PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul op-ed: ‘I Am Not an Isolationist’




Pages : [1] 2

Dianne
09-04-2014, 10:18 AM
http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am-not-an-isolationist/

If I had been in President Obama's shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS



Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be. I’ve said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist. I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.

I still see war as the last resort. But I agree with Reagan’s idea that no country should mistake U.S. reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.

As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens or our ambassadors. “Peace through Strength” only works if you have and show strength.

Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate. Today, there are more terrorists groups than there were before 9/11, most notably ISIS. After all the sacrifice in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we find ourselves in a more dangerous world?

And why, after six years, does President Obama lack a strategy to deal with threats like ISIS?

This administration’s dereliction of duty has both sins of action and inaction, which is what happens when you are flailing around wildly, without careful strategic thinking.

And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened.

If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.

This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.

Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skilful diplomacy to protect our national interests.

The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.

There’s no point in taking military action just for the sake of it, something Washington leaders can’t seem to understand. America has an interest in protecting more than 5,000 personnel serving at the largest American embassy in the world in northern Iraq. I am also persuaded by the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities.

The long-term challenge is debilitating and ultimately eradicating a strong and growing ISIS, whose growth poses a significant terrorist threat to U.S. allies and enemies in the region, Europe, and our homeland.

The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.

We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS.

Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles.

We must also secure our own borders and immigration policy from ISIS infiltration. Our border is porous, and the administration, rather than acting to protect it, instead ponders unconstitutional executive action, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.

Our immigration system, especially the administration of student visas, requires a full-scale examination. Recently, it was estimated that as many as 6,000 possibly dangerous foreign students are unaccounted for. This is inexcusable over a decade after we were attacked on 9/11 by hijackers including one Saudi student who overstayed his student visa.

We should revoke passports from any Americans or dual citizens who are fighting with ISIS.

Important to the long-term stability in the region is the reengagement diplomatically with allies in the region and in Europe to recognize the shared nature of the threat of Radical Islam and the growing influence of jihadists. That is what will make this a comprehensive strategy.

ISIS is a global threat; we should treat it accordingly and build a coalition of nations who are also threatened by the rise of the Islamic State. Important partners such as Turkey, a NATO ally, Israel, and Jordan face an immediate threat, and unchecked growth endangers Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries such as Qatar, and even Europe. Several potential partners—notably, the Turks, Qataris, and Saudis—have been reckless in their financial support of ISIS, which must cease immediately.

This is one set of principles. Any strategy, though, should be presented to the American people through Congress. If war is necessary, we should act as a nation. We should do so properly and constitutionally and with a real strategy and a plan for both victory and exit.

To develop a realistic strategy, we need to understand why the threat of ISIS exists. Jihadist Islam is festering in the region. But in order for it to grow, prosper, and conquer, it needs chaos.

Three years after President Obama waged war in Libya without Congressional approval, Libya is a sanctuary and safe haven for training and arms for terrorists from Northern Africa to Syria. Our deserted Embassy in Tripoli is controlled by militants. Jihadists today swim in our embassy pool.

Syria, likewise, has become a jihadist wonderland. In Syria, Obama’s plan just one year ago—and apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s desire—was to aid rebels against Assad, despite the fact that many of these groups are al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated. Until we acknowledge that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria allowed ISIS a safe haven, no amount of military might will extricate us from a flawed foreign policy.

Unfortunately, Obama’s decisions—from disengaging diplomatically in Iraq and the region and fomenting chaos in Libya and Syria—leaves few good options. A more realistic and effective foreign policy would protect the vital interests of the nation without the unrealistic notion of nation-building.

Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky.

Warlord
09-04-2014, 10:51 AM
Shouldn't this be in the Rand Paul sub forum?

helmuth_hubener
09-04-2014, 11:11 AM
I disagree with what Rand is saying here. I think that most here who are Rand supporters also hope and believe that Rand also disagrees with what Rand is saying here.

phill4paul
09-04-2014, 11:15 AM
He's right. He's not an isolationist. Not much of a non-interventionist either.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 11:24 AM
Jennifer Rubin is still saying that Rand is a radical isolationist who shares his father's foreign policy views, despite his stance on this. These people are just ridiculous. If you don't support every war or every intervention, you're a radical isolationist pacifist. Rand is going to make these people look ridiculous to the general public when they continue to call him an "isolationist" in the GOP primary.

mit26chell
09-04-2014, 11:31 AM
What does Rand Paul not understand about only going to war if we are threatened or there is an imminent attack likely? Why is he starting to include in his justification for war 'protecting out national interests?' What exactly are our national interests? I have to assume he considers Israel to be one, even though we have no treaty with Israel. . .

economics102
09-04-2014, 11:32 AM
Ugh. I wish this editorial was just a bad dream. I really don't think I can get behind this.

Let me get this straight: we have to fight a war halfway around the world to defend an embassy that we absolutely don't need? How about we just close the fucking embassy?

Brett85
09-04-2014, 11:42 AM
What does Rand Paul not understand about only going to war if we are threatened or there is an imminent attack likely?

You can make the argument that there's an imminent attack likely in this situation. If this situation doesn't qualify as an imminent threat, I'm not sure what would.

Warlord
09-04-2014, 11:50 AM
By the way this is top rated on DRUDGE

Shane Harris
09-04-2014, 11:59 AM
Nope. This is intervention. That makes him an interventionist. You're either for non-intervention and DEFENSE, or you're for intervention and OFFENSE. This would clearly be OFFENSE.

economics102
09-04-2014, 12:02 PM
An imminent attack on a base we shouldn't have...

Shane Harris
09-04-2014, 12:08 PM
You can make the argument that there's an imminent attack likely in this situation. If this situation doesn't qualify as an imminent threat, I'm not sure what would.

And Saddam had WMDs remember. That was a really imminent threat. And North Korea threatens us all the time. And how about the USSR 50 years ago. Now if we could only do something about the actual imminent threat that our police pose to us on a daily basis, 1 mile away, instead of the boogeymen 1000s of miles away.

Vanguard101
09-04-2014, 12:24 PM
Nope. This is intervention. That makes him an interventionist. You're either for non-intervention and DEFENSE, or you're for intervention and OFFENSE. This would clearly be OFFENSE.

If this is the logic of the average libertarian, I'm sorta cautious to associate myself with you guys.

KingNothing
09-04-2014, 12:26 PM
An imminent attack on a base we shouldn't have...

And? The fact is, we do have it. You can't allow Americans to be killed just because previous administrations did dumb shit.

KingNothing
09-04-2014, 12:29 PM
And Saddam had WMDs remember. That was a really imminent threat. And North Korea threatens us all the time. And how about the USSR 50 years ago. Now if we could only do something about the actual imminent threat that our police pose to us on a daily basis, 1 mile away, instead of the boogeymen 1000s of miles away.

You realize that ISIS is lopping American heads off, right? Going to congress and presenting a case for war or marque against them, is entirely justified. In fact, I would NOT trust a president who did anything but that. Nutjob Muslims are actually a threat to Americans. They aren't an existential threat to America, but they are definitely a threat to individual Americans, and if we can kill them before they kill us, and we have proof that they are trying to harm us, we absolutely should kill them. Anything else is foolish.

MaxHen
09-04-2014, 12:42 PM
You realize that ISIS is lopping American heads off, right? Going to congress and presenting a case for war or marque against them, is entirely justified. In fact, I would NOT trust a president who did anything but that. Nutjob Muslims are actually a threat to Americans. They aren't an existential threat to America, but they are definitely a threat to individual Americans, and if we can kill them before they kill us, and we have proof that they are trying to harm us, we absolutely should kill them. Anything else is foolish.
So, we should wage war every time a war reporter who deliberately goes into a combat zone knowing the risks of doing so gets killed?

mosquitobite
09-04-2014, 12:54 PM
So, we should wage war every time a war reporter who deliberately goes into a combat zone knowing the risks of doing so gets killed?

This is my position as well.

Journalists go into these areas KNOWING the risks involved.

phill4paul
09-04-2014, 01:04 PM
So, we should wage war every time a war reporter who deliberately goes into a combat zone knowing the risks of doing so gets killed?

^^^This.

CaptUSA
09-04-2014, 01:05 PM
Oh man... As most of you know, I'm a pretty staunch supporter of what Rand has been trying to do. I get it.

But this one stings. My only hope is that this is his way of reassuring the establishment that he'd play ball when called upon.

The very fact that he refers to himself as Commander-in-Chief means that there is no question that he is running. But I hope that his record will be better than his rhetoric.

This one's hard to take. You could take those words to craft just about any justification for intervention you'd like.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 01:10 PM
Shouldn't this be in the Rand Paul sub forum?

No. Absolutely not. Rand can't be criticized in Rand's subforum.


I disagree with what Rand is saying here. I think that most here who are Rand supporters also hope and believe that Rand also disagrees with what Rand is saying here.

So true. Rand would call his dad "indecisive." Lol.


Jennifer Rubin is still saying that Rand is a radical isolationist who shares his father's foreign policy views, despite his stance on this. These people are just ridiculous. If you don't support every war or every intervention, you're a radical isolationist pacifist. Rand is going to make these people look ridiculous to the general public when they continue to call him an "isolationist" in the GOP primary.

I actually think that Rand qualifies as a hawk in the grand scheme of things, compared to any reasonable standard. The problem is that even Rand's hawkish views look "pacifist" compared to the true monsters in the senate.

Rand would look like a genocidal maniac by the standards of 200 years ago. This is the overton window in action.


You can make the argument that there's an imminent attack likely in this situation. If this situation doesn't qualify as an imminent threat, I'm not sure what would.

lol! You have an imagination, use it;)


If this is the logic of the average libertarian, I'm sorta cautious to associate myself with you guys.

Good. Don't. We don't WANT interventionists associating themselves with us. The quicker you figure that out, the better.

Oh man... As most of you know, I'm a pretty staunch supporter of what Rand has been trying to do. I get it.

But this one stings. My only hope is that this is his way of reassuring the establishment that he'd play ball when called upon.

The very fact that he refers to himself as Commander-in-Chief means that there is no question that he is running. But I hope that his record will be better than his rhetoric.

This one's hard to take. You could take those words to craft just about any justification for intervention you'd like.

This

Tywysog Cymru
09-04-2014, 01:14 PM
How does ISIS pose a threat to us? They can't even conquer Iraq and Syria.

phill4paul
09-04-2014, 01:14 PM
If this is the logic of the average libertarian, I'm sorta cautious to associate myself with you guys.

Then don't. You truly do not get what was proposed by Shane and are likely never to.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 01:25 PM
And Saddam had WMDs remember. That was a really imminent threat. And North Korea threatens us all the time. And how about the USSR 50 years ago. Now if we could only do something about the actual imminent threat that our police pose to us on a daily basis, 1 mile away, instead of the boogeymen 1000s of miles away.

Not even remotely close to the same situation. Those countries never threatened us, never killed our people, and weren't expanding across the world and committing mass genocide.

phill4paul
09-04-2014, 01:33 PM
Not even remotely close to the same situation. Those countries never threatened us, never killed our people, and weren't expanding across the world and committing mass genocide.

Killing our people? A couple of journalists in a war zone? Those countries never threatened us? Are you serious? Not worth the time googling the threats that have been made to the U.S. of A. from Saddam, North Korea and Russia. Waste your own time educating yourself. Expanding across the globe? Well, I haven't encountered them in the Carolinas yet so...yawn.

T.hill
09-04-2014, 01:42 PM
This is something I can't agree with Rand on.

presence
09-04-2014, 01:43 PM
Smedley Butler would not approve these shenanigans

economics102
09-04-2014, 01:44 PM
And? The fact is, we do have it. You can't allow Americans to be killed just because previous administrations did dumb shit.

I agree, IF there's a rationale for keeping the base. In this case, there's not. So we should close the base and not chase after people who are no longer a threat, rather than behaving like Charles Bronson.

cajuncocoa
09-04-2014, 01:48 PM
If this is the logic of the average libertarian, I'm sorta cautious to associate myself with you guys.
Speaking only for myself, the feeling is mutual.

JohnGalt23g
09-04-2014, 01:52 PM
Jennifer Rubin is still saying that Rand is a radical isolationist who shares his father's foreign policy views, despite his stance on this. These people are just ridiculous. If you don't support every war or every intervention, you're a radical isolationist pacifist. Rand is going to make these people look ridiculous to the general public when they continue to call him an "isolationist" in the GOP primary.

I'll paraphrase Chris Matthews, paraphrasing Pat Buchanan, quoting Richard Nixon: Buchanan, when you see a committee of people all getting together to stop 'X', put your money on 'X'...

twomp
09-04-2014, 02:09 PM
You realize that ISIS is lopping American heads off, right? Going to congress and presenting a case for war or marque against them, is entirely justified. In fact, I would NOT trust a president who did anything but that. Nutjob Muslims are actually a threat to Americans. They aren't an existential threat to America, but they are definitely a threat to individual Americans, and if we can kill them before they kill us, and we have proof that they are trying to harm us, we absolutely should kill them. Anything else is foolish.

Do you know why they were lopping American heads? They did it AFTER Obama's air strikes. The keyword being AFTER. You see, we kill them, they kill us. Tough to understand, I know. After the first journalist died, they said stop the air strikes and they won't kill the second guy but you and your fellow part time non-interventionists kept clamoring for more air strikes for justice and peace. So they killed the second guy and so now you use that as an excuse to go to war. If you want them to stop lopping American heads? Stop bombing them, come home and watch our borders. It isn't that difficult.

twomp
09-04-2014, 02:12 PM
You can make the argument that there's an imminent attack likely in this situation. If this situation doesn't qualify as an imminent threat, I'm not sure what would.

LOL @ imminent threat. Quick TC they are under your bed, or maybe outside your window right now! The attack is coming! Oh wait, maybe not. They are preparing their ships, submarines and airplanes to strike us right now!! Oh wait, maybe not that either.

Oh you must be talking about terrorists attack? Then you should be clamoring for attacks on Chechnya then, after all, the Chechens actually did pull off an attack on our soil during the Boston marathon. Why aren't you calling for war in Chechnya? Oh I know why, you are waiting for the tv to tell you first what to do right. If Sean Hannity and John McCain comes on tv later telling us he wants to bomb Chechnya, I'm sure you would be all for that too! Since you know, they did attack Americans.

twomp
09-04-2014, 02:14 PM
Awhile back, people were saying that wasn't much difference from Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. I see what they mean now.

phill4paul
09-04-2014, 02:17 PM
Then you should be clamoring for attacks on Chechnya then, after all, the Chechens actually did pull off an attack on our soil during the Boston marathon. Why aren't you calling for war in Chechnya? Oh I know why, you are waiting for the tv to tell you first what to do right. If Sean Hannity and John McCain comes on tv later telling us he wants to bomb Chechnya, I'm sure you would be all for that too! Since you know, they did attack Americans.

I CANNOT fathom why Theye have not come out with "new intelligence" linking the Boston bombings to ISIS. Somebody dropped the ball.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 02:21 PM
Awhile back, people were saying that wasn't much difference from Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. I see what they mean now.

In fairness, Rand opposed intervention in Syria, so at least he doesn't want to support BOTH sides of this screwed up conflict.

I still think Rand Paul is better than Ted Cruz. But is he good enough? I guess that remains to be seen.

Acala
09-04-2014, 02:23 PM
Not even remotely close to the same situation. Those countries never threatened us, never killed our people, and weren't expanding across the world and committing mass genocide.

This is ridiculous. Exactly how are they going to expand across the world? On foot?

By your criteria, if somebody murders a US citizen in a foreign country, and someone else in the vicinity says something threatening about the USA, this constitutes an imminent attack and we are justified in attacking the region and killing anyone we don't like? Even though the hostile individuals are on the other side of the planet? Your theory does not hold water.

twomp
09-04-2014, 02:25 PM
This is ridiculous. Exactly how are they going to expand across the world? On foot?

By your criteria, if somebody murders a US citizen in a foreign country, and someone else in the vicinity says something threatening about the USA, this constitutes an imminent attack and we are justified in attacking the region and killing anyone we don't like? Even though the hostile individuals are on the other side of the planet? Your theory does not hold water.

I think TC's computer has been hijacked by Lindsey Graham honestly. Being logical about this no longer matters. The only thing that matters now is that we drop bombs.

twomp
09-04-2014, 02:27 PM
Not even remotely close to the same situation. Those countries never threatened us, never killed our people, and weren't expanding across the world and committing mass genocide.

Can you also tell me who they are committing mass genocide to? The Yazidi? You mean the 40,000 that were stuck on a mountain top in Iraq? That actually turned out to be 20,000, that actually turned out to be 10,000 that actually turned out to be 2,000 most of whom were already living there and didn't want to leave?

twomp
09-04-2014, 02:31 PM
In fairness, Rand opposed intervention in Syria, so at least he doesn't want to support BOTH sides of this screwed up conflict.

I still think Rand Paul is better than Ted Cruz. But is he good enough? I guess that remains to be seen.

Well Ted Cruz was also calling for congressional authorization before those air strikes so in essence, they were both saying the same thing about Syria. He just added in the caveat of wanting to send in "special forces" to destroy the chemical weapons. WITH congressional approval of course....

JK/SEA
09-04-2014, 02:36 PM
how about this...we get Rand elected, and then see how he does?...

got a better idea?...

newbitech
09-04-2014, 02:38 PM
Rand is saying a lot here. It's hard to wholesale agree or wholesale disagree with his opinion.

This is why I think the most important part of what he says is the following.


This is one set of principles. Any strategy, though, should be presented to the American people through Congress. If war is necessary, we should act as a nation. We should do so properly and constitutionally and with a real strategy and a plan for both victory and exit.

I don't care whose opinion, whose strategy, whose policy or whatever words you want to listen to, if the above does not happen, I am against it. Likewise, if the above DOES happen regardless of all the other stuff around it, there won't be much anything that I will be able to say or do to stop it.

I respect that quote and I think out of anybody else running their mouths about issues, I believe Rand respects that the most.

JK/SEA
09-04-2014, 02:39 PM
..

