In the second video he made it sound like he was at least in favor of limited military strikes in Iraq. I know that some people who post here are even in favor of that, but that position is significantly different from Ron Paul's foreign policy positions.

[tsai3904]

In the second video he made it sound like he was at least in favor of limited military strikes in Iraq. I know that some people who post here are even in favor of that, but that position is significantly different from Ron Paul's foreign policy positions.

Because he says its "not out of the question"? To me, that doesn't sound like he's in favor of anything. It's similar to him saying all options are on the table with Iran. You can't take that statement and say he's in favor of nuking Iran.

[Foreigner]

Good on Rand to be in favor of this.

Having invaded and fucked up Iraq, the US has a moral responsibility to help everything from collapsing. Limited strikes against ISIL, weapons to the government and pressure on the Kurds not to declare independence is the correct policy in my mind. ISIL is the worst genocidal scum imaginable.


This isn't like the war in Libya and the proposed one in Syria where one illegally bombed and attacked the government forces. This is Iraq asking for help. And the reason they can't help themselves is that the Iraqi air force was destroyed by the US.

Of course, non-interventionism works! None of this would have happened if one didn't get involved in the first place. But this is a special circumstance that requires action. (but no ground troops)

[Natural Citizen]

Good on Rand to be in favor of this.

...the US has a moral responsibility to help everything from collapsing.



I disagree.

As do some others...




Former congressman Ron Paul told RT on Tuesday that the United States should look to the history books for advice on how to handle the escalating crisis in Iraq and pull the American military out of the country immediately.

Only days after US President Barack Obama authorized the Pentagon to begin airstrikes against militants from the Islamic State, formerly ISIS, in the midst of a violent campaign being waged by that group across Iraq, the longtime lawmaker for the state of Texas told RT’s Ameera David that America should abandon its latest efforts in the Middle East lest it wants to repeat the lessons of the last Iraq War.

“I think the sooner we get out of there the better,”Paul told David. “We don’t have a moral responsibility; we don’t have a constitutional responsibility. It has nothing to do with our national security. It in jeopardizes our national security and is bankrupting our country.”

What’s more, Paul added, is that the US government’s ongoing meddling in the Iraqi affair and other incidents is falling exactly in line with Al-Qaeda.



Emphasis mine.

Continued - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?457734-(Video)-Ron-Paul-on-Iraq-‘The-sooner-we-get-out-of-there-the-better’&p=5614717&viewfull=1#post5614717

[Crashland]

I agree with Rand's latest statements but boy is Fox News laying it on thick with these latest developments. Omg, the Christians! It's all because Obama withdrew! Not even Robin Williams is able to stop the neocon nonsense. Rand's gonna find himself in some nasty shark-infested waters if things keep going south in the region.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

But this is a special circumstance that requires action. (but no ground troops)

Then I suggest you watch the documentary Hearts and Minds in order to comprehend the pain and suffering that aerial bombing creates, both for those on the ground and eventually those who push the button.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d2ml82lc7s

[Brett85]

Of course, non-interventionism works! None of this would have happened if one didn't get involved in the first place. But this is a special circumstance that requires action. (but no ground troops)

Non interventionism works, so more intervention is going to solve the problem created by too much intervention. :rolleyes:

[Crashland]

Non interventionism works, so more intervention is going to solve the problem created by too much intervention. :rolleyes:

I would say interventionism can often lead to the same outcomes that non-interventionism leads to, just with a massive price tag attached.

[Brett85]

It just seems like Rand is going to have a really hard time winning a general election even if he can somehow win the GOP primary, because Rand isn't going to be able to appeal to independents and Democrats on foreign policy issues like Ron was able to. Rand's foreign policy really won't be much different than Hillary's, so there won't be a big contrast. Pandering to the neocons on foreign policy is just going to make it a lot harder to win over the independents and Democrats who supported Ron.

[Foreigner]

Human life also has a value of it's own. Bombing forward marching salafi-extremists (ISIL) who are pushing forward to kill and rape 100-150 thousand people of the already threatened yazidi minority is a good thing.