Bastiat's The Law
09-04-2014, 02:41 PM
Ugh. I wish this editorial was just a bad dream. I really don't think I can get behind this.

Let me get this straight: we have to fight a war halfway around the world to defend an embassy that we absolutely don't need? How about we just close the fucking embassy?

It's worse. We have to fight a war to preserve artificial boundary lines the British set up nearly a century ago.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 02:41 PM
Well Ted Cruz was also calling for congressional authorization before those air strikes so in essence, they were both saying the same thing about Syria. He just added in the caveat of wanting to send in "special forces" to destroy the chemical weapons. WITH congressional approval of course....

The difference is that Ted Cruz supported the Syrian intervention, while Rand opposed it. Yes, they're both supporting this intervention, but Rand opposed the other one, Cruz didn't. So Rand is sometimes opposed to intervention, but not always. Ted Cruz seems to pretty much always support the interventions.

Mind you, I'm not saying Rand is "good" here, heck I'm disappointed myself, but at least Rand did oppose intervention in Syria.

I'm still not exactly happy. Admittedly, I do think ISIS is somewhat worse than secular Assad.

how about this...we get Rand elected, and then see how he does?...

got a better idea?...

I'm still supportive of Rand, but why exactly WOULDN'T you take things he says seriously?

kylejack
09-04-2014, 02:42 PM
You can make the argument that there's an imminent attack likely in this situation. If this situation doesn't qualify as an imminent threat, I'm not sure what would.
Eh, carrier groups moving into our territorial waters, troops massing at our borders? 2 Americans killed is not cause for war.

ctiger2
09-04-2014, 02:47 PM
I pray that Rand is just telling everyone what he thinks they want to hear.

However, If history is our guide, if elected, Rand will become a destroyer of liberty.

Brian4Liberty
09-04-2014, 02:48 PM
You realize that ISIS is lopping American heads off, right? Going to congress and presenting a case for war or marque against them, is entirely justified.

Is lopping off American heads an act of war? Is it a justification for war? What if an American is executed in France? Time for war with France?

Is ISIS a nation? Do we know that it was actually ISIS that made that video and cut off off the American heads? That would need to be verified.


Do you know why they were lopping American heads? They did it AFTER Obama's air strikes. The keyword being AFTER. You see, we kill them, they kill us. Tough to understand, I know. After the first journalist died, they said stop the air strikes and they won't kill the second guy but you and your fellow part time non-interventionists kept clamoring for more air strikes for justice and peace. So they killed the second guy and so now you use that as an excuse to go to war. If you want them to stop lopping American heads? Stop bombing them, come home and watch our borders. It isn't that difficult.

Thread winner.

Rand inferred that the justification for war would have something to do with those beheadings:


As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens...

IMHO, that is the weakest part of Rand's argument. Obama started the war by bombing ISIS. He did not go to Congress for approval. The horse is out of the barn now. Obama needed to have this national conversation before starting to bomb.

Using acts of war by the other side as justification to declare war after we already have started a war with them is one huge logical and moral fail.

ISIS was at war with Syria. We encouraged that. It became a problem (for Obama) when they went to war against Iraq. That was the point to have a national and international conversation. And who knows what would come out of that. Hopefully solutions other than just some reckless interventionism and bombing.

But Imperial President Obama doesn't ask for permission from Congress, or attempt to build international consensus. Caesar answers to no one!

Immediately allowing Iraq to break into three Republics would have been one option. That way, the Sunnis of Northern Iraq would fight ISIS as invaders, instead of welcoming them as liberators from the oppression of the central Shiite government. Perhaps an international coalition would help stop ISIS in some way, from diplomatic efforts to aid to possible coalition military efforts. Instead, Obama and friends did the exact opposite, and vainly attempted to hold Iraq together, which made ISIS more strong, and weakened the people who would fight ISIS.

Brian4Liberty
09-04-2014, 02:50 PM
It's worse. We have to fight a war to preserve artificial boundary lines the British set up nearly a century ago.

And that has contributed greatly to the current situation in Iraq.

JK/SEA
09-04-2014, 02:51 PM
The difference is that Ted Cruz supported the Syrian intervention, while Rand opposed it. Yes, they're both supporting this intervention, but Rand opposed the other one, Cruz didn't. So Rand is sometimes opposed to intervention, but not always. Ted Cruz seems to pretty much always support the interventions.

Mind you, I'm not saying Rand is "good" here, heck I'm disappointed myself, but at least Rand did oppose intervention in Syria.

I'm still not exactly happy. Admittedly, I do think ISIS is somewhat worse than secular Assad.


I'm still supportive of Rand, but why exactly WOULDN'T you take things he says seriously?

i'm to the point in my life where i'm getting to comparing Candidates...especially the ones who have been Presidents, and those that want to. Ideogically, it would be my position to have Ron Paul as Prez...but...what do we have to compare that with?....Huck?...Jeb...?...Romney?...yeah, thats it..ol' Mitt...or Cruz...fun times..

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 02:52 PM
If you start a war, I don't see how you can morally do anything except give up. I mean, can we really "defend ourselves" in a war we started? What the heck is the moral thing to do there?

The only ways I could think of to even conceivably give "us" any moral legitimacy to do anything even in response to any future ISIS "attacks" would be far too radical for even the average person on RPFs to be OK with, let alone the average American.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 02:53 PM
i'm to the point in my life where i'm getting to comparing Candidates...especially the ones who have been Presidents, and those that want to. Ideogically, it would be my position to have Ron Paul as Prez...but...what do we have to compare that with?....Huck?...Jeb...?...Romney?...yeah, thats it..ol' Mitt...or Cruz...fun times..

I understand that Rand is better than the alternatives. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticized when he says stupid things, which pretty much that entire article was full of.

cajuncocoa
09-04-2014, 02:53 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Rand is walking a tightrope here?

Strict non-interventionists are pissed because he's sounding very much like the opposite of that.

And non-isolationists still think he's not advocating enough intervention.

JK/SEA
09-04-2014, 02:53 PM
However, If history is our guide, if elected, Rand will become a destroyer of liberty.

You think Ron's going to help with that?...i mean, it his son, and legacy...family name and all that...

not gonna happen.

bunklocoempire
09-04-2014, 02:59 PM
http://i1275.photobucket.com/albums/y442/bunklocoempirehi/slackline-surfing-o_zps2eda37f8.gif

bunklocoempire
09-04-2014, 03:01 PM
I CANNOT fathom why Theye have not come out with "new intelligence" linking the Boston bombings to ISIS. Somebody dropped the ball.
Because it might lead to a discussion of a clear motive?

phill4paul
09-04-2014, 03:03 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Rand is walking a tightrope here?

Strict non-interventionists are pissed because he's sounding very much like the opposite of that.

And non-isolationists still think he's not advocating enough intervention.

He does walk a thin line. And he is becoming adept at it. Whether or not I can rectify his binary opposition in my own mind and heart is something to consider.

mad cow
09-04-2014, 03:04 PM
Sorry Rand,I totally disagree with your position here.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 03:08 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Rand is walking a tightrope here?

Strict non-interventionists are pissed because he's sounding very much like the opposite of that.

And non-isolationists still think he's not advocating enough intervention.

I think in THIS PARTICULAR CASE he's just flat out not advocating intervention. He's far better than the neocons in his positions on Syria and the original Iraq War, and intervention in general, but in THIS PARTICULAR CASE I think he just flat out agrees with the interventionists rather than with Ron Paul (Or at least he's pretending to.) There's no real nuance, he's giving them what they want.

jurgs01
09-04-2014, 03:16 PM
I think Rand is wrong here. He is obviously trying to throw bones to the more hawkish types while still holding toeing the line to his old opinions. It most likely is being pushed by his staff and all of the private meetings he is having with donors.

Rand was doing just fine holding to his philosophy and ideals, but he obviously thinks this is the path to the presidency. He might be right. The problem I have is that these pressures are going to become more intense if he is elected. What will he do then?

To me, this seems like a reason to continue fighting locally to get more liberty candidates elected. When Rand supports liberty, support him. When he doesn't, voice your opinion. When it comes time to support him for president, do what you think you should to further liberty (vote or don't, support him or don't).

kylejack
09-04-2014, 03:18 PM
Rand may be better than some other candidates, but I'm still not giving him my support when he's endorsing interventionism. He doesn't deserve it. The risk here is that watering down non-interventionism risks losing the strong moral message: That messing around in the affairs of other nations is wrong.

Brian4Liberty
09-04-2014, 03:20 PM
507637222934188033

kylejack
09-04-2014, 03:24 PM
It's not just that Rand is hedging his words more or something; he's flatly more hawkish than Ron, and it isn't good to see.

Bastiat's The Law
09-04-2014, 03:38 PM
And that has contributed greatly to the current situation in Iraq.

Yup. 99% of the Wests problems in the middle east stem from WW I and the partitioning of land by the Brits.

Warlord
09-04-2014, 03:39 PM
It's not just that Rand is hedging his words more or something; he's flatly more hawkish than Ron, and it isn't good to see.

Ron supported an intervention after 9/11 when he voted for the AUMF against terrorists

kylejack
09-04-2014, 03:40 PM
Ron supported an intervention after 9/11 when he voted for the AUMF against terrorists
Yes, he wanted to go after the people who had killed thousands of Americans in an attack on our soil, not two Americans in Iraq/Syria.

newbitech
09-04-2014, 03:45 PM
It's not just that Rand is hedging his words more or something; he's flatly more hawkish than Ron, and it isn't good to see.

Rand is not going to do anything without a Constitutional Declaration of War. He's giving his opinion on the matter yes. Quite frankly, I would not sit idly by and watch a bunch of thugs beat the snot out of an old lady on the street corner. That is what ISIS is doing.

So I agree, go kick their asses. But if you want to use the US Military to do it, do it like Rand is saying to do it. Get Constitution authorization. I see nothing wrong with that.

Obviously the USA is responsible for stirring the shit up over there. So the best solution would be to stop stirring the shit up. At least if there is going to be another war of aggression for whatever reason, go through the motions.

This is what I believe Rand's stance is. He has an opinion that if he were in power, he'd want to clobber those thugs known as ISIS. I agree. But he also says we need to have a national debate on the idea of using the military and understand the reasons why things are so FUBAR in the ME. That inevitably leads to the point of understanding that things are so FUBAR because of constantly wanting to clobber those thugs.

So he's just taking the long path to the same action that his dad always advocated. Ron Paul went from point A point B in his foreign policy. It was easy to know that Ron Paul was right if your idea of freedom and liberty was based on common sense. Ron Paul also missed picking up a lot of support because while taking the shortest path from point A to point B is the most efficient route, it also the most difficult route that leaves a lot of people alienated, since most people lack common sense.

Rand Paul is also going from point A to point B in his foreign policy, but he is taking a much longer route. It's more like Rand is going from point A to point C to point D to point X to point F etc... He is picking up support and followers on his way to point B. No, it's not the most efficient route, it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense, but at the end of the day, he is going to the same place and he is carrying much more support with him so that when he arrives, his point is more than just a fancy way to win an argument, but a true foreign policy that the country stands behind spanning from both extremes of the political spectrum.

It makes sense to me what Rand is doing. It is consistent in so far as consider the audience. He doesn't need to convince you or me that the most principled and efficient path to a non-interventionist foreign policy is to stop stirring shit up and withdraw from illegal occupations and shut down unaffordable military housing over seas.

None of that ever happens if the only support Rand has is support from people with common sense. Common sense should tell you that Rand has to be president of people without common sense in order to make ANY point become an official US policy. So good job Rand in expressing an opinion and explaining that your opinion really doesn't matter when it comes to official US foreign policy.

kylejack
09-04-2014, 03:47 PM
Rand is not going to do anything without a Constitutional Declaration of War. He's giving his opinion on the matter yes. Quite frankly, I would not sit idly by and watch a bunch of thugs beat the snot out of an old lady on the street corner. That is what ISIS is doing.
Ah, the old Woodrow Wilson interventionist canard, "The world must be made safe for democracy." SMH

Like every other war America gets involved in it would expand via mission creep and a lot of innocent civilians would be killed, creating even more enemies of the United States...exactly the kind of thing Ron Paul preaches against.

phill4paul
09-04-2014, 03:50 PM
Yes, he wanted to go after the people who had killed thousands of Americans in an attack on our soil, not two Americans in Iraq/Syria.

I wonder if there were state department warnings for the areas in which the journalists were seized. Seems, to me, if there were than there is no cause for government intervention. If citizens do not heed warnings then perhaps they don't require government intervention. Speculation on my part. I don't know where they were seized or whether there were warnings.

kylejack
09-04-2014, 03:52 PM
I'm sure there were severe travel warnings for both countries, but not sure if they were specific to ISIS.

mac_hine
09-04-2014, 03:57 PM
I think TC's computer has been hijacked by Lindsey Graham honestly. Being logical about this no longer matters. The only thing that matters now is that we drop bombs.

I disagree. The only thing that matters is to blindly support Rand Paul. He's liberty's greatest hope, ya know?

idiom
09-04-2014, 04:00 PM
Rand may be better than some other candidates, but I'm still not giving him my support when he's endorsing interventionism. He doesn't deserve it. The risk here is that watering down non-interventionism risks losing the strong moral message: That messing around in the affairs of other nations is wrong.

Lets support a candidate whose principles only get support from 10% of the electorate!

Seriously people. If you want strict non-interventionist candidates, you need strict non-interventionist electorates. Not the other way around.

After 8 years we have at least moved the populace to be skeptical of bombing everything.

This is how democracy works.

idiom
09-04-2014, 04:01 PM
I disagree. The only thing that matters is to blindly support Rand Paul. He's liberty's greatest hope, ya know?

Blind support isn't required. The closer we get to the election the more we will find out if the populace is ready for non-intervention or not.

newbitech
09-04-2014, 04:04 PM
Ah, the old Woodrow Wilson interventionist canard, "The world must be made safe for democracy." SMH

Like every other war America gets involved in it would expand via mission creep and a lot of innocent civilians would be killed, creating even more enemies of the United States...exactly the kind of thing Ron Paul preaches against.

Way to put words in my mouth and probably Rand's too. I am sure most people think that what is going on in the ME is brutal and nasty. That doesn't mean that it's the United States government job to police that. If I had the power to go over into that area of the world and bring all of the killers and rapers to justice, I would not hesitate.

I get that a lot of people are trying to make intervention a dirty word like isolation. It's just a bunch of BS propaganda labels, these words. So what. The truth is obviously somewhere in between.

The fact of the matter is, if the American people want to go to war for ANY reason, they can elect leaders who will give them that war. It just so happens that the law of the land has a procedure for that.

If the president and congress follow that procedure, and in particular follow Rand Paul's idea on how to wage war, I'd find no fault in that from the legal perspective. Doesn't mean I'd support it, doesn't mean I'd like it, but I sure as hell would be proud to be a part of a country that followed it's own laws.

I am fairly certain that the only way any of our opinion matters in the debate of whether or not to continue intervention in the ME is if the law is followed. Chances are, the law won't be followed and it's all moot anyways.

Rand says, here is my opinion, "those people are nasty, I want to crush them, but we need to follow the law." I agree 100%

kylejack
09-04-2014, 04:06 PM
Way to put words in my mouth and probably Rand's too.
"Quite frankly, I would not sit idly by and watch a bunch of thugs beat the snot out of an old lady on the street corner. That is what ISIS is doing. So I agree, go kick their asses."

Yeeee-haw, Team America: World Police! No thanks.

69360
09-04-2014, 04:08 PM
I'm fine with this. This is his pragmatic reaction to the current situation. He did not and would not have created the situation we are in now. A lot of you miss that point.

I know RPF like to deal more in political philosophy than practical reality and that's fine. I almost always agree with the philosophies. But the facts here are that the intervention is already underway and in response we have IS killing and threatening Americans. Rand has articulated his response to this current, not his doing, situation.

I hope that if the US does decide to take out IS it is with overwhelming military force and for a short duration. In and out in a month or less. Air power and spec ops should be able to handle this, there is no need for conventional forces. No need for nation building either, we tried that there, it didn't and doesn't work.

newbitech
09-04-2014, 04:09 PM
"Quite frankly, I would not sit idly by and watch a bunch of thugs beat the snot out of an old lady on the street corner. That is what ISIS is doing. So I agree, go kick their asses."

Yeeee-haw, Team America: World Police! No thanks.

Do people ever take you seriously and listen to your ideas? Just curious, did you read anything else I said or did you just find the color that you wanted to paint with in my words and go nuts with it?


But if you want to use the US Military to do it, do it like Rand is saying to do it. Get Constitution authorization.

69360
09-04-2014, 04:09 PM
double post

alucard13mm
09-04-2014, 04:10 PM
I think rand is willing to bomb isis because Obama started it. Because Obama bombed isis, it stirred up the hornet nest. If rand took over now, he would probably keep bombing them (with permission). It's not like isis will ignore us again once rand take office and stop bombing isis.

Rand tailors his response on what he would do based on the current situation, which is what a good leader should do.

kylejack
09-04-2014, 04:13 PM
Do people ever take you seriously and listen to your ideas? Just curious, did you read anything else I said or did you just find the color that you wanted to paint with in my words and go nuts with it?
I'm not talking about Constitutional authorization. It's good that Rand says he will make war Constitutionally. That doesn't mean every Constitutional war is a good war. This one doesn't measure up to the Just War Theory that Ron Paul and I subscribe to.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 04:46 PM
This is ridiculous. Exactly how are they going to expand across the world? On foot?

By your criteria, if somebody murders a US citizen in a foreign country, and someone else in the vicinity says something threatening about the USA, this constitutes an imminent attack and we are justified in attacking the region and killing anyone we don't like? Even though the hostile individuals are on the other side of the planet? Your theory does not hold water.

If they took over Iraq and set up their own government, you realize they would get a hold of air planes, correct? Would you even be in favor of military action if ISIS got a hold of a jet airplane and flew across the ocean towards the United States? Or would that be intervention and something we shouldn't do since we have to wait until we're attacked first?

Brett85
09-04-2014, 04:49 PM
Can you also tell me who they are committing mass genocide to? The Yazidi? You mean the 40,000 that were stuck on a mountain top in Iraq? That actually turned out to be 20,000, that actually turned out to be 10,000 that actually turned out to be 2,000 most of whom were already living there and didn't want to leave?

They're murdering every non Muslim in Iraq, and even some moderate Muslims. They're basically people who just kill indiscriminately. They're truly evil people.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 04:54 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Rand is walking a tightrope here?

Strict non-interventionists are pissed because he's sounding very much like the opposite of that.

And non-isolationists still think he's not advocating enough intervention.

Hardcore hawks and neoconservatives won't like Rand until he supports war with every country and probably a mass genocide of all the world's Muslims. These people are truly insane, monstrous people.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 04:57 PM
Yes, he wanted to go after the people who had killed thousands of Americans in an attack on our soil, not two Americans in Iraq/Syria.

So we should use military action when thousands of Americans are killed, but not two? What exactly is the magic number of Americans that have to be killed before we can respond with military force?

twomp
09-04-2014, 05:01 PM
They're murdering every non Muslim in Iraq, and even some moderate Muslims. They're basically people who just kill indiscriminately. They're truly evil people.

Again more remarks from you with no actual basis. Here let me help you again with this but I doubt it will do much. It is just like trying to convince those "conservatives" about how the Iraq war was a bad idea. No matter how many facts you throw at them. They just keep on clinging to what the tv tells them. This time it's you doing it. Logic and reasoning no longer apply to you.


BAGHDAD — By 1 p.m. on Friday almost every Christian in Mosul had heard the Sunni militants’ message — they had until noon Saturday to leave the city.

Men, women and children piled into neighbors’ cars, some begged for rides to the city limits and hoped to get taxis to the nearest Christian villages. They took nothing more than the clothes on their backs, according to several who were reached late Friday.

See that they were given an opportunity to leave. They were not murdered. They are not committing genocide to non-muslims. Email Sean Hannity and ask him how you should reply to this.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/world/middleeast/isis-forces-last-iraqi-christians-to-flee-mosul.html?_r=0

twomp
09-04-2014, 05:03 PM
So we should use military action when thousands of Americans are killed, but not two? What exactly is the magic number of Americans that have to be killed before we can respond with military force?

If we kill them first, we should expect them to retaliate. Have you heard of blowback? Why aren't you calling for the bombing of Chechnya? They bombed us on OUR soil. That would make much more sense. Oh wait, you are waiting for the television to tell you that we should bomb Chechnya right? Please prove me wrong and provide me with a post of yours claiming we should bomb Chechnya. Show me you are consistent on this and not just listening to the television.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 05:04 PM
Yeah, isn't that nice of them. They gave them the choice of either leaving their homes, their belongings, and everything they had, or else get brutally murdered. Such nice people.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 05:06 PM
If we kill them first, we should expect them to retaliate. Have you heard of blowback? Why aren't you calling for the bombing of Chechnya? They bombed us on OUR soil. That would make much more sense. Oh wait, you are waiting for the television to tell you that we should bomb Chechnya right? Please prove me wrong and provide me with a post of yours claiming we should bomb Chechnya. Show me you are consistent on this and not just listening to the television.

The Boston bombing was a home grown terrorist attack. There wasn't anything we could do in response militarily since we weren't attacked by a foreign terrorist group. As far as I know Chechnya didn't have anything to do with the attack in Boston.

twomp
09-04-2014, 05:17 PM
Yeah, isn't that nice of them. They gave them the choice of either leaving their homes, their belongings, and everything they had, or else get brutally murdered. Such nice people.

I don't think they are nice people. I just don't think people like you should be spreading lies about genocide to get our nation into another war.

twomp
09-04-2014, 05:20 PM
The Boston bombing was a home grown terrorist attack. There wasn't anything we could do in response militarily since we weren't attacked by a foreign terrorist group. As far as I know Chechnya didn't have anything to do with the attack in Boston.

They were trained in Chechnya. We were warned by Russian intelligence that they were. Do you even know what homegrown means? If those "homegrown" terrorist were trained by ISIS, you would be calling for nuclear war right now.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 05:20 PM
Yeah, isn't that nice of them. They gave them the choice of either leaving their homes, their belongings, and everything they had, or else get brutally murdered. Such nice people.

I don't think anyone is saying that they are nice people. But, I would think that "leave or die" is still somewhat better than just "die". Don't you?

Ultimately it doesn't matter though. ISIS is full of monsters. Intervention is still wrong.

phill4paul
09-04-2014, 05:20 PM
I CANNOT fathom why Theye have not come out with "new intelligence" linking the Boston bombings to ISIS. Somebody dropped the ball.

Cripes! :eek:


Foley, 40, was working in Syria for the Boston-based news Web site Global*Post when he disappeared on Thanksgiving in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/islamic-state-claims-it-beheaded-american-photojournalist-james-foley/2014/08/19/42e83970-27e6-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

and...


An American college graduate from Boston, who has been on the run from the FBI for years, is suspected of joining ISIS and leveraging his computer skills to spread the Iraqi terror group’s propaganda on social media, a senior law enforcement official told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/09/official-american-may-be-key-in-isis-social-media-blitz/

Brett85
09-04-2014, 05:20 PM
I don't think they are nice people. I just don't think people like you should be spreading lies about genocide to get our nation into another war.

It's just the truth. They've slaughtered thousands of people. I'm also not saying that we should go to war solely for humanitarian reasons. I'm opposed to humanitarian wars. I'm only advocating military action now because I believe that a group of people that have declared war against the U.S are a threat to our security. I just mentioned the genocide to point out that there's absolutely nothing immoral about killing these people, because they commit brutal acts of aggression against others.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 05:22 PM
So we should use military action when thousands of Americans are killed, but not two? What exactly is the magic number of Americans that have to be killed before we can respond with military force?

I think the real issue is "on our soil." Not how many. The US Military should not make it its goal to protect its citizens from foreign governments where those citizens choose to be under the authority (even temporarily) of those foreign governments.

9/11 happened on our soil, so we had a right to do something about it. I don't think invading Afghanistan was the right answer though.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 05:26 PM
I think the real issue is "on our soil." Not how many. The US Military should not make it its goal to protect its citizens from foreign governments where those citizens choose to be under the authority (even temporarily) of those foreign governments.

I'm not really saying that killing Americans overseas is enough in itself to justify military action. I'm just saying that when you combine that with everything else that's happened, ISIS represents a direct threat to U.S national security, and this is a rare instance where I support authorizing military action. (Just air strikes, no ground troops)

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 05:28 PM
I'm not really saying that killing Americans overseas is enough in itself to justify military action. I'm just saying that when you combine that with everything else that's happened, ISIS represents a direct threat to U.S national security, and this is a rare instance where I support authorizing military action. (Just air strikes, no ground troops)

Why your question about "how many" then?

ISIS isn't a threat. I don't see how they could be, when they can't even take over all of Iraq.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 05:31 PM
Why your question about "how many" then?

ISIS isn't a threat. I don't see how they could be, when they can't even take over all of Iraq.

I don't know. I guess you answered my question with your answer about the attack needing to be on America itself. Don't you think that part of the reason they haven't yet taken over Iraq is that President Obama decided to launch air strikes? (I'm not saying I agree with him doing that unilaterally. I think he should've gone to Congress and gotten authorization)

presence
09-04-2014, 05:33 PM
I think the real issue is "on our soil." Not how many. The US Military should not make it its goal to protect its citizens from foreign governments where those citizens choose to be under the authority (even temporarily) of those foreign governments.

Bingo. If it didn't happen on our soil, territorial waters, airspace, or internally in our embassies abroad. NONE OF OUR MILITARY'S BUSINESS. Solve it diplomatically. If it cannot be solved diplomatically, drop names and issue marque.

THAT is defence. Chasing demons for retribution in lands far away is offense.

luctor-et-emergo
09-04-2014, 05:35 PM
Why your question about "how many" then?

ISIS isn't a threat. I don't see how they could be, when they can't even take over all of Iraq.

They have taken over a significant part of both Iraq and Syria. They have 100k fighters or so, they have finances. I don't see why they would have to take over all of Iraq before they could be a threat. They are not a small organization anymore. The lucky thing that 'we' have going is that nobody seems to like them. Which in my opinion is a good way to at least get countries that don't have very good diplomatic relations just a tiny bit closer together. (just for clarification, I am of course in favor of voting on these matters)

Libertea Party
09-04-2014, 05:49 PM
Way to put words in my mouth and probably Rand's too. I am sure most people think that what is going on in the ME is brutal and nasty. That doesn't mean that it's the United States government job to police that. If I had the power to go over into that area of the world and bring all of the killers and rapers to justice, I would not hesitate.

I get that a lot of people are trying to make intervention a dirty word like isolation. It's just a bunch of BS propaganda labels, these words. So what. The truth is obviously somewhere in between.

The fact of the matter is, if the American people want to go to war for ANY reason, they can elect leaders who will give them that war. It just so happens that the law of the land has a procedure for that.

If the president and congress follow that procedure, and in particular follow Rand Paul's idea on how to wage war, I'd find no fault in that from the legal perspective. Doesn't mean I'd support it, doesn't mean I'd like it, but I sure as hell would be proud to be a part of a country that followed it's own laws.

I am fairly certain that the only way any of our opinion matters in the debate of whether or not to continue intervention in the ME is if the law is followed. Chances are, the law won't be followed and it's all moot anyways.

Rand says, here is my opinion, "those people are nasty, I want to crush them, but we need to follow the law." I agree 100%

The public is usually against intervention and Congress more or less follows suit. What drives the debate is the President and the case that is made for intervening. I'd rather have Rand Paul and his appointees at the CIA, DOD etc analyzing the situation than the hacks that Clinton/Bush will have as "expert" witnesses.

Does anyone here really believe Rand Paul will doctor up evidence like they would? And that he'd really make a forceful case to Congress in a situation without merit? Yeah it relies somewhat on trust but I'd rather take this one chance with someone who was immersed in our worldview and can deal with world from that perspective.

It's worth a shot.... just this once. If it doesn't work out after four years then... hey we tried and the political approach didn't work. We can put that time and effort into something that will make us happier with a clear conscience. Decades from now people will look at this the way some people look at political history and ask "What if Robert Taft won?" or "What if Goldwater had won?". I am not going to be the one that has to say "I didn't help Taft win b/c he "promised "100% support for the Chinese National government on Formosa [Taiwan]," and "wanted to station up to six divisions in Europe (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oe-goldberg-gop-isolationism-20130806-column.html)". What a lost opportunity!

helmuth_hubener
09-04-2014, 06:05 PM
From, the Tom Woods Show, some interesting commentary regarding and advice for Rand Paul:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=66419

25:44 and especially 28:18

Just stick it in, Rand!!

How can we get Tom Woods onboard as an advisor to Rand?

kylejack
09-04-2014, 06:10 PM
So we should use military action when thousands of Americans are killed, but not two? What exactly is the magic number of Americans that have to be killed before we can respond with military force?
Well I don't know, but there's probably been 2 American tourists killed by thugs in dozens of countries lately.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 06:15 PM
Well I don't know, but there's probably been 2 American tourists killed by thugs in dozens of countries lately.

But that's quite a bit different from a terrorist group that beheads two Americans, broadcasts it to the entire world, and taunts America and says that they'll drown America in blood.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 06:18 PM
But that's quite a bit different from a terrorist group that beheads two Americans, broadcasts it to the entire world, and taunts America and says that they'll drown America in blood.

The main difference is... words?

anaconda
09-04-2014, 06:35 PM
Exactly how are we obligated to protect the 5,000 embassy employees in a building that we forced upon a sovereign nation with ruthless force? Rand? Are you there? Something about "weapons of mass destruction?" Exactly why am I supporting you? Please refresh my memory.

helmuth_hubener
09-04-2014, 06:39 PM
The main difference is... words?

Heaven forbid anyone taunt us. I mean, how dare they? A taunt!!! A taunting taunt, no less!

Seriously, TC, if you just stopped watching/reading the news, you would not be having this problem of being taken in by the propaganda/narrative. I, for instance, have really no idea what ISIS is or what they're doing. So it's very easy for me to say "Yet another stupid war Fox News wants us to go have? Oh brother." If, instead, one keeps up with this stuff, as I'm guessing you do, the narratives that the media builds can be very persuasive. Convinced you. Convinced KingNothing. Who knows, it might convince me if I watched it! Nahh, not likely. But you never know!

anaconda
09-04-2014, 06:39 PM
Rand Paul quote: "ISIS is a global threat." Oh, yeah, right. ISIS is coming! ISIS is coming! Run for your lives! Sorry Rand, your op ed has no impact on me. But hopefully you scored some votes out of it. Best wishes.

Feeding the Abscess
09-04-2014, 06:40 PM
Ron supported an intervention after 9/11 when he voted for the AUMF against terrorists

And he later said he wouldn't have voted the same way if he had to do it over again.


Rand is not going to do anything without a Constitutional Declaration of War. He's giving his opinion on the matter yes. Quite frankly, I would not sit idly by and watch a bunch of thugs beat the snot out of an old lady on the street corner. That is what ISIS is doing.

So I agree, go kick their asses. But if you want to use the US Military to do it, do it like Rand is saying to do it. Get Constitution authorization. I see nothing wrong with that.

This is precisely why constitutionalism fails in comparison to libertarianism on issues like this. Just because the constitution allows for something, that doesn't make it a good idea. And stealing from others to solve problems you perceive as grave is never correct.


Lets support a candidate whose principles only get support from 10% of the electorate!

Seriously people. If you want strict non-interventionist candidates, you need strict non-interventionist electorates. Not the other way around.

After 8 years we have at least moved the populace to be skeptical of bombing everything.

This is how democracy works.

Yeah, and having the most prominent politician associated with the liberty movement argue for intervention is going to destroy the progress made in those 8 years. You're seeing people on these very forums, who are exposed to radical ideas on foreign policy, fall hook, line, and sinker. What hope does the average person, who is not surrounded by these ideas, have? Explain to me how having interventionists spearhead the movement will further the cause of non-interventionists.

helmuth_hubener
09-04-2014, 06:42 PM
I think I'd better start building an ISIS-proof shelter so I can survive the impending doom. What kind of protections and outfitting do I need?

anaconda
09-04-2014, 06:47 PM
9/11 happened on our soil, so we had a right to do something about it. I don't think invading Afghanistan was the right answer though.

Hauling some CIA, ISI, and Mossad asses in would have been the correct response. And a forensic investigation of the crime scene.

cajuncocoa
09-04-2014, 06:48 PM
I think I'd better start building an ISIS-proof shelter so I can survive the impending doom. What kind of protections and outfitting do I need?
Let us know how to recognize you, and we'll see you at the FEMA camp.

anaconda
09-04-2014, 06:49 PM
I think I'd better start building an ISIS-proof shelter so I can survive the impending doom. What kind of protections and outfitting do I need?

There is no safe haven. Only your federal government can protect you from the ISIS invaders. They hate us because we are free and will be under your bed tonight. George W. Bush tried to tell you but you simply would not listen. No one can save you now. ISIS has launched all of their sailing ships and have sharpened their sabers with fine whetstones. They will begin their assault on the beaches of Virginia in short order. All is nearly lost. They will force unwanted literature and pamphlets upon you. We are grateful that Rand Paul has alerted us to this end times forecast.

anaconda
09-04-2014, 06:57 PM
I think I'd better start building an ISIS-proof shelter so I can survive the impending doom. What kind of protections and outfitting do I need?

Some kind of secret knock, so that you know it's your friends and not ISIS.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsSaSyg7mjM

Krugminator2
09-04-2014, 07:01 PM
Yeah, and having the most prominent politician associated with the liberty movement argue for intervention is going to destroy the progress made in those 8 years. You're seeing people on these very forums, who are exposed to radical ideas on foreign policy, fall hook, line, and sinker. What hope does the average person, who is not surrounded by these ideas, have? Explain to me how having interventionists spearhead the movement will further the cause of non-interventionists.

Non-interventionism isn't pacifism. This isn't a math problem. There is a lot of gray area on this.

Ron Paul led an intellectual movement, not a political movement. His steadfastness to ideology is why there is a RonPaulforums. But governing and deciding on military action requires making the best decision in a very uncertain world dealing with sometimes very irrational people. That's also why other politicians don't have a following. Being a politician and a leader instead of a theorist is messy work that involves a lot of compromised and odds based decisions that will leave true believers unhappy.

Rand Paul clearly doesn't want to be a theorist. It might not be good for the Liberty Movement. It is a requirement to being a leader.

anaconda
09-04-2014, 07:04 PM
ISIS is coming! Run for your lives!

mosquitobite
09-04-2014, 07:06 PM
Seems like a good place to remind people about Bin Laden's strategy to defeat the USA. How stupid do we have to be to allow it to happen?

http://fpif.org/osama_bin_ladens_secret_strategy/

Brett85
09-04-2014, 07:11 PM
Seems like a good place to remind people about Bin Laden's strategy to defeat the USA. How stupid do we have to be to allow it to happen?

http://fpif.org/osama_bin_ladens_secret_strategy/

Rand is supporting targeted air strikes that will probably cost 1% as much as the original Iraq invasion.

Crashland
09-04-2014, 07:21 PM
The most important part about what Rand is outlining here is that you need to know what the hell you're doing when you go to war, not just using the military aimlessly. Frankly, if that discussion were to actually happen and people understand exactly what we are going to do, and why, and what it will cost. I don't think that congressional authorization is going to happen. I don't believe Rand when he says that it undoubtedly would happen. He knows that Obama isn't going to actually take it to Congress, so he's not going to have to eat his words.

I really want to give Rand the benefit of the doubt on this. Maybe its my own cognitive bias. But Rand is still the best chance for non interventionists. Just look at his influences...

devil21
09-04-2014, 07:29 PM
I cut Rand a lot of slack but he's confusing the shit out of me lately over this ISIS nonsense. Surely he knows ISIS is a CIA front, just like Al Qaeda was. I understand that his solution is still the constitutional position of taking it to Congress instead of the President acting unilaterally but his phrasing about ISIS ("ISIS declared war on the United States") baffles me.