Why should the US do it?
- It has degraded Iraq's capacity to deal with it themselves
- They have created a lot of the tensions that lead to the current conflict
- They are the only country in the region with the capacity to inflict any kind of damage on them (besides Turkey to some extent)
- The bombing would be welcomed by the government, and a large majority of the Iraqi population.

There is actually a widespread perception in the middle east that ISIL was created by the Saudis and Americans to create more chaos in the region, and to weaken Iran and it's shia allies. (Syria and Iraq) While I don't think that's true, taking a firm stand against ISIL will give the US a better reputation in the region.

However, in the long run, they should disengage from the bombing, and sell airplanes and weapons to the Iraqi's to deal with it themselves.

[KingNothing]

" I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to helping with arms or maybe even bombing"
You are on thin ice man.....thin ice....

Because he's OK with killing savage thugs who would brutalize any human who opposes their religion, if he has congressional approval to do so?

Uhh... ok.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Because he's OK with killing savage thugs who would brutalize any human who opposes their religion, if he has congressional approval to do so?

Uhh... ok.

Hey George W. Bush, is that you with your poor moral justification of bombing an already ravaged country?

If this was McCain or Graham making the same comments, you'd be up in arms.

[klamath]

It just seems like Rand is going to have a really hard time winning a general election even if he can somehow win the GOP primary, because Rand isn't going to be able to appeal to independents and Democrats on foreign policy issues like Ron was able to. Rand's foreign policy really won't be much different than Hillary's, so there won't be a big contrast. Pandering to the neocons on foreign policy is just going to make it a lot harder to win over the independents and Democrats who supported Ron.
Oh you mean the .005 percent of democrats and independents Ron won.... Ron was SUCH a winner....electorally he blew everyone out of the water.:rolleyes:

[Brett85]

Oh you mean the .005 percent of democrats and independents Ron won.... Ron was SUCH a winner....electorally he blew everyone out of the water.:rolleyes:

I don't really have a clue what you're talking about. The vast majority of independents and Democrats never had a chance to vote for Ron since Ron didn't win the GOP nomination.

[Spikender]

However, in the long run, they should disengage from the bombing, and sell airplanes and weapons to the Iraqi's to deal with it themselves.

Better yet, stop robbing my neighbor and I to build these war machines period and let me keep my own money, buy my own weapons, and we can defend America ourselves as citizens instead of letting the Government steal money from us and then build weapons of war in our name to sell to dictators at discount price to oppress and kill their own people.

[klamath]

I don't really have a clue what you're talking about. The vast majority of independents and Democrats never had a chance to vote for Ron since Ron didn't win the GOP nomination.Right, so how the hell do you know that they supported him? They certainly didn't in the primaries. Had RP won the nomination in a dream world he would more than likely gone down in the worst defeat in a national election ever.
Losing in his own district and county by 2 and 3 to one margins showed such electoral prowess.:rolleyes:

[jjdoyle]

Right, so how the hell do you know that they supported him? They certainly didn't in the primaries. Had RP won the nomination in a dream world he would more than likely gone down in the worst defeat in a national election ever.
Losing in his own district and county by 2 and 3 to one margins showed such electoral prowess.:rolleyes:

You're right. And it's why Rand should have no one from Ron Paul 2012 on his presidential campaign IMO. With the results that the campaign got running the best, most constitutional, conservative candidate, those people shouldn't be involved with a campaign of a candidate actually trying to win.

But, Traditional Conservative might be talking about the 2012 general election polling, where RP did better than President Obama, or better than the other Republican candidates against President Obama:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/03/ron-paul-does-best-against-obama-in-new.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/poll-ron-paul-would-fare-best-against-obama-among-non-white-voters/

[cajuncocoa]

It just seems like Rand is going to have a really hard time winning a general election even if he can somehow win the GOP primary, because Rand isn't going to be able to appeal to independents and Democrats on foreign policy issues like Ron was able to. Rand's foreign policy really won't be much different than Hillary's, so there won't be a big contrast. Pandering to the neocons on foreign policy is just going to make it a lot harder to win over the independents and Democrats who supported Ron.
All he has to do is say he'll lower taxes, oppose gay-marriage, and bash Obama at every campaign event. Boobus will be mesmerized.