He better be careful to not alienate the people that got him elected by twisting around trying to avoid the isolationist tag that the media tries to pin on him. He just got done calling Hillary a war hawk but then says the US must defeat ISIS militarily. :confused: Don't become a candidate that doesn't stand for anything just to get elected.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 07:33 PM
I cut Rand a lot of slack but he's confusing the shit out of me lately over this ISIS nonsense. Surely he knows ISIS is a CIA front, just like Al Qaeda was. I understand that his solution is still the constitutional position of taking it to Congress instead of the President acting unilaterally but his phrasing about ISIS ("ISIS declared war on the United States") baffles me.

He better be careful to not alienate the people that got him elected by twisting around trying to avoid the isolationist tag that the media tries to pin on him. He just got done calling Hillary a war hawk but then says the US must defeat ISIS militarily. :confused: Don't become a candidate that doesn't stand for anything just to get elected.

If you're going to be consistent, you should say that Rand should burn in hell for taking this position.

devil21
09-04-2014, 07:38 PM
If you're going to be consistent, you should say that Rand should burn in hell for taking this position.

This is the first time I've raised a serious eyebrow at Rand and I'm also waiting for video of his comments at F&F2014 for context.

OTOH, I've raised an eyebrow at you since the first day you signed up here and you continually prove that my instinct was correct. My distrust of you has always been consistent.

anaconda
09-04-2014, 07:43 PM
I cut Rand a lot of slack but he's confusing the shit out of me lately over this ISIS nonsense. Surely he knows ISIS is a CIA front, just like Al Qaeda was. I understand that his solution is still the constitutional position of taking it to Congress instead of the President acting unilaterally but his phrasing about ISIS ("ISIS declared war on the United States") baffles me.

He better be careful to not alienate the people that got him elected by twisting around trying to avoid the isolationist tag that the media tries to pin on him. He just got done calling Hillary a war hawk but then says the US must defeat ISIS militarily. :confused: Don't become a candidate that doesn't stand for anything just to get elected.

I too am cutting him slack because his latest talking points reaffirm his insistence that military aggression be approved by Congress. I think there is a method to his madness, tiresome as it seems to becoming.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 07:45 PM
OTOH, I've raised an eyebrow at you since the first day you signed up here and you continually prove that my instinct was correct. My distrust of you has always been consistent.

Good. The feeling is mutual. Your user name fits you very well.

Guitarzan
09-04-2014, 07:48 PM
Your user name fits you very well.


As does yours.

devil21
09-04-2014, 07:48 PM
Good. The feeling is mutual. Your user name fits you very well.

Thank you! It wasn't easy to earn.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 07:53 PM
As does yours.

I have to wonder why people like yourself still support Rand, if you do. Does he get a pass from you simply because you think he's "playing the game" and doesn't actually believe what he's saying? If that's the case and he's just playing the game and taking these positions for political reasons, doesn't that make him a liar? And why would you want to trust a liar?

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 07:55 PM
Good. The feeling is mutual. Your user name fits you very well.


As does yours.

lol! Admittedly "Traditional Conservative" isn't as insulting as "devil."


I have to wonder why people like yourself still support Rand, if you do. Does he get a pass from you simply because you think he's "playing the game" and doesn't actually believe what he's saying? If that's the case and he's just playing the game and taking these positions for political reasons, doesn't that make him a liar? And why would you want to trust a liar?

I suspect Rand is lying, and no I don't "trust" him but I still support him because he's SUBSTANTIALLY better than the alternatives. I'm NOT happy about this though.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 08:00 PM
I suspect Rand is lying, and no I don't "trust" him but I still support him because he's SUBSTANTIALLY better than the alternatives. I'm NOT happy about this though.

But then the only reason why he's "substantially better than the alternatives" is because you believe that he's lying and secretly agrees with every single aspect of Ron's foreign policy. Right?

devil21
09-04-2014, 08:01 PM
I have to wonder why people like yourself still support Rand, if you do. Does he get a pass from you simply because you think he's "playing the game" and doesn't actually believe what he's saying? If that's the case and he's just playing the game and taking these positions for political reasons, doesn't that make him a liar? And why would you want to trust a liar?

I speak for myself only but I've learned to avoid knee-jerk reactions to cherry-picked Rand quotes disseminated by zionist controlled media outlets with an agenda.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 08:02 PM
But then the only reason why he's "substantially better than the alternatives" is because you believe that he's lying and secretly agrees with every single aspect of Ron's foreign policy. Right?

No. Even if he's telling the truth here he's still far better than the alternatives. Rand didn't want to intervene in Syria, and he thinks the 2003 invasion was a mistake. So, Rand at least recognizes (even if he doesn't say it like that) that American policies are responsible for the rise of ISIS. Other candidates would just keep bombing ad infinitum and NEVER address the core issues.

I highly doubt Rand agrees with every aspect of Ron's foreign policy even if he is more libertarian than he's letting on.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 08:03 PM
I speak for myself only but I've learned to avoid knee-jerk reactions to cherry-picked Rand quotes disseminated by zionist controlled media outlets with an agenda.

I know he's probably playing political games, but Rand DID say he wants to use airstrikes on ISIS.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 08:04 PM
I speak for myself only but I've learned to avoid knee-jerk reactions to cherry-picked Rand quotes disseminated by zionist controlled media outlets with an agenda.

He did a TV interview with Hannity where he said the same thing. Did you watch it?

Brett85
09-04-2014, 08:07 PM
No. Even if he's telling the truth here he's still far better than the alternatives. Rand didn't want to intervene in Syria, and he thinks the 2003 invasion was a mistake. So, Rand at least recognizes (even if he doesn't say it like that) that American policies are responsible for the rise of ISIS. Other candidates would just keep bombing ad infinitum and NEVER address the core issues.

Yet people like myself and a few others here have basically said the same thing, that we opposed the initial invasion of Iraq and the other U.S policies that led to the rise of ISIS, but that we still believe that we need to take out ISIS now that they've become a threat, and we've been absolutely hammered by you and others on this forum for saying that. I don't really understand the double standard.

devil21
09-04-2014, 08:08 PM
I know he's probably playing political games, but Rand DID say he wants to use airstrikes on ISIS.

Says who? Known CIA rag Time magazine? Needs video to form a complete judgment.

But assuming the quote is correct, I am disappointed but I also recognize that he's suggesting the Constitutional position be followed and that's a lot more than I can say for anybody he'd run against in 2016. I don't necessarily have to agree with Rand on everything to support him as long as I trust he would follow the Constitution as POTUS. That's aside from my sense that he's mostly playing the politics game.

Crashland
09-04-2014, 08:08 PM
I know he's probably playing political games, but Rand DID say he wants to use airstrikes on ISIS.

He said he supports airstrikes *IF* it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.

dude58677
09-04-2014, 08:26 PM
I am a non-interventionist but I do have the mindset of a President after playing "Masters of the World". It is really easy to get a country into war or justify it. You send in a spy to a country and fight some type if dirt on a rogue country and then go to the UN or this countries people presenting this information. You then ask Congress for authorization or ask the UN for authorization. Most likely you get it. Another thing you can do is watch a country closely and see if they get into a war with another country and then use this as justification to get into the war. What you don't do are sneak attacks or attack non-rogue nations. The country is not a threat but the key is to make it appear to be a threat.

But war never solved anything as it creates one problem after another. A crisis takes place somewhere and you send in troops to that location. You end up with body bags so then you do a massive bombing raid but this incites hatred so then they attack you later. Even if you win the war you now have to occupy the land. People want you to leave and this also incites hatred. So warmongering never solves anything and it is very rarely defensive. However, there are many ways to make appear to be defensive.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vdLo_kx_OHI

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 08:33 PM
Yet people like myself and a few others here have basically said the same thing, that we opposed the initial invasion of Iraq and the other U.S policies that led to the rise of ISIS, but that we still believe that we need to take out ISIS now that they've become a threat, and we've been absolutely hammered by you and others on this forum for saying that. I don't really understand the double standard.

Well, I've said you aren't a libertarian. I have NEVER said that Rand is one.

I've hammered you more because I can actually talk to you. Its not like I get to talk to Rand:p

That said, my comments toward you were comparatively mild, compared to some others. Still harsh, but I wouldn't say hateful.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 08:35 PM
If you're going to be consistent, you should say that Rand should burn in hell for taking this position.

Well, to be fair, the wages of sin is death, and supporting bombing a foreign country is a sinful stance to take. So, I guess it would be accurate to say one "should" burn in Hell for supporting it... technically. And I should burn in Hell for the interventions I used to support, as well as all the rest of my sins;)

economics102
09-04-2014, 08:35 PM
I thought Rand's plan was to paint Hillary as the war hawk. Or is his strategy to somehow both appear as a dove to liberals and a war hawk to conservatives at the very same time? Good luck!

Brett85
09-04-2014, 08:47 PM
I thought Rand's plan was to paint Hillary as the war hawk. Or is his strategy to somehow both appear as a dove to liberals and a war hawk to conservatives at the very same time? Good luck!

I don't think this is hard to understand. Hillary has supported every war. She supported the Iraq invasion, the Libya war, military action against Assad last year, countless humanitarian interventions, etc. She's consistently taken the McCain/Graham view of supporting every war, and many of these wars actually contributed to the rise of ISIS and other terrorist groups. Rand has opposed practically all wars, but he's making an exception here in a very rare situation where there actually is a real and direct threat to U.S national security. Rand isn't going to look like a "warmonger" because of his stance on this when the American people support the air strikes by a 4:1 margin. I think he'll appear as someone who's strong on defense and will support killing our enemies when we have to, but also someone who doesn't want to get involved in unnecessary wars that actually contribute to the rise of terrorist groups. Rand will paint Hillary as someone who's a warmonger but also someone who is weak on defense because she supported policies that led to the rise of ISIS.

Feeding the Abscess
09-04-2014, 09:18 PM
Non-interventionism isn't pacifism. This isn't a math problem. There is a lot of gray area on this.

Ron Paul led an intellectual movement, not a political movement. His steadfastness to ideology is why there is a RonPaulforums. But governing and deciding on military action requires making the best decision in a very uncertain world dealing with sometimes very irrational people. That's also why other politicians don't have a following. Being a politician and a leader instead of a theorist is messy work that involves a lot of compromised and odds based decisions that will leave true believers unhappy.

Rand Paul clearly doesn't want to be a theorist. It might not be good for the Liberty Movement. It is a requirement to being a leader.

This didn't answer my question. At all.

So Rand maneuvers his way to the presidency by being a pragmatist. He becomes president, but the electorate is still interventionist. What will Rand be able to accomplish? Furthermore, what, if anything, he accomplishes will remain after he is no longer president?

twomp
09-04-2014, 09:18 PM
It's just the truth. They've slaughtered thousands of people. I'm also not saying that we should go to war solely for humanitarian reasons. I'm opposed to humanitarian wars. I'm only advocating military action now because I believe that a group of people that have declared war against the U.S are a threat to our security. I just mentioned the genocide to point out that there's absolutely nothing immoral about killing these people, because they commit brutal acts of aggression against others.

TC I have agreed with a lot of your comments the few years I have been here which is why I am boggled now at your position on this. If you had a clear, logical reason for wanting to go to war, I'm sure many would agree with you but you have now resorted to spreading lies and fear mongering which is what the warmongers have historically done. Do you not see that? If you have a legit reason, why resort to lying and fear mongering? How does that make you different from John McCain or Bill O'Reilly or Baghdad Bob?

Brett85
09-04-2014, 09:24 PM
TC I have agreed with a lot of your comments the few years I have been here although I haven t agreed with quite a few as well which is why I am boggled now at your position on this. If you had a clear, logical reason for wanting to go to war, I'm sure many would agree with you but you have now resorted to spreading lies and fear mongering which is what the warmongers have historically done. Do you not see that? If you have a legit reason, why resort to lying and fear mongering? How does that make you different from John McCain or Bill O'Reilly or Baghdad Bob?

Doesn't the fact that people like myself who are normally pretty anti war and anti interventionist support the air strikes against ISIS make you stop and think that maybe this isn't really similar to the other interventions we've been involved in over the years? The simple fact is that it's not, because usually we're overthrowing some foreign dictator that we don't like and trying to institute regime change, but that's not the case here. This is a case where you have a group of people who have stated their intention is to attack the United States, and it's a very rare situation where military action is actually justified. It's why Rand supports military action in this instance but has opposed almost all military interventions in the past. Even Walter Jones supports at least some military action in Iraq. He's probably the most anti war member of the house.

"We all share concerns about the Islamic State’s (IS) brutal tactics and further destabilization of the region. And as became clear during our conversations last month, we also all support the specific and limited mission to prevent potential genocide and protect U.S. military personnel."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/08/28/4103771/jones-wants-congress-to-vote-expanding.html

MaxHen
09-04-2014, 09:37 PM
Doesn't the fact that people like myself who are normally pretty anti war and anti interventionist support the air strikes against ISIS make you stop and think that maybe this isn't really similar to the other interventions we've been involved in over the years? The simple fact is that it's not, because usually we're overthrowing some foreign dictator that we don't like and trying to institute regime change, but that's not the case here. This is a case where you have a group of people who have stated their intention is to attack the United States, and it's a very rare situation where military action is actually justified. It's why Rand supports military action in this instance but has opposed almost all military interventions in the past.

The fact that they have stated their intention to attack us doesn't make them a national security threat. Many other groups have stated similar intentions. In order to prove that ISIS is a national security threat, you need to explain a) what kind of attack you think they will launch against us, and b) how airstrikes will prevent them from launching such an attack.



Even Walter Jones supports at least some military action in Iraq. He's probably the most anti war member of the house.

I'm pretty sure Massie has stated he is opposed to the airstrikes.

Christian Liberty
09-04-2014, 09:38 PM
The fact that they have stated their intention to attack us doesn't make them a national security threat. Many other groups have stated similar intentions. In order to prove that ISIS is a national security threat, we need to explain a) what kind of attack you think they will launch against us, and b) how airstrikes will prevent them from launching such an attack.


I'm pretty sure Massie has stated he is opposed to the airstrikes.

Yes. Massie is awesome.

Brett85
09-04-2014, 09:41 PM
I'm pretty sure Massie has stated he is opposed to the airstrikes.

He's the only member of Congress that I know of who said he would vote against authorization for the air strikes. But even he said that he would just vote against the air strikes because President Obama hadn't articulated a long term strategy. He didn't say that it's immoral to kill members of ISIS. And the events have changed since that time, so it's hard to know for sure whether or not that's still his position. I was opposed to the air strikes at first as well but then changed my mind after the events that unfolded.

presence
09-04-2014, 10:29 PM
I was opposed to the air strikes at first as well but then changed my mind after the events that unfolded.

Which event?

The ethnic cleansing of the 100,000 err 50,000 err 20,000 err supposed attempted clensing of less than 2000 woman beating yazitis?

The confidence in government boosting humanitarian airdrop mission where we dropped tons of food without parachutes that exploded on impact?

The CGI studio FX beheadings of two journalists that have probably been dead for 2 years on sketchy shouldn't have been in bad place at bad time circumstances?

Or our needs to evacuate embassy staff we have like a cat in a cage to catch coyotes in a country that obviously can't provide embassy security?

Just to destroy all the shit that we gave to "Iraq" but is not in the hands of IS.

Was it Malikis sectarian "victory speech" last week in Amerli when he congradulated the "shia" militias for destroying the "sunni" infidels.

Obama's 200th round of golf?

fr33
09-04-2014, 10:38 PM
Not even remotely close to the same situation. Those countries never threatened us, never killed our people, and weren't expanding across the world and committing mass genocide.
Those countries have threatened the US.

US citizens have been killed abroad in many countries. It has never been used as a justification of war.

Russia didn't expand across the world? If ISIS is your definition of genocide, then, wow, what about Russian and Chinese democide?

The fact is you have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to military action. You've probably been brainwashed by the media. Policing the world is what you expect from your government. And what you get from that is a country known as the USA who is expanding and attacking worldwide, has killed more than ISIS probably ever will, and has threatened many many other nations.

fr33
09-04-2014, 10:45 PM
If they took over Iraq and set up their own government, you realize they would get a hold of air planes, correct? Would you even be in favor of military action if ISIS got a hold of a jet airplane and flew across the ocean towards the United States? Or would that be intervention and something we shouldn't do since we have to wait until we're attacked first?
A bunch of zealots who's entire education is reading the Qur'an are going to pilot fighter jets? And even better, they are going to be able to transport fuel to those jets in order to reach the US? Give me a break.

Southron
09-04-2014, 11:12 PM
As far as I'm concerned, he hasn't made the case that ISIS is a threat. The closest he came to making the case was in defending the embassy. But if Iraq is so unstable that the embassy in danger, then we need to evacuate those people immediately.

twomp
09-05-2014, 12:10 AM
Doesn't the fact that people like myself who are normally pretty anti war and anti interventionist support the air strikes against ISIS make you stop and think that maybe this isn't really similar to the other interventions we've been involved in over the years? The simple fact is that it's not, because usually we're overthrowing some foreign dictator that we don't like and trying to institute regime change, but that's not the case here. This is a case where you have a group of people who have stated their intention is to attack the United States, and it's a very rare situation where military action is actually justified. It's why Rand supports military action in this instance but has opposed almost all military interventions in the past. Even Walter Jones supports at least some military action in Iraq. He's probably the most anti war member of the house.

"We all share concerns about the Islamic State’s (IS) brutal tactics and further destabilization of the region. And as became clear during our conversations last month, we also all support the specific and limited mission to prevent potential genocide and protect U.S. military personnel."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/08/28/4103771/jones-wants-congress-to-vote-expanding.html

Normally it would but the fact that you have to resort to lying and fear mongering to sell your point makes you disingenuous. Why do you have to lie about it? Do you like it when your family members lie to you to get their way? IF what you are saying was serious, you wouldn't need to lie.

JohnGalt23g
09-05-2014, 12:27 AM
In fairness, Rand opposed intervention in Syria, so at least he doesn't want to support BOTH sides of this screwed up conflict.

I still think Rand Paul is better than Ted Cruz. But is he good enough? I guess that remains to be seen.

Good enough??? Good enough for what, exactly? Are you under some sort of impression that someone... anyone ... half as committed to Liberty as Rand Paul is going to get within spitting distance of the Oval Office?

Please... give us a name...

JohnGalt23g
09-05-2014, 12:40 AM
Ah, the old Woodrow Wilson interventionist canard, "The world must be made safe for democracy." SMH

Like every other war America gets involved in it would expand via mission creep and a lot of innocent civilians would be killed, creating even more enemies of the United States...exactly the kind of thing Ron Paul preaches against.

Nobody here is talking about making the world safe for democracy. Hell, a big part of Rand's arguments through this is sometimes it might be better for US interests to have dictators.

Right now, it's closer to making the world safe for civilization...

Champuckett
09-05-2014, 01:43 AM
Surprised?

This is the standard part of the pattern Rand has been doing for the last 2 years where he upsets most libertarians, the other part being when he makes us happy. Rand recently had been standing up to Obama and the thought of escalation from the neoconservatives and democratic war hawks, something all libertarians were happy to see, ok great.

Now he comes out with this piece which is not even close to being compatible with libertarianism, and all the ground he gained with us is lost again. 2 steps forward, 2 steps back, again and again. He's not moving anywhere with us as far as I can tell, treading water, and trying to make up ground with the American public. Politics?

I guess I was mad the first 3 or 4 times he did the ol switcharoo with his libertarian vs statist philosophies, but the pattern is so obvious at this point, it's not a surprise to see an op-ed like this that destroys all the progress he had made in the last month.

twomp
09-05-2014, 05:31 AM
If you're going to be consistent, you should say that Rand should burn in hell for taking this position.

You really have no right to talk to anyone about consistency. You have been all over these forums spreading lies and fear mongering to try to convince people that America should once again go back into Iraq. 5+ years and 100k troops couldn't get the job done but this time air strikes will take care of the problem. Mission accomplished folks! We are back in Iraq!

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 05:38 AM
Surprised?

This is the standard part of the pattern Rand has been doing for the last 2 years where he upsets most libertarians, the other part being when he makes us happy. Rand recently had been standing up to Obama and the thought of escalation from the neoconservatives and democratic war hawks, something all libertarians were happy to see, ok great.

Now he comes out with this piece which is not even close to being compatible with libertarianism, and all the ground he gained with us is lost again. 2 steps forward, 2 steps back, again and again. He's not moving anywhere with us as far as I can tell, treading water, and trying to make up ground with the American public. Politics?

I guess I was mad the first 3 or 4 times he did the ol switcharoo with his libertarian vs statist philosophies, but the pattern is so obvious at this point, it's not a surprise to see an op-ed like this that destroys all the progress he had made in the last month.
The problem with this for Rand is, while he's losing many of us, he's not gaining with people who want to stop every water balloon fight anywhere in the world. They still see him as an isolationist.

CaptUSA
09-05-2014, 06:05 AM
The problem with this for Rand is, while he's losing many of us, he's not gaining with people who want to stop every water balloon fight anywhere in the world. They still see him as an isolationist.

I hope that isn't really true. I can see most of us not liking this latest position, and I can see some of us being truly disappointed that he would go there, but I hope that the overwhelming majority of us would realize that even with this position, he is still the closest thing we will ever have in our lifetimes to a friend of liberty being in the White House.

As far as not winning over the GOP... I don't think he'll ever win over the hardcore one-world government intervention types, but those who want a strong military capable of destroying our enemies seem to be taking his words pretty well.

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 06:18 AM
I hope that isn't really true. I can see most of us not liking this latest position, and I can see some of us being truly disappointed that he would go there, but I hope that the overwhelming majority of us would realize that even with this position, he is still the closest thing we will ever have in our lifetimes to a friend of liberty being in the White House.

As far as not winning over the GOP... I don't think he'll ever win over the hardcore one-world government intervention types, but those who want a strong military capable of destroying our enemies seem to be taking his words pretty well.Would you still feel this way if he came out in favor of a "woman's right to choose"?

CaptUSA
09-05-2014, 06:33 AM
Would you still feel this way if he came out in favor of a "woman's right to choose"?Not really one of my main concerns, but I understand your point. At some point there will be a line where he becomes no better or worse than the rest of the potential candidates. I think he has a long way to go before he crosses that line, but every one will draw that line in their own place. With the issue at hand, even though I disagree with the sentiments in his Op-Ed, the fact that he calls for taking it to Congress and the American people is still better than any other potential candidate.

I guess the question we all have to ask ourselves is whether we want a Senator that stays true to our principles but has very little legislative impact, or if we want a President who holds our principles but is, at least, willing to pay lip-service to the establishment, and at worst, willing to bend to the establishment in certain circumstances in order to curry their favor for political gain.

The first option will probably give us more to cheer about, but the second option will probably have more long-term effect in our lives. I wouldn't presume to answer that question for anyone else. We'll all have to make our own choices here. But I think we need to understand what we're really talking about.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 06:52 AM
The fact is you have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to military action.

Lol, not at all. Only compared to you and a few other hardcore anti government people on this forum. Compared to the average American I'm probably a pacifist isolationist. I've opposed every war and every intervention from the original Iraq war, the war in Libya, the proposed war in Syria to take out Assad, etc. Believe it or not, you can be somewhere in between someone who never wants to use military action and someone who always wants to use military action. I only support military action when there's an imminent threat to U.S national security. This fits that criteria. I'm opposed to practically all interventions in general.

Christian Liberty
09-05-2014, 06:58 AM
Would you still feel this way if he came out in favor of a "woman's right to choose"?

That would probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me, in his particular case. Then again, I've felt that way plenty of times before. And I kind of feel that way again, but it doesn't matter. If he wins the GOP primary I will probably vote for him over the Dem no matter what he does*, and I will probably not join the GOP to vote in the primaries no matter what he does.


*Within some semblance of reason... Note that the fact that I live in a swing state now means that I would pretty much have to see no meaningful difference between Rand and the other candidate in order to not vote for him.

Lol, not at all. Only compared to you and a few other hardcore anti government people on this forum. Compared to the average American I'm probably a pacifist isolationist. I've opposed every war and every intervention from the original Iraq war, the war in Libya, the proposed war in Syria to take out Assad, etc. Believe it or not, you can be somewhere in between someone who never wants to use military action and someone who always wants to use military action. I only support military action when there's an imminent threat to U.S national security. This fits that criteria. I'm opposed to practically all interventions in general.

This doesn't fit the criteria, which would be the issue we disagree on.

He's the only member of Congress that I know of who said he would vote against authorization for the air strikes. But even he said that he would just vote against the air strikes because President Obama hadn't articulated a long term strategy. He didn't say that it's immoral to kill members of ISIS. And the events have changed since that time, so it's hard to know for sure whether or not that's still his position. I was opposed to the air strikes at first as well but then changed my mind after the events that unfolded.

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 07:52 AM
Not really one of my main concerns, but I understand your point. At some point there will be a line where he becomes no better or worse than the rest of the potential candidates. I think he has a long way to go before he crosses that line,

Non-interventionist foreign policy IS that line for me. So many other important issues are tied to it. Getting involved in every schoolyard fight all over the world will continue to wreck an already-weakened economy and encourage those who wish to further erode our civil liberties.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 07:57 AM
Non-interventionist foreign policy IS that line for me. So many other important issues are tied to it. Getting involved in every schoolyard fight all over the world will continue to wreck an already-weakened economy and encourage those who wish to further erode our civil liberties.

I know that you're opposed to military action against ISIS, but do you really view military action against this group as being exactly the same as say invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power in 2003? Or do you at least see a difference?

CaptUSA
09-05-2014, 08:15 AM
Non-interventionist foreign policy IS that line for me. So many other important issues are tied to it. Getting involved in every schoolyard fight all over the world will continue to wreck an already-weakened economy and encourage those who wish to further erode our civil liberties.

Yeah, I get that. Do you see another potential candidate that is putting more restrictions on intervention than Rand?

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 08:19 AM
Yeah, I get that. Do you see another potential candidate that is putting more restrictions on intervention than Rand?
This again. Rand doesn't have to be good. He just has to be marginally better than all other candidates. Got it.

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 08:20 AM
I know that you're opposed to military action against ISIS, but do you really view military action against this group as being exactly the same as say invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power in 2003? Or do you at least see a difference?
It might even be worse. And it's still none of our business.

ProIndividual
09-05-2014, 08:40 AM
All this interventionist/non-interventionist stuff is a pure manifestation of the state's existence. Without it, those for war would have to fund it entirely and convince troops to join THAT WAR voluntarily (not just join the armed forces under the false pretenses of defense, only to be ordered on the threat of lost benefits or jail to fight in wars of initiated aggression), and could not rely on the half against the war to be forced into subsidizing the war, and could not rely on threats to staff the positions needed to carry out the war.

If all funding and troops for the war were derived strictly via voluntary means, then the morality of the war is largely quantified and knowable. It doesn't boil down to trying to get minarchists to think logically (which may happen over a period of years of self-reflection, but not in a debate, because minarchy is based on an illogical premise, and them expecting a long term logical result is magic fairy land stuff).

Want a justified war? Then drum up donations. If you whine about being extorted (taxed) already, then push for them to be tax-deductible donations (and of course, that means to NOT incentivize war via moral hazard, ALL donations to private institutions for anything the state currently does would also need to be simultaneously made tax-deductible).

Want a justified war? Start PERSUADING people to give up their lives for your cause.

Here are the two horrible arguments against this ethical means to derive funding and manpower:

1. The people are cheap and wouldn't pay unless threatened with rape cages and property seizure (the pro-taxation argument).

2. The troops are cowards and won't join a particular war; they only join the military voluntarily and then we have to order their cowardly asses into individual actions.

Both are shit arguments because...

1. We give more total dollars of our own free wills to charities (let alone for-profit businesses) than any other people on Earth. If they refuse to give that doesn't make them cowards...it means your shitty case for war wasn't good enough to morally justify funding it to them.

2. No war that was truly justified and not partly started by us for non-defensive reasons has EVER wanted for volunteers. See recruitment for the militias via Thomas Paine's Common Sense (and well before it) in the Revolution, and the 9-12-01 recruitment spike. We never lost a war in our period without a standing army (although that's a separate debate, I thought I'd mention it), AND we only needed drafts for wars that were not sold to the people well enough (or could not be sold well enough because they were IMMORAL AS FUCK).

Until all funding and staffing of troops is done purely voluntarily, it's anyone's guess as to what wars are ethical...and it's likely few if any. If you can't convince people they need to do something for their own defense, then it's just your opinion with a government gun backing it (to extract funding and staffing of troops for your opinion).

And enough of this conflating terrorism with war bullshit...

Terrorism is as likely to kill you as an American citizen as your bathtub (actually the bathtub kills you more often on average). How fucking afraid are you to die in your bathtub? The proportion of fear related to other risks is how we determine rational vs irrational fear. If you are more afraid of terrorism by a large number than dying in your bathtub, you are being IRRATIONAL. Stop using your irrational cowardice to justify wars. You, as an average American, should be far more afraid of being shot by a cop than killed by a terrorist....and yet I have to read people on this forum blow Rand while cradling his balls and saying "but ISIS is an imminent threat".

Not if we stop provoking them. And if they end up being such a threat later, then deal with it accordingly. But the idea you can EVER justify a war without funding it and staffing it PURELY voluntarily is nonsense. There is no way to quantify it when coercion is the source of troops and funding. There is no way to argue how threatened you feel by ISIS while simultaneously having little or no fear of things that are much greater threats to you or that are nearly equal threats. You guys need to get your fear to rational levels (fear proportionate to relative risks). You should be far more afraid of cops, house fires, cars, medical mistakes, etc. than terrorists. ESPECIALLY terrorists who didn't start killing Americans until we started bombing them. ESPECIALLY when the Americans they killed KNEW they were in a war zone. The first one killed was a prisoner in Libya BEFORE this! He fucking knew the risks...so just stop the nonsense.

This is why all republics (and to faster extent, democracies) FAIL. You can't get logical results long term from an illogical premise. Majority opinion is NOT the same as consumer preference (people answer polls one way, and then reverse it when they are asked to PAY for that which they just "supported" rhetorically). Majority opinion is an informal logical fallacy. The idea we can vote our way out of the eventual collapse of Rome 2.0 is crazy talk. The voting mechanisms make it so the BEST you can ever hope for is a Rand-type...we'll never get what is moral or just like that. Our movement will be co-opted one election at a time until Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are themselves incrementally cornered and seen as "too extreme" on libertarian points. Trying to appeal to the majority will always lead to incremental neutering of any liberty movement. It turned classical liberals into anti-free market, pro-huge state modern liberals over a period of less than 2 centuries. It turned Barry Goldwater conservatism into neoconservatism in less than 50 years (just as Goldwater said would happen). It WILL turn libertarianism into little more than paleoconservativism (pro-protectionism, anti-free market, anti-immigration, pro-labor market protectionism, pro-tariff/indirect taxation, anti-elimination of tax, etc.).

Winning elections IS NOT how generational changes occur. It's at best a symptom of an already occurred change. To change this country, and the world, we need to first change minds. If we focused on using elections to change minds instead of actually winning (like Ron did), then we'd be fine. The problem is, we focus on winning to the detriment of the message and changing minds (Rand). That leads to people who feel lied to when they believed our politicians, and it leads to NOT changing their minds. They come to reject our FAKE message as lies, and never accept our REAL message because we squander the opportunity to let them hear it.

We need to be lighting "brushfires in the minds of men", not winning elections for short term gain that isn't going to be sustainable, and as sophists who fit in with all the other sophists (just with slightly modified positions).

Fuck majority opinion. The first thing I do when the majority agrees with me is review all my premises and logic to make sure I'm not wrong...because the majority agreeing with you is usually the first sign you are fucking totally wrong. You want change? It won't come through the implicit violence of the ballot box. It will come before that, via changing minds. The wins in elections should ONLY be happy accidents showing the people are ready for RADICAL change...not watered-down, won't make a major difference, change. If you don't convince them of the need for radical change, and instead run elections to win them no matter how much you have to bend to the whims of the violent, fickle, and stupid mob, then OF COURSE you will incrementally destroy your own cause. They need truth to convince them, and that means we need to run on truth, not run on really trying to win as our first goal. Sure, we won't win elections for a while, but when we finally do, America will be begging for radical change. The Rand approach is just a logical long term disaster (and that assumes he's being a sophist and just hiding true libertarian opinions...which I have come to doubt).

Brushfires in the minds of men can only stay lit when truth is their fuel. They burn out quickly and consume the fire-starter when the combustible is little more than pandering and compromise of principles (as opposed to coalitions ON individual principles). Don't be surprised if you get burnt by your nationalism, statism, and sophistry.

helmuth_hubener
09-05-2014, 08:45 AM
I was opposed to the air strikes at first as well but then changed my mind after the events that unfolded.

After, you mean, you were exposed to enough of the media narrative carefully and persuasively explaining why you should support them.

These people are professional persuaders. They are very persuasive. They have persuaded you. This is not surprising.

But that predictable occurance obviously doesn't mean that there's actually any way on this green Earth that the US government should be getting into another war. Just mind our own business. Just come home.

Remember that?

Some of us still agree with it.

Just Come Home.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX-DIpkJRDY

Did anybody listen to that clip from the Tom Woods Show talking about Rand? I thought it was extremely insightful and enlightening, and it could not be more relevant:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=66419

25:44 and especially 28:18

Did you listen? What are your thoughts?

Is Rand trying to outsmart himself?

Here's my thought: How can we get Tom Woods onboard as an advisor to Rand?

kylejack
09-05-2014, 08:48 AM
I know that you're opposed to military action against ISIS, but do you really view military action against this group as being exactly the same as say invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power in 2003? Or do you at least see a difference?
Sure sounds like the same liberation philosophy to me.

CaptUSA
09-05-2014, 08:54 AM
This again. Rand doesn't have to be good. He just has to be marginally better than all other candidates. Got it.

Yeah, not what I'm saying. If he is good on a lot of other issues, but only marginally better on this one, isn't that still better than any other alternative?

Listen, I'm not trying to persuade you in any way. To me, the main disappointment is not the intervention issue. I tend to think he is still a non-interventionist. The issue to me is how far he will stray in order to get the power. It's got to put the question in your mind, that once he has the power, will he still stray in order to keep it - or to gain more power? When I take a long-range view, though, I still tend to think it's better to have someone in that office that may stray from time to time than have someone whose stated purpose is to f**k s**t up.

Acala
09-05-2014, 08:57 AM
If they took over Iraq and set up their own government, you realize they would get a hold of air planes, correct? Would you even be in favor of military action if ISIS got a hold of a jet airplane and flew across the ocean towards the United States? Or would that be intervention and something we shouldn't do since we have to wait until we're attacked first?

You realize that there is much more to having an effective air force than stealing some airplanes? But even if they had an airforce and trained pilots and fuel and ammunition and all the support aircraft needed to get them across the ocean we could shoot them all down before lunch. It is not a realistic threat at this point, but if they DID amass an attack on US soil, go ahead and shoot them down. It will never happen.

Acala
09-05-2014, 08:59 AM
So we should use military action when thousands of Americans are killed, but not two? What exactly is the magic number of Americans that have to be killed before we can respond with military force?

An attack on Americans abroad is not an attack on the USA.

kylejack
09-05-2014, 09:00 AM
We can't start a war every time someone kills an American in distant places that the State Department has warned them not to travel to.

Acala
09-05-2014, 09:00 AM
Yeah, isn't that nice of them. They gave them the choice of either leaving their homes, their belongings, and everything they had, or else get brutally murdered. Such nice people.

If you want to be the niceness police, go for it - on your own dime and time. Might I suggest your first stop should be the Pentagon?