[klamath]

You're right. And it's why Rand should have no one from Ron Paul 2012 on his presidential campaign IMO. With the results that the campaign got running the best, most constitutional, conservative candidate, those people shouldn't be involved with a campaign of a candidate actually trying to win.

But, Traditional Conservative might be talking about the 2012 general election polling, where RP did better than President Obama, or better than the other Republican candidates against President Obama:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/03/ron-paul-does-best-against-obama-in-new.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/poll-ron-paul-would-fare-best-against-obama-among-non-white-voters/One poll from a rather unreliable company. RP almost always polled below Romney in general election matchups against Obama. RP led in Iowa for a week and the media attention as the front runner got him defeated. He would have lost huge in the general once the opposition turned their eyes on him as a threat.

[jjdoyle]

One poll from a rather unreliable company. RP almost always polled below Romney in general election matchups against Obama. RP led in Iowa for a week and the media attention as the front runner got him defeated. He would have lost huge in the general once the opposition turned their eyes on him as a threat.

THREE separate polls. Public Policy Polling, Rasmussen, and CNN.
Try clicking more than one link the next time, before commenting "One poll from a rather unreliable company."

[Brett85]

Losing in his own district and county by 2 and 3 to one margins showed such electoral prowess.:rolleyes:

He always won his house district with around 80% of the vote or so whenever he ran for reelection.

[Christian Liberty]

It seems to me like Rand is just in favor of cheap intervention. He's not opposed to foreign military interventions as long as they don't involve a lot of ground troops and cost a large amount of money.

Remember Newt saying he was a "cheap hawk?":p

[klamath]

THREE separate polls. Public Policy Polling, Rasmussen, and CNN.
Try clicking more than one link the next time, before commenting "One poll from a rather unreliable company."Try posting the whole history of RP's polling against Obama and the actual election results before commenting about how wonderful RP did electorally.

[klamath]

He always won his house district with around 80% of the vote or so whenever he ran for reelection.Because he brought home the bacon for his district. If the people really agreed with him on his overall policy they would have voted for him as president even to show respect to the hometown congressmen.

[jjdoyle]

Try posting the whole history of RP's polling against Obama and the actual election results before commenting about how wonderful RP did electorally.

Traditional Conservative said:
"It just seems like Rand is going to have a really hard time winning a general election even if he can somehow win the GOP primary, because Rand isn't going to be able to appeal to independents and Democrats on foreign policy issues like Ron was able to. Rand's foreign policy really won't be much different than Hillary's, so there won't be a big contrast. Pandering to the neocons on foreign policy is just going to make it a lot harder to win over the independents and Democrats who supported Ron."

To which you said:
"Oh you mean the .005 percent of democrats and independents Ron won.... Ron was SUCH a winner....electorally he blew everyone out of the water.:rolleyes:"

Then Traditional Conservative said:
"I don't really have a clue what you're talking about. The vast majority of independents and Democrats never had a chance to vote for Ron since Ron didn't win the GOP nomination."

You then said of the general election:
"Had RP won the nomination in a dream world he would more than likely gone down in the worst defeat in a national election ever."

To which, I provided actual polls from the primaries, showing what the general election might have looked like with RP polling better than the other Republicans in certain situations. Three separate polls, showing similar things, at different points in time. Which, I preceded the polls with the statement, "But, Traditional Conservative might be talking about the 2012 general election polling, where RP did better than President Obama, or better than the other Republican candidates against President Obama:"

So, this goes back to Traditional Conservative and the general election, and what they were basing their comment off of. It could have been those polls I linked, or to something else. You didn't provide anything to counter what they said though in regards to the general election.

[klamath]

Traditional Conservative said:
"It just seems like Rand is going to have a really hard time winning a general election even if he can somehow win the GOP primary, because Rand isn't going to be able to appeal to independents and Democrats on foreign policy issues like Ron was able to. Rand's foreign policy really won't be much different than Hillary's, so there won't be a big contrast. Pandering to the neocons on foreign policy is just going to make it a lot harder to win over the independents and Democrats who supported Ron."