Acala
09-05-2014, 09:02 AM
It's just the truth. They've slaughtered thousands of people. I'm also not saying that we should go to war solely for humanitarian reasons. I'm opposed to humanitarian wars. I'm only advocating military action now because I believe that a group of people that have declared war against the U.S are a threat to our security. I just mentioned the genocide to point out that there's absolutely nothing immoral about killing these people, because they commit brutal acts of aggression against others.

The USA also has committed brutal acts of aggression against others. Does that mean there is nothing immoral about killing you?

Acala
09-05-2014, 09:04 AM
I'm not really saying that killing Americans overseas is enough in itself to justify military action. I'm just saying that when you combine that with everything else that's happened, ISIS represents a direct threat to U.S national security, and this is a rare instance where I support authorizing military action. (Just air strikes, no ground troops)

Explain exactly how ISIS poses a threat to the liberty of the people of the USA. I don't mean single criminal acts of murder on US soil. I mean a threat to the continuation of the Republic.

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 09:07 AM
Yeah, not what I'm saying. If he is good on a lot of other issues, but only marginally better on this one, isn't that still better than any other alternative?

Listen, I'm not trying to persuade you in any way. To me, the main disappointment is not the intervention issue. I tend to think he is still a non-interventionist. The issue to me is how far he will stray in order to get the power. It's got to put the question in your mind, that once he has the power, will he still stray in order to keep it - or to gain more power? When I take a long-range view, though, I still tend to think it's better to have someone in that office that may stray from time to time than have someone whose stated purpose is to f**k s**t up.
I understand. And Rand still has my vote for the reasons you mentioned. I just hope most here agree that there's a point where we have to tell him "enough!" We cannot concede too much more to garner the support of people who got us into the mess we're in in the first place.

helmuth_hubener
09-05-2014, 09:33 AM
Here's what Jimmy Duncan has to say:


Rep. ‘Jimmy’ Duncan urges using war money to fund highways

Duncan has been critical of the vast costs related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. “We need to stop spending all these billions in Iraq and Afghanistan and start taking better care of our own people and our own country,” he said.

Iraq is once again the center of debate in Washington, D.C., as President Obama ponders options to help bolster the conflict-torn country against a fast-moving Islamic insurgency. The militant group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has seized Mosul, Tikrit and other towns in Iraq as the country’s military melted away in recent weeks.

Opposes Iraq action

Duncan opposes further military involvement in Iraq. “We cannot continue to send money and support to corrupt governments overseas when we have so many unmet needs here at home, and we certainly don’t need to keep doing almost everything for other nations,” he said in a statement to The Daily Times. “We have spent mega-billions on Iraq and Afghanistan, with some estimates topping $2 trillion, and they are still in chaos. Spending more treasure and spilling more blood for these wars will do no good. The Iraqi people are going to have to take care of their own problems, including the ISIS.

“President Obama should make sure our embassy is secured and not let something happen like what happened in Benghazi, but otherwise, this war has been going on twice as long as World War II, and it is long-past time for U.S. involvement and support to end.”

-- http://www.thedailytimes.com/news/rep-jimmy-duncan-urges-using-war-money-to-fund-highways/article_f73b71de-c6a9-5c3d-b46e-9f3d9fcd46bf.html

Brett85
09-05-2014, 09:48 AM
It might even be worse. And it's still none of our business.

How could it be worse? We're talking about targeted air strikes this time and not sending in ground troops, and we have the permission of the Iraqi government to launch the air strikes against ISIS. They asked for our help and asked us to launch the air strikes. I don't see how you can say that it's even remotely the same situation as the original Iraq invasion in 2003, and I certainly don't see how you can say that it's actually worse.

kylejack
09-05-2014, 09:51 AM
How could it be worse? We're talking about targeted air strikes this time and not sending in ground troops, and we have the permission of the Iraqi government to launch the air strikes against ISIS. They asked for our help and asked us to launch the air strikes. I don't see how you can say that it's even remotely the same situation as the original Iraq invasion in 2003, and I certainly don't see how you can say that it's actually worse.
ISIS claims that territory is theirs, and there's no question they are occupying it. So you have the permission of a neighboring government and you want to get involved in other countries' territory dispute.

Team America: World Police

jllundqu
09-05-2014, 10:17 AM
I've been trolling some lefty sites and they are eating this up. They are trying to lay the "flip-flopper" label around Rand's neck. They are using these for comparison:

Rand Paul: I am NOT an Isolationist (Time, Sept. 2014)
http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am-not-an-isolationist/

Right alongside this:

Rand Paul: No Good Case for U.S. Military Intervention (Wall Street Journal, June 2014)
http://online.wsj.com/articles/sen-rand-paul-america-shouldnt-choose-sides-in-iraqs-civil-war-1403219558

To the left, this is a gift... they can play the flip flopper card all day now.

twomp
09-05-2014, 10:27 AM
ISIS claims that territory is theirs, and there's no question they are occupying it. So you have the permission of a neighboring government and you want to get involved in other countries' territory dispute.

Team America: World Police

Remember no matter how many facts and truths came out, you still couldn't persuade the conservatives that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a bad idea? Remember Ron Paul getting boo'd for saying 9/11 was a result of blowback? That is how what you are doing now trying to persuade TC. Facts, logic and reasoning no longer matter to TC as long as we kill ISIS. And if we kill any innocents along the way which we definitely will then oh well. And if the family of those innocents decide to join ISIS to get revenge then we will just send them more bombs. We will do that until there is peace and harmony in the region. That is what it is like talking to these people now.

Oh by the way, Israel who is right there in the middle of all this is SOOOOOOOO worried about ISIS that they went ahead and bombed the Syrian Army.


The Israeli army said it struck a Syrian military position on Thursday after presumed "errant fire" hit the Israeli-occupied sector of the Golan Heights.

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-hits-syria-army-post-errant-fire-183619492.html

Don't worry about ISIS Israel! America got this!

supermario21
09-05-2014, 10:30 AM
Because ISIS isn't really a state, attacking them is potentially more problematic. I wish Rand just stuck to his original guns. ISIS is not a "threat" to us in any form. Just because it's likely not safe to travel to Syria or Iraq and wander off in the desert as a journalist doesn't mean that they can threaten us...

helmuth_hubener
09-05-2014, 10:33 AM
He's the only member of Congress that I know of who said he would vote against authorization for the air strikes.

See Jimmy Duncan statement above.

Rand needs to take a note from Jimmy Duncan. Be more like Jimmy, Rand. Stop trying to be too clever and disingenuous. You're going to trip all over yourself and your cleverness.

When you tell one lie, it leads to another,
So you tell two lies to cover each other,
Then you tell three lies, and: oh brother!
You're in trouble up to your ears.

You can't remember how many lies you've told,
Half the things you say aren't true,
Some time you'll slip up, you'll trip up, and then,
Whatever will become of you?

So you lie and lie, so Fox won't suspect you,
Then you lie so neo-cons won't reject you,
Juggling all these lies, now, you collect:
A life full of worries and fears.

Acala
09-05-2014, 10:33 AM
How could it be worse? We're talking about targeted air strikes this time and not sending in ground troops, and we have the permission of the Iraqi government to launch the air strikes against ISIS. They asked for our help and asked us to launch the air strikes. I don't see how you can say that it's even remotely the same situation as the original Iraq invasion in 2003, and I certainly don't see how you can say that it's actually worse.

The ONLY threat to the USA is the threat of terrorists sneaking into the country and doing some evil deed. Mind you that is NOT a threat to national security, it does not endanger the Republic or our liberty, it is just a criminal act. But it is a threat of sorts.

And that threat of terrorism is EXACTLY the threat you make WORSE by your airstrikes. Everyone you kill has a brother, a father, a son who now has a reason to kill Americans. The idea that you can somehow bomb everyone out of existence that hates the USA is just stupid. Stop killing people and come home. They will quickly be distracted by killing each other.

jllundqu
09-05-2014, 10:40 AM
I've been trolling some lefty sites and they are eating this up. They are trying to lay the "flip-flopper" label around Rand's neck. They are using these for comparison:

Rand Paul: I am NOT an Isolationist (Time, Sept. 2014)
http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am-not-an-isolationist/

Right alongside this:

Rand Paul: No Good Case for U.S. Military Intervention (Wall Street Journal, June 2014)
http://online.wsj.com/articles/sen-rand-paul-america-shouldnt-choose-sides-in-iraqs-civil-war-1403219558

To the left, this is a gift... they can play the flip flopper card all day now.

It's already making the rounds:

SHOCKER: Rand Paul Flip Flops on Intervention in the Middle East!

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/09/shocker-rand-paul-flip-flops-now-supports-u-s-military-intervention-middle-east/

CaptUSA
09-05-2014, 10:41 AM
Stop killing people and come home. They will quickly be distracted by killing each other.

If only it were that easy. By leaving the arena entirely, we would still get blamed by the brothers, fathers, and sons of the people that ISIS kills. No matter what, terrorism as a result of our past interventions is here for a while. Blowback if we do, blowback if we don't.

But I'd much rather accept the blowback if we don't. First, it's a lot cheaper. Second, it has an expiration date. If we continue this, it will NEVER expire.

jllundqu
09-05-2014, 10:47 AM
It's already making the rounds:

SHOCKER: Rand Paul Flip Flops on Intervention in the Middle East!

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/09/shocker-rand-paul-flip-flops-now-supports-u-s-military-intervention-middle-east/

And here's another "Flip Flop" piece from SALON:

Rand Paul’s flip-flop nightmare: “Non-interventionist” now backs war in the Middle East
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/rand_pauls_flip_flop_nightmare_non_interventionist _now_backs_war_in_the_middle_east/

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 10:53 AM
If only it were that easy. By leaving the arena entirely, we would still get blamed by the brothers, fathers, and sons of the people that ISIS kills. No matter what, terrorism as a result of our past interventions is here for a while. Blowback if we do, blowback if we don't.

But I'd much rather accept the blowback if we don't. First, it's a lot cheaper. Second, it has an expiration date. If we continue this, it will NEVER expire.
Your two statements appear to contradict each other, but maybe I just didn't get enough sleep last night, so I'm only going to address the first.

The people in that region won't stop killing those they see as "infidels" no matter what we do. We could stay there another 100 years (as John McCain wanted) and there would be thousands more brothers, fathers, and sons getting killed that they will be able to blame on us just because we are there.

Or, we could leave immediately and accept the blame/blowback/fallout for our involvement in the past but cut our losses for future killings.

Acala
09-05-2014, 10:57 AM
If only it were that easy. By leaving the arena entirely, we would still get blamed by the brothers, fathers, and sons of the people that ISIS kills. No matter what, terrorism as a result of our past interventions is here for a while. Blowback if we do, blowback if we don't.

But I'd much rather accept the blowback if we don't. First, it's a lot cheaper. Second, it has an expiration date. If we continue this, it will NEVER expire.

I agree that we aren't going to have instant peace by minding our own business. Indeed, those who profit from war are likely to arrange things that will severely test our committment to non-intervention at first. But if we stick to our position, the time will come when we are seen as neutral and not a player in the world violence game. And the sooner we start the sooner the world will forget about America the Bully.

kylejack
09-05-2014, 11:03 AM
Interesting piece where various libertarian figures weigh in on Rand's flip-flop. http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/05/what-do-libertarians-think-about-rand-pa

Justin Raimundo's explanation of Rand playing three dimensional chess is interesting, but not convincing. I think Rand does want to attack ISIS.

helmuth_hubener
09-05-2014, 11:14 AM
Justin Raimundo's explanation of Rand playing three dimensional chess is interesting, but not convincing.

No, no, Natural Citizen can tell you: it's four-dimensional chess.

Listen to Tom Woods' comments on the clip I posted. Tom thinks Rand really is sound and libertarian. But he's playing the political game, and sometimes he's being dishonest.

I agree. I think that Rand really is a non-interventionist. Or at least he was, before he ran for Senate. That is: for his entire life, until 2009. He was not just putting on an act for 40 years. He really and truly was a true-blue libertarian. But this is a dangerous game he's playing. He's playing with fire. Dishonesty is corrupting. Will he become what he's pretending to be? That's a real risk.

He needs to bring Tom Woods into his inner circle. He needs a voice of conscience. That doesn't mean he can't be very eloquent and careful in what he says. But he needs to surround himself with people of character, like Tom Woods, and be a person of character himself. He needs to ditch the John Tates and Jesse Bentons of this world. Just cut ties. Let them go. He doesn't need them, they need him.

Shane Harris
09-05-2014, 11:14 AM
I can't believe how many people here now completely disregard everything Ron Paul has ever said on Foreign Policy.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 11:21 AM
But that predictable occurance obviously doesn't mean that there's actually any way on this green Earth that the US government should be getting into another war. Just mind our own business. Just come home.

Remember that?

Some of us still agree with it.

Just Come Home.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX-DIpkJRDY

I still agree with bringing home our entire army from overseas. I would bring our troops home from Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and everywhere else. I would bring our entire army home and put them along our borders. I'm only in favor of air strikes against ISIS, not ground troops. I'm not even in favor of having the 1,500 troops that we have in Iraq now for intelligence gathering purposes. I think that we should use our CIA for the purpose of gathering intelligence in Iraq and Syria regarding where to bomb.

kylejack
09-05-2014, 11:23 AM
Your strikes would have collateral damage, and family of those innocent people will take up arms against you. Americans that travel in Iraq without heavily armed protection are endangering their own lives. They're not worth engaging in war, frankly.

The Gold Standard
09-05-2014, 11:26 AM
So this move is for what, to try to sway Republicans that would never vote for him in a primary anyway? But by shitting on the people who would vote for him? Looks like Rand is going to have to cozy up to the bankers too if he wants enough money to run a presidential campaign.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 11:29 AM
Your strikes would have collateral damage, and family of those innocent people will take up arms against you. Americans that travel in Iraq without heavily armed protection are endangering their own lives. They're not worth engaging in war, frankly.

ISIS was slaughtering people by the tens of thousands, and there would've been a full scale massacre had we not intervened with air strikes. Our air strikes will kill some innocent people, but not nearly as many as ISIS would kill if we just left the situation alone. The air strikes are saving lives overall, so opposing the air strikes because of the possibility of collateral damage doesn't make sense.

fr33
09-05-2014, 11:30 AM
Lol, not at all. Only compared to you and a few other hardcore anti government people on this forum. Compared to the average American I'm probably a pacifist isolationist. I've opposed every war and every intervention from the original Iraq war, the war in Libya, the proposed war in Syria to take out Assad, etc. Believe it or not, you can be somewhere in between someone who never wants to use military action and someone who always wants to use military action. I only support military action when there's an imminent threat to U.S national security. This fits that criteria. I'm opposed to practically all interventions in general.

Why would you have not supported the Iraq invasion? So far on this thread your justifications are identical to Bush's except for WMDs (but your claim that ISIS will cross the oceans using military aircraft and naval vessels is even more outlandish than WMDs)

Saddam killed more than ISIS has.
Saddam made verbal threats against the US like ISIS.

kylejack
09-05-2014, 11:32 AM
ISIS was slaughtering people by the tens of thousands, and there would've been a full scale massacre had we not intervened with air strikes. Our air strikes will kill some innocent people, but not nearly as many as ISIS would kill if we just left the situation alone. The air strikes are saving lives overall, so opposing the air strikes because of the possibility of collateral damage doesn't make sense.
You sound like Cheney right now talking about the horrors of the Saddam Hussein regime. Gassed his own people, slaughtered innocent civilians, yada yada yada. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of humanitarian war and making new enemies.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 11:34 AM
Why would you have not supported the Iraq invasion? So far on this thread your justifications are identical to Bush's except for WMDs (but your claim that ISIS will cross the oceans using military aircraft and naval vessels is even more outlandish than WMDs)

Saddam killed more than ISIS has.
Saddam made verbal threats against the US like ISIS.

Saddam was contained to his own country. He wasn't expanding across the world committing mass genocide and trying to take over the entire Middle East or the world. I don't believe that we should use military action when a country is contained, like Iraq was. This is a situation where you have a 100,000 member army of an extremely dangerous terrorist group that's taken over large areas of Iraq and Syria, have millions of dollars to work with, and have the goal of expanding across the Middle East and taking it over. If you can't see the difference between the two situations, I can't really help you. I'm opposed to the vast majority of U.S military interventions but support an exception in this situation.

kylejack
09-05-2014, 11:36 AM
Saddam was contained to his own country. He wasn't expanding across the world committing mass genocide and trying to take over the entire Middle East or the world. I don't believe that we should use military action when a country is contained, like Iraq was. This is a situation where you have a 100,000 member army of an extremely dangerous terrorist group that's taken over large areas of Iraq and Syria, have millions of dollars to work with, and have the goal of expanding across the Middle East and taking it over. If you can't see the difference between the two situations, I can't really help you. I'm opposed to the vast majority of U.S military interventions but support an exception in this situation.
So then I guess you also think we should go get involved in the Congo, where militias are taking territory and killing a lot of innocent people. Sorry, but I don't want the US to be the world's policeman. We have enough troubles of our own.

You know who is not contained in their own country? The US military. Maybe they should go back to protecting our country.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 11:36 AM
You sound like Cheney right now talking about the horrors of the Saddam Hussein regime. Gassed his own people, slaughtered innocent civilians, yada yada yada. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of humanitarian war and making new enemies.

I'm not saying that war is justified for humanitarian reasons only, just that your concern about civilian casualties isn't valid when ISIS was already slaughtering civilians by the thousands. If you want to oppose the air strikes because you think they won't work or because you don't think ISIS is actually a threat to our security, that's a valid argument and valid debate to have. But the collateral damage argument doesn't hold up when ISIS is already indiscriminately killing innocent people.

kylejack
09-05-2014, 11:38 AM
I'm not saying that war is justified for humanitarian reasons only, just that your concern about civilian casualties isn't valid when ISIS was already slaughtering civilians by the thousands. If you want to oppose the air strikes because you think they won't work or because you don't think ISIS is actually a threat to our security, that's a valid argument and valid debate to have. But the collateral damage argument doesn't hold up when ISIS is already indiscriminately killing innocent people.
Saddam Hussein indiscriminately killed innocent people. That's why Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators. And did that happen? No. We made a lot more enemies including ISIS itself, because war's victims are many more than what is calculated by armchair generals.

helmuth_hubener
09-05-2014, 11:38 AM
I'm only in favor of air strikes against ISIS, not ground troops. Why? Because:

1. It's cheaper
2. It's faster
3. It's safer
4. It seems to you to have less lasting consequences.

But a dead man, or a dead wife, or a dead child, is still a dead man, or a dead wife, or a dead child. There are very real and serious consequences to bombing people and property.

An airplane is like a super-berserker. Get in, rampage, wreck havoc, get out. Before that, tanks were the super-berserkers. You don't need to march a whole battalion in and worry about scouting things out, logistics, carefully choosing and defending camp sites every night on the way to the final destination 50 miles away, etc. You just hit the throttle, blaze in, blast everything to smithereens, and zip back home.

It would make no sense to say "I'm for sending in tanks, but not infantry." Well, actually, it would make a lot of sense, but as a tactical statement, not a policy statement. Using tanks and not infantry is not a foreign policy. Airplanes is just tanks to the next level.

What if we had long-range lasers? Would you say:

"Oh, these guys whoever they are are not-nice guys, very not-nice. They are taunting us, even, and being meanypants. We need to take action and destroy them. I support siccing the lasers on them, destroying all their towns and families with lasers. But not sending actual airplanes over, oh no, not that. That's a full blown war, like the ISIS war we had a few years back. We'll get bogged down for years and spend trillions. That would be dumb. This time, we're smarter. Just lasers."

Brett85
09-05-2014, 11:39 AM
So then I guess you also think we should go get involved in the Congo, where militias are taking territory and killing a lot of innocent people. Sorry, but I don't want the US to be the world's policeman. We have enough troubles of our own.

You know who is not contained in their own country? The US military. Maybe they should go back to protecting our country.

I don't want to be the world's policeman either. I only support military action against ISIS because I believe they're a threat to launch attacks against America.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 11:40 AM
Saddam Hussein indiscriminately killed innocent people. That's why Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators. And did that happen? No. We made a lot more enemies including ISIS itself, because war's victims are many more than what is calculated by armchair generals.

I'm not saying that a country or a regime killing innocent people is reason enough for us to intervene or go to war. I'm just saying that when you bring up the issue of collateral damage with air strikes, you have to keep in mind that the people who are accidentally killed would've been killed by ISIS anyway had we not intervened. These aren't people who would be alive had we not launched air strikes.

kylejack
09-05-2014, 11:50 AM
I'm not saying that a country or a regime killing innocent people is reason enough for us to intervene or go to war. I'm just saying that when you bring up the issue of collateral damage with air strikes, you have to keep in mind that the people who are accidentally killed would've been killed by ISIS anyway had we not intervened. These aren't people who would be alive had we not launched air strikes.
It's a question of who gets blamed. If our bombs kill people, they blame us (generally because the US military doesn't know how to do a limited campaign.)

Brett85
09-05-2014, 11:52 AM
It's a question of who gets blamed. If our bombs kill people, they blame us (generally because the US military doesn't know how to do a limited campaign.)

I understand your argument. I think so far the air strikes have been pretty targeted, rather than just bombing indiscriminately. That's my view on what we should do, targeted airstrikes but not bombing indiscriminately. I don't think we should target large urban population centers.

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 12:06 PM
No, no, Natural Citizen can tell you: it's four-dimensional chess.

Listen to Tom Woods' comments on the clip I posted. Tom thinks Rand really is sound and libertarian. But he's playing the political game, and sometimes he's being dishonest.

I agree. I think that Rand really is a non-interventionist. Or at least he was, before he ran for Senate. That is: for his entire life, until 2009. He was not just putting on an act for 40 years. He really and truly was a true-blue libertarian. But this is a dangerous game he's playing. He's playing with fire. Dishonesty is corrupting. Will he become what he's pretending to be? That's a real risk.

He needs to bring Tom Woods into his inner circle. He needs a voice of conscience. That doesn't mean he can't be very eloquent and careful in what he says. But he needs to surround himself with people of character, like Tom Woods, and be a person of character himself. He needs to ditch the John Tates and Jesse Bentons of this world. Just cut ties. Let them go. He doesn't need them, they need him.+rep

Brett85
09-05-2014, 12:11 PM
No, no, Natural Citizen can tell you: it's four-dimensional chess.

Listen to Tom Woods' comments on the clip I posted. Tom thinks Rand really is sound and libertarian. But he's playing the political game, and sometimes he's being dishonest.

I agree. I think that Rand really is a non-interventionist. Or at least he was, before he ran for Senate. That is: for his entire life, until 2009. He was not just putting on an act for 40 years. He really and truly was a true-blue libertarian. But this is a dangerous game he's playing. He's playing with fire. Dishonesty is corrupting. Will he become what he's pretending to be? That's a real risk.

He needs to bring Tom Woods into his inner circle. He needs a voice of conscience. That doesn't mean he can't be very eloquent and careful in what he says. But he needs to surround himself with people of character, like Tom Woods, and be a person of character himself. He needs to ditch the John Tates and Jesse Bentons of this world. Just cut ties. Let them go. He doesn't need them, they need him.

Everything that I've read about Rand suggests that he's less hawkish than the Republican Party as a whole but has never entirely agreed with Ron's foreign policy. Eric Dondero has said that Ron and Rand use to have knock down drag out fights over foreign policy. He is kind of a nut, and maybe you don't think his claims are credible. But I also remember Ron saying in an interview that Rand challenged his views more than any of his other children.

Peace&Freedom
09-05-2014, 12:11 PM
I'm not saying that a country or a regime killing innocent people is reason enough for us to intervene or go to war. I'm just saying that when you bring up the issue of collateral damage with air strikes, you have to keep in mind that the people who are accidentally killed would've been killed by ISIS anyway had we not intervened. These aren't people who would be alive had we not launched air strikes.

So, on the basis of SPECULATING that the people would be killed anyway, it's okay for the US to launch air strikes that will DEFINITELY kill them? This is neurosis as foreign policy. And what if the only reason ISIS is killing people, is in order to provide a pretext for the US to perform the air strikes it wanted to do all along?

The US trained, equipped and funded ISIS. The common 'blowback' notion is "then they went rogue," but I see no evidence that ISIS ever stopped being an asset of US/Western intelligence. Their job, like al Qaeda before them, has been to perform false-flag/black ops to justify new or resumed US intervention in the Mid-east. Only when we completely remove ourselves from the theater (both military ops, and all the covert ops) will the killing stop.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 12:17 PM
So, on the basis of SPECULATING that the people would be killed anyway, it's okay for the US to launch air strikes that will DEFINITELY kill them? This is neurosis as foreign policy. And what if the only reason ISIS is killing people, is in order to provide a pretext for the US to perform the air strikes it wanted to do all along?

The US trained, equipped and funded ISIS. The common 'blowback' notion is "then they went rouge," but I see no evidence that ISIS ever stopped being an asset of US/Western intelligence. Their job, like al Qaeda before them, has been to perform false-flag/black ops to justify new or resumed US intervention in the Mid-east. Only when we completely remove ourselves from the theater (both military ops, and all the covert ops) will the killing stop.

I'm not that much of a conspiracy theorist. I think that U.S intervention is responsible for the rise of ISIS, but I think it was just unintended consequences and not something deliberate. Our government is just stupid.

Acala
09-05-2014, 12:39 PM
ISIS was slaughtering people by the tens of thousands, and there would've been a full scale massacre had we not intervened with air strikes. Our air strikes will kill some innocent people, but not nearly as many as ISIS would kill if we just left the situation alone. The air strikes are saving lives overall, so opposing the air strikes because of the possibility of collateral damage doesn't make sense.

It is not the proper role of the US government to police the world.

Acala
09-05-2014, 12:44 PM
I don't want to be the world's policeman either. I only support military action against ISIS because I believe they're a threat to launch attacks against America.

You say you don't want to be the world's policeman but your real justification here has come out in several posts - you think they are evil and they have killed a bunch of people so it is okay for us to intervene. And I think if you were honest, you would admit that you have religious motivations as well.

You have yet to articulate any manner in which ISIS is a credible threat to the USA in any way that can be contained by another violent attack by the USA in that region.

twomp
09-05-2014, 12:55 PM
You sound like Cheney right now talking about the horrors of the Saddam Hussein regime. Gassed his own people, slaughtered innocent civilians, yada yada yada. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of humanitarian war and making new enemies.

TC claims not to be a neo-con but uses all of their talking points.
Lies.... check
Fabricated facts... check
Fear mongering... check
Wanting America to go to war in the middle east... check
Dropping bombs for peace... check

Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 01:45 PM
You say you don't want to be the world's policeman but your real justification here has come out in several posts - you think they are evil and they have killed a bunch of people so it is okay for us to intervene.

No, that's not the case. I'm not for intervening for humanitarian reasons. That's why I was opposed to the air strikes at first, because I thought it was simply a humanitarian mission. I was only pointing out that opposing the air strikes because of fear of collateral damage doesn't make much sense when ISIS is already murdering innocent people by the thousands.

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 01:58 PM
Isn't this adorable?

507891549234282496

twomp
09-05-2014, 02:06 PM
Isn't this adorable?

507891549234282496

It's heart warming to see the GOP unite against a common threat.

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 02:13 PM
It's heart warming to see the GOP unite against a common threat.
Very....let's see, what word am I looking for? Oh, right....gratifying.

MaxHen
09-05-2014, 02:14 PM
No, that's not the case. I'm not for intervening for humanitarian reasons. That's why I was opposed to the air strikes at first, because I thought it was simply a humanitarian mission. I was only pointing out that opposing the air strikes because of fear of collateral damage doesn't make much sense when ISIS is already murdering innocent people by the thousands.

If a murderer was going around killing people, would it be justified for you to drop a bomb on his house if it meant killing innocents who live near him? Killing innocents is unjustified when ISIS does it, and unjustified when we do it. End of story.

Since you keep claiming that ISIS is a national security threat, please explain two things:

1. The type of attack you think ISIS might launch against the US.

2. How airstrikes will prevent them from launching such an attack.

If you can't explain both of those things, then you can't show that the current bombing campaign is protecting our national security. Since you've said that's the reason you support airstrikes, failure to adequately, coherently, and comprehensively explain both of those things would invalidate your entire argument. Either explain in full WHY airstrikes will protect our national security against ISIS, or stop claiming that they will.

Peace&Freedom
09-05-2014, 02:17 PM
I'm not that much of a conspiracy theorist. I think that U.S intervention is responsible for the rise of ISIS, but I think it was just unintended consequences and not something deliberate. Our government is just stupid.

The government is not stupid or incompetent when it comes to doing things that further expands or centralizes its power, or Empire---on that front, it is mercilously efficient. It is not a theory, it is a fact that ISIS was trained, funded and controlled by the US. The fact is the US tried the quick, direct false flag route last August to get into Syria (lying about Assad being behind a gas attack on other Syrians), and failed. This year, they are trying the roundabout false flag route, of directing their ISIS group to enter and seize parts of Iraq, which gave the Empire an excuse to re-enter Iraq, and now to expand the war against ISIS by going into Syria. And our 'stupid' government appears to be succeeding this time.

twomp
09-05-2014, 02:17 PM
Very....let's see, what word am I looking for? Oh, right....gratifying.

LOL! This is the look of gratification right here!

http://michellemalkin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mccainhillary.png

McCain: We're back in Iraq!
Clinton: Teehee Teehee!

Brett85
09-05-2014, 03:00 PM
If a murderer was going around killing people, would it be justified for you to drop a bomb on his house if it meant killing innocents who live near him? Killing innocents is unjustified when ISIS does it, and unjustified when we do it. End of story.

The air strikes thus far have been very targeted. I haven't even seen any reports of mass civilian casualties. Do you have a link? Ultimately it may not be possible for there to not be any civilian casualties, but the civilian casualties are very low with the kind of targeted air strikes we're doing. President Obama has received quite a bit of criticism for not expanding the air strikes.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 03:05 PM
1. The type of attack you think ISIS might launch against the US.

2. How airstrikes will prevent them from launching such an attack.

If you can't explain both of those things, then you can't show that the current bombing campaign is protecting our national security. Since you've said that's the reason you support airstrikes, failure to adequately, coherently, and comprehensively explain both of those things would invalidate your entire argument. Either explain in full WHY airstrikes will protect our national security against ISIS, or stop claiming that they will.

1) I don't know what kind of an attack it would be. There's no possible way for me to know that without having access to intelligence reports.

2) I think they're less likely to carry out an attack if we can destroy their infrastructure. Their command and control center is located in Syria, and I think it would benefit our national security if we could take it out. Taking out their infrastructure makes it less likely that they could coordinate with each other and pull off an attack. I also think it's more likely that they could pull off an attack against us if they could actually take over Iraq and set up their own government. They would then have access to air planes and weapons they could use against us. If they were able to take over Pakistan they would even have access to nuclear weapons.

Acala
09-05-2014, 03:16 PM
1) I don't know what kind of an attack it would be. There's no possible way for me to know that without having access to intelligence reports.

2) I think they're less likely to carry out an attack if we can destroy their infrastructure. Their command and control center is located in Syria, and I think it would benefit our national security if we could take it out. Taking out their infrastructure makes it less likely that they could coordinate with each other and pull off an attack. I also think it's more likely that they could pull off an attack against us if they could actually take over Iraq and set up their own government. They would then have access to air planes and weapons they could use against us. If they were able to take over Pakistan they would even have access to nuclear weapons.

This is just wild speculation. You could say this about ANYONE.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 03:23 PM
This is just wild speculation. You could say this about ANYONE.

I don't think so. I think this is a pretty unusual situation where a real threat actually exists. Most of the so called threats are simply media fabrications, such as Iran's nuclear program. But this is a situation where there is a real threat because U.S foreign policy has been so messed up in the past that it created a monster. Rand understands that even though non intervention is best, when U.S foreign policy creates a monster it has to be destroyed before we can actually have peace and non intervention.

twomp
09-05-2014, 03:40 PM
I don't think so. I think this is a pretty unusual situation where a real threat actually exists. Most of the so called threats are simply media fabrications, such as Iran's nuclear program. But this is a situation where there is a real threat because U.S foreign policy has been so messed up in the past that it created a monster. Rand understands that even though non intervention is best, when U.S foreign policy creates a monster it has to be destroyed before we can actually have peace and non intervention.

Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 03:46 PM
Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity.

Let me explain it like this. The U.S government is largely responsible for the rise of ISIS through funding them and training them. We all agree on that. Rand was opposed to that. He opposed arming the Syrian rebels and was certainly opposed to training them. Yet, if he became President he would have to deal with a monster that was created by the U.S government. Could he just ignore it simply because he generally believes that non intervention is best? I don't think so, because any President has to deal with the past mistakes of previous Presidents and the U.S government in general. He would have a responsibility to protect the country, and he would have the responsibility of dealing with the blowback that's been caused by previous decisions made by the government. Rand would be in favor of protecting the American people from the blowback caused by U.S foreign policy, and then after the threat has been eliminated, implement policies that will at least hopefully start to fix the problem, such as not giving weapons to people who want to kill us.

twomp
09-05-2014, 03:52 PM
Let me explain it like this. The U.S government is largely responsible for the rise of ISIS through funding them and training them. We all agree on that. Rand was opposed to that. He opposed arming the Syrian rebels and was certainly opposed to training them. Yet, if he became President he would have to deal with a monster that was created by the U.S government. Could he just ignore it simply because he generally believes that non intervention is best? I don't think so, because any President has to deal with the past mistakes of previous Presidents and the U.S government in general. He would have a responsibility to protect the country, and he would have the responsibility of dealing with the blowback that's been caused by previous decisions made by the government. Rand would be in favor of protecting the American people from the blowback caused by U.S foreign policy, and then after the threat has been eliminated, implement policies that will at least hopefully start to fix the problem, such as not giving weapons to people who want to kill us.

How do you stop blowback by creating more blowback?

cajuncocoa
09-05-2014, 03:54 PM
How do you stop blowback by creating more blowback?
The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round....'round and 'round....'round and 'round.....

twomp
09-05-2014, 04:13 PM
The air strikes thus far have been very targeted. I haven't even seen any reports of mass civilian casualties. Do you have a link? Ultimately it may not be possible for there to not be any civilian casualties, but the civilian casualties are very low with the kind of targeted air strikes we're doing. President Obama has received quite a bit of criticism for not expanding the air strikes.

Yes because the media is very forthcoming with civilian casualties. But don't worry, they won't be able to hide that information forever. The reports will come just like they have EVERY time we bomb for peace. Btw, how are those "targeted strikes" working for you in Yemen? I'm sure you support those too right? Since it isn't to topple a government, doesn't involve boots on the ground and its against Al Qaeda. How about "targeted strikes" in Somalia against Al-Shabab? They threatened us too! As long as we don't topple the government. IT's all good right?

Brett85
09-05-2014, 04:15 PM
Yes because the media is very forthcoming with civilian casualties. But don't worry, they won't be able to hide that information forever. The reports will come just like they have EVERY time we bomb for peace. Btw, how are those "targeted strikes" working for you in Yemen? I'm sure you support those too right? Since it isn't to topple a government, doesn't involve boots on the ground and its against Al Qaeda. How about "targeted strikes" in Somalia against Al-Shabab? They threatened us too! As long as we don't topple the government. IT's all good right?

See my response to that in the other thread.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 04:20 PM
Perhaps letters of marque and reprisal could also work to deal with terrorists in some instances. But I'm just not sure how that could actually work in a situation where you have an army of terrorists with 100,000 troops.

devil21
09-05-2014, 04:33 PM
The government is not stupid or incompetent when it comes to doing things that further expands or centralizes its power, or Empire---on that front, it is mercilously efficient. It is not a theory, it is a fact that ISIS was trained, funded and controlled by the US. The fact is the US tried the quick, direct false flag route last August to get into Syria (lying about Assad being behind a gas attack on other Syrians), and failed. This year, they are trying the roundabout false flag route, of directing their ISIS group to enter and seize parts of Iraq, which gave the Empire an excuse to re-enter Iraq, and now to expand the war against ISIS by going into Syria. And our 'stupid' government appears to be succeeding this time.