To which you said:
"Oh you mean the .005 percent of democrats and independents Ron won.... Ron was SUCH a winner....electorally he blew everyone out of the water.:rolleyes:"

Then Traditional Conservative said:
"I don't really have a clue what you're talking about. The vast majority of independents and Democrats never had a chance to vote for Ron since Ron didn't win the GOP nomination."

You then said of the general election:
"Had RP won the nomination in a dream world he would more than likely gone down in the worst defeat in a national election ever."

To which, I provided actual polls from the primaries, showing what the general election might have looked like with RP polling better than the other Republicans in certain situations. Three separate polls, showing similar things, at different points in time. Which, I preceded the polls with the statement, "But, Traditional Conservative might be talking about the 2012 general election polling, where RP did better than President Obama, or better than the other Republican candidates against President Obama:"

So, this goes back to Traditional Conservative and the general election, and what they were basing their comment off of. It could have been those polls I linked, or to something else. You didn't provide anything to counter what they said though in regards to the general election.Even thought the overwhelming majority of general election polls showed RP doing less well than Romney against Obama. You picked out the outier polls.I could have played your game and posted 15 or 20 polls showing RP doing less well than Romney against Obama. Read what the RCP average shows.
On top of that general election polling during the primaries is a very poor indicator. Reagan was losing to Carter in the general election primary polling. I threw in the .005% as a ridiculous counter point to TC's ridiculous statement that Rand is no different than Hillary. There hasn't been a war actual or dreamed of that Hillary is against.

[jjdoyle]

Even thought the overwhelming majority of general election polls showed RP doing less well than Romney against Obama. You picked out the outier polls.I could have played your game and posted 15 or 20 polls showing RP doing less well than Romney against Obama. Read what the RCP average shows.
On top of that general election polling during the primaries is a very poor indicator. Reagan was losing to Carter in the general election primary polling. I threw in the .005% as a ridiculous counter point to TC's ridiculous statement that Rand is no different than Hillary. There hasn't been a war actual or dreamed of that Hillary is against.

I simply googled the search terms, "Ron Paul better than Obama.", or something like, "Ron Paul polls better than President Obama.", because that's what Traditional Conservative was talking about. It's what got some attention during the primaries, even being mentioned during one of the debates by RP and/or a debate moderator. Sure, Ron Paul's AVERAGE against President Obama was terrible over the entire primary season, but after not winning a single early state, I would think that would be expected.

And no, RC didn't say Rand was "no different than Hillary", he said, "much different". And on that point, other than the Iraq War, what will Rand be able to point to show he is different than Hillary on foreign policy for supporting wars? Is there another vote to separate them? Rand has said he would have supported the Afghanistan authorization, but not the Iraq War authorization (or, that he thinks one was more justified than the other). There hasn't been much since then though, to separate them with votes, has there?

It worked for President Bush in the 2000 election against Gore, when they both essentially ran on nearly the same foreign policy when you watch them in the debates. So, it'll be interesting to see how THIS issue works out in the general election, assuming Rand runs and wins the GOP nomination.

[Vanguard101]

Because he's OK with killing savage thugs who would brutalize any human who opposes their religion, if he has congressional approval to do so?

Uhh... ok.
So more war to kill people and innocent civilians? And then we go back there 10 years later/ Oh Ok.

[jtstellar]

In the second video he made it sound like he was at least in favor of limited military strikes in Iraq. I know that some people who post here are even in favor of that, but that position is significantly different from Ron Paul's foreign policy positions.

maybe you're just seeing conspiracies in every corner? how many things you suspected of your supposedly trusted allies turn out to be ever true? maybe it's time you adjust your suspicion threshold a little, maybe even just not to burn yourself out or something.

[JJ2]

Because he says its "not out of the question"? To me, that doesn't sound like he's in favor of anything. It's similar to him saying all options are on the table with Iran. You can't take that statement and say he's in favor of nuking Iran.

I agree. I don't think he's necessarily changed his stance at all. He keeps saying "maybe" to airstrikes, not "definitely." I think he is just trying to play it smart, by saying "maybe" so the conservatives won't jump all over him.