Im glad someone else is seeing this entire issue for what it truly is, another bite at the Syria apple. Now, Israel is reportedly bombing (and has been for a while) Syrian military. Does anyone think that's unrelated? I sure hope no one is that naive. Israel quietly degrades Syrian infrastructure while we are consumed by ISIS debates and propaganda, leaving a weakened Assad government and military for ISIS (aka "Syrian rebels") to attack again while our planes drop bombs on "ISIS" in Syria (actually Syrian military, along with Israel's bombing). That provides enough damage to Assad to allow the "rebels" to win this time. Assad is removed in some manner and puppet government and central bank is installed. Then, Syria becomes a useful tool to take over neighboring Lebanon without much military effort and then will likely be used as a pawn to start a war with Iran.

It's not rocket science folks.

Acala
09-05-2014, 04:34 PM
Perhaps letters of marque and reprisal could also work to deal with terrorists in some instances. But I'm just not sure how that could actually work in a situation where you have an army of terrorists with 100,000 troops.

An army of terrorists that has no way in hell of ever getting near the USA. Your fantasy to the contrary is, frankly, absurd. They will never leave the Middle East as an army.

Of course a handful might make it over, slip into the USA, and do some damage. But the only way you could prevent that from happening with military action is by killing every single person that hates the USA including all the people that didn't hate the USA until your latest bombing. And then kill all of the next generation of terrorists that the last bombing created. And so on in an infinite cycle. It is is impossible to solve a problem created by bombing people with more bombing of the same people. Thinking that you can curtail the effects of decades of violence with a bit more well-placed violence is a kind of willful blindness.

The only rational course is to stop doing what it is we have been doing to irritate them in the first place. The answer is NOT to do more of the same thing that created this problem.

twomp
09-05-2014, 04:48 PM
An army of terrorists that has no way in hell of ever getting near the USA. Your fantasy to the contrary is, frankly, absurd. They will never leave the Middle East as an army.

Of course a handful might make it over, slip into the USA, and do some damage. But the only way you could prevent that from happening with military action is by killing every single person that hates the USA including all the people that didn't hate the USA until your latest bombing. And then kill all of the next generation of terrorists that the last bombing created. And so on in an infinite cycle. It is is impossible to solve a problem created by bombing people with more bombing of the same people. Thinking that you can curtail the effects of decades of violence with a bit more well-placed violence is a kind of willful blindness.

The only rational course is to stop doing what it is we have been doing to irritate them in the first place. The answer is NOT to do more of the same thing that created this problem.

Not to mention the fact that, even if they were to grow that powerful, they would still have to deal with Jordan, Turkey, Israel, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. All of whom we have armed.

AND on top of all that, they still have to hold on to territory they have taken. It is not easy running a country. How can they grow the economy of their country to create weapons while at the same time attack other countries. Will they create their own Federal Reserve to pay for all this?

kylejack
09-05-2014, 05:46 PM
No, that's not the case. I'm not for intervening for humanitarian reasons. That's why I was opposed to the air strikes at first, because I thought it was simply a humanitarian mission. I was only pointing out that opposing the air strikes because of fear of collateral damage doesn't make much sense when ISIS is already murdering innocent people by the thousands.
ISIS is murdering innocent people. The United States is not. If the United States begins to murder innocent people, then the United States will be seen as an enemy by the innocent people. So instead of murdering innocent people like ISIS does, let's just... not do that.

devil21
09-05-2014, 06:30 PM
Piggy-backing off my last post here.

SecState Kerry says today it'll take up to 3 YEARS to get rid of ISIS.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerry-isis-obama-destroy-coalition-2014-9

That sounds like just about how long it'll take to follow the blueprint I laid out in my post above, up to the point when Iran squarely becomes the target. ISIS is simply the new AQ-esque boogeyman, controlled and funded by our own intelligence agencies, that's being used as the cover for the rest of the regime changes needed to secure NWO controlled puppets and central banks in every country. Only then can world government be realized, only then can a nation-less currency be fully instituted (bye bye USD), etc.

In other words, if people let them win this argument and continue on with the plan, it's game, set, match for national sovereignty. Done deal. All that's left is to watch it play out.

twomp
09-05-2014, 07:02 PM
Piggy-backing off my last post here.

SecState Kerry says today it'll take up to 3 YEARS to get rid of ISIS.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerry-isis-obama-destroy-coalition-2014-9

That sounds like just about how long it'll take to follow the blueprint I laid out in my post above, up to the point when Iran squarely becomes the target. ISIS is simply the new AQ-esque boogeyman, controlled and funded by our own intelligence agencies, that's being used as the cover for the rest of the regime changes needed to secure NWO controlled puppets and central banks in every country. Only then can world government be realized, only then can a nation-less currency be fully instituted (bye bye USD), etc.

In other words, if people let them win this argument and continue on with the plan, it's game, set, match for national sovereignty. Done deal. All that's left is to watch it play out.

I would love to hear what the part-time non-interventionists say if this latest war is still going on in 2 years. Probably something along the lines of, "If we didn't bomb them, America would be in ashes right now!"

As for me, if we are still in Iraq in 2 years, I will proudly say that I wrote in Ron Paul again in 2016!

devil21
09-05-2014, 07:38 PM
I would love to hear what the part-time non-interventionists say if this latest war is still going on in 2 years. Probably something along the lines of, "If we didn't bomb them, America would be in ashes right now!"

As for me, if we are still in Iraq in 2 years, I will proudly say that I wrote in Ron Paul again in 2016!

They'll say whatever Hannity and Maddow tells them to say.


"It may take a year, it may take two years, it may take three years. But we’re determined it has to happen."

Like I said, they need this step to finish the job of regime changes under false pretenses. Much of understanding what prominent politicians/gov't lackeys say involves understanding the deeper context of their comments. Kerry isn't scared of ISIS. Kerry knows they need this cover story to finish the regime change plans since Al Qaeda is a worn out term and there's no other boogeymen to use.

Brett85
09-05-2014, 07:54 PM
It's already making the rounds:

SHOCKER: Rand Paul Flip Flops on Intervention in the Middle East!

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/09/shocker-rand-paul-flip-flops-now-supports-u-s-military-intervention-middle-east/

I don't see how he ever flip flopped. He said from the very beginning that he was open to air strikes in Iraq. But unlike other politicians, he isn't going to just immediately support using military action without first thinking it through.

MaxHen
09-05-2014, 08:28 PM
1) I don't know what kind of an attack it would be. There's no possible way for me to know that without having access to intelligence reports.

I mean the nature of the attack. Are they planning some sort of direct invasion of the US? No, obviously not. If they were to attack us, it would be through a small group of people committing terrorism. Going into their territory and dropping bombs will not prevent that.



2) I think they're less likely to carry out an attack if we can destroy their infrastructure. Their command and control center is located in Syria, and I think it would benefit our national security if we could take it out. Taking out their infrastructure makes it less likely that they could coordinate with each other and pull off an attack. I also think it's more likely that they could pull off an attack against us if they could actually take over Iraq and set up their own government. They would then have access to air planes and weapons they could use against us. If they were able to take over Pakistan they would even have access to nuclear weapons.

You have a cite for the location of the command center? I'm not saying it isn't in Syria but would like more info regarding the nature of their HQ. What "infrastructure" are you referring to?

They are not going to take over Iraq let alone Pakistan. That's just absurd. They have made no major advances recently and are under attack from Iran, Syria, Turkey, the current Iraqi government, and the Kurdish Peshmerga. In order to even enter Pakistan they would have to take over Afghanistan, and if they were ever stupid enough to try and invade Pakistan THEY would be nuked. If somehow they were able to take over Iraq (something I see no evidence of being likely) what are they going to do to us? Fly their planes across the Atlantic?

ISIS is boxed in and unlikely to expand further. However, they do have some very wealthy backers so it will probably take a good deal of blood and treasure to exterminate them fully. Better we let the countries who are actually in the region do the heavy lifting and not risk any more American lives, taxpayer dollars, or blowback.

Natural Citizen
09-06-2014, 01:13 AM
Isolationism is a phenomenon that extends beyond talk of physical combat in the Middle East. Or it should be. I know that it is politically convenient to discuss the phenomenon from within that pretext only but it just isn't practical from a point of scope relative to the duties that come with the office in whole. At the moment I cannot think of anyone who isn't isolationist from an economic perspective of foreign policy. In fact, we almost want to flirt with the notion that our leaders are actually trying to isolate the US in that regard.

Foreign policy is a big old tall glass of water. It is not just about physical combat in the Middle East. I think that it is impossible for anyone to try to say that they aren't isolationist in some way. It's just the way that it is.

P3ter_Griffin
09-06-2014, 03:26 AM
F the constitution, F the rule of law, if you want to fight ISIS do it with your own money and your own actions. That is not a theory that is f'n freedom.

ProIndividual
09-06-2014, 10:16 AM
Isolationism is a phenomenon that extends beyond talk of physical combat in the Middle East. Or it should be. I know that it is politically convenient to discuss the phenomenon from within that pretext only but it just isn't practical from a point of scope relative to the duties that come with the office in whole. At the moment I cannot think of anyone who isn't isolationist from an economic perspective of foreign policy. In fact, we almost want to flirt with the notion that our leaders are actually trying to isolate the US in that regard.

Foreign policy is a big old tall glass of water. It is not just about physical combat in the Middle East. I think that it is impossible for anyone to try to say that they aren't isolationist in some way. It's just the way that it is.

Isolationism isn't just non-interventionism...it's also protectionism. If you are for total non-intervention unless it is DIRECT and MEASURABLE harm or imminent endangerment to your populace, then you aren't an isolationist unless you are also for some form of protectionism (like tariffs, or closed borders/immigration quotas, etc.).

Being a free market advocate and non-interventionist disqualifies you from being an isolationist. Being an isolationist disqualifies you from being a free market advocate (because of the necessary aspect of protectionism to its definition).

I am not isolationist in ANY WAY, as I am a free market advocate (not lukewarm either, but radically free market - which is the only real kind of logically consistent free market advocacy), and am against protectionism ENTIRELY therefore.

Conflating "non-interventionism" with "isolationism" is a problem that pops up when people don't know what isolationism actually is per an encyclopedia.

Champuckett
09-07-2014, 04:57 AM
This recent policy "shift" or "clarification" (whatever you want to call it) Rand is talking about is personally sad to me. I think what originally drew me to Ron Paul back in 2007 was his foreign policy. I liked how gutsy and common sense it was, and had at that point in my life, never heard a single other politician draw such a distinct and peaceful line to when to initiate force (basically never).

Now we have one of our only hopes in the political arena saying this. Even if Rand is doing this to play politics, he's catering to this aggressive, all powerful government approach, that every nation is still trying to cling to, and something that pockets of resistance around the world are trying to overcome. More fuel and legitimacy to the idea of the authoritative state and government, from the currently most powerful and influential member of the GOP and arguably the most likely GOP nominee.

Disappointing.

Natural Citizen
09-07-2014, 08:07 AM
Isolationism isn't just non-interventionism...it's also protectionism. If you are for total non-intervention unless it is DIRECT and MEASURABLE harm or imminent endangerment to your populace, then you aren't an isolationist unless you are also for some form of protectionism (like tariffs, or closed borders/immigration quotas, etc.).

Being a free market advocate and non-interventionist disqualifies you from being an isolationist. Being an isolationist disqualifies you from being a free market advocate (because of the necessary aspect of protectionism to its definition).

I am not isolationist in ANY WAY, as I am a free market advocate (not lukewarm either, but radically free market - which is the only real kind of logically consistent free market advocacy), and am against protectionism ENTIRELY therefore.

Conflating "non-interventionism" with "isolationism" is a problem that pops up when people don't know what isolationism actually is per an encyclopedia.

I think that there exists waaaay too many isms. I suppose it's what we get when everyone wants a say so.

newbitech
09-07-2014, 08:35 AM
This recent policy "shift" or "clarification" (whatever you want to call it) Rand is talking about is personally sad to me. I think what originally drew me to Ron Paul back in 2007 was his foreign policy. I liked how gutsy and common sense it was, and had at that point in my life, never heard a single other politician draw such a distinct and peaceful line to when to initiate force (basically never).

Now we have one of our only hopes in the political arena saying this. Even if Rand is doing this to play politics, he's catering to this aggressive, all powerful government approach, that every nation is still trying to cling to, and something that pockets of resistance around the world are trying to overcome. More fuel and legitimacy to the idea of the authoritative state and government, from the currently most powerful and influential member of the GOP and arguably the most likely GOP nominee.

Disappointing.

I believe what this boils down to for me is taking an objective look at current events. I agree with the overall concept of the non aggression principle. When it comes to the nitty gritty details of actually applying this principle is where I begin to have problems.

I think one of the failures in understanding across the board is how relationships between individuals scales up to relationships between groups of individuals.

For instance, I make analogies about being a third party to witnessing a mugging on the street corner. The United States of America is a third party to Radical Islam killing and raping Kurdish Sects in northern Iraq.

If we apply the same broad principles of non aggression in both circumstances, a break down occurs. I believe anyone trying to argue that 3rd party violent intervention in the street corner mugging would be out of their mind to assert that the 3rd party is violating NAP.

Yet, in the case of the United States of America, we will hear the assertion that the United States of America is acting as policeman of the world, or that the United States of America CAUSED the violence by intervening in the first place.

So we have an inconsistent application of a core principle that breaks down precisely because of the scale between relationships.

It's easy to argue from both sides in my opinion. What is not easy to do is understand the difference or why a difference exists in the first place.

I think all of us here pretty much agree that the United States of America was the aggressor in Iraq and made the false justification of aggression in the first place. I also think all of us here pretty much agree as well that the best course of action is no action at all for the interests of the United States of America. I also think that many of us here pretty much agree that sending in the military to intervene once again under false pretenses would be an aggressive action that violates principles of non aggression and would therefor be morally wrong.

The disappointing part to me is how some of us so easily pick apart Rand Paul's words to only support a one sided argument.

Rand Paul has found a way to make his ideas, opinions, and principles relevant to the national debate. This is already an extremely difficult thing to do regardless if your dad is Ron Paul.

Now that he is a relevant part of the national debate, his job is to persuade people to take his positions. Rand Paul is already light years ahead of his dad in terms of influence. This is a very important key to successfully educating the other 90% of people who never agreed with you and I and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul took 30 years to hit his ceiling of 10% influence. The education campaign is ongoing, it never stopped, but it was greatly boosted by having a voice in the national debate. The biggest problem that I always ran in to, and to this day I continue to run in to is the hard line stance that most people take when it comes to violence.

There really is no clear cut line to be drawn on when violence is justified and when it is not. There is always a very large grey area between scales of relationships. I don't think this is something that is readily acceptable to either side.

I feel like while libertarians in general are very principled and well educated people, there is a certain amount of arrogance and unwillingness to admit that they do no have all the answers.

While libertarian philosophy is extremely attractive to me because of the logic and understanding and hard core truths behind it, it still falls well short of a total solution for me in my personal life and personal relationships.

That is because of the scale of relationships. For instance, while it may be acceptable to many libertarians that the only proper role of government is to protect individual liberty, I believe that it is also a proper roll of government to carry out basic civilization functions such as keep records of case law in a publicly accessible database.

That is just a small example. There are gaps in libertarian philosophy that "radical free market" solutions don't fill. Another example, would be along the lines of a child suing his/her parents in a private court. These types of things are incomprehensible in "public" or "state run" government. The "laws" should not be that malleable to the point of inconsistency. Of course libertarian philosophy is theoretically much better than what currently exists as pretty much any idea that is NOT what is currently being practiced is "theoretically" much better than what currently exists.

All that being said, the fact that Rand Paul has influence, much much more influence than his father ever had in 30 years should be a welcome RESULT of his fathers education efforts.

Instead, it is derided based on rhetorical words and differences of OPINION on THEORY. There is certainly a trust issue with ANYONE with ANY kind of significant influence and power within American government. Rand Paul is no exception to that basic rule REGARDLESS if he came out SOUNDING just like his father or not.

I assert that MOST people even within the Ron Paul Revolution would be HIGHLY skeptical of Ron Paul's words would that he have risen to the level of influence that Rand is at now.

I prefer to celebrate the success of Ron Paul that has manifested in his son being a key component in the national debate. Rand is pushing the concept of LAWFUL use of force, moral use of force, restraint and defensive posture in terms of national security. These concepts have not been a part of the national debate since I have been alive.

That is a REAL victory for Ron Paul in his education campaign. I am so NOT disappointed in what Rand has said AT ALL. I take it for what it is. His personal opinion. The fact that he has couched this opinion with the ideas of lawful use of force, moral use of force, restraint and defensive posture in terms of national security leads me to believe that his foreign policy is in line with my principles.

The ONLY way Rand Paul's opinion has a chance at becoming actual foreign policy is if he has support of ALL of us (the 10% his dad drummed up in 30 years) PLUS support of at least another 40-50% of the VOTING electorate.

Otherwise, none of this matters.

Champuckett
09-07-2014, 05:23 PM
I believe what this boils down to for me is taking an objective look at current events. I agree with the overall concept of the non aggression principle. When it comes to the nitty gritty details of actually applying this principle is where I begin to have problems.


Thanks for the very well thought out and written response.

I have been living by the NAP since before I even knew what it was, I'm sure many people on these boards have as well. It makes so much sense to me and is one of the easiest and most basic rules in life to follow in my own experience. Ron Paul eventually came along and validated that stance for me even further, and any doubt I still had was permanently and forever removed.

So yes, this may be a personal matter or opinion to me, and I guess that's the point. That's what I hold most dear is the way we use violence in our world, and any person or politician that speaks about these ideas are going to be more closely scrutinized than other policies may be.

Rand is exactly as you and many others are saying, a powerful voice in the GOP, far more powerful than his dad was ever able to achieve. I am just sitting here hoping with everything in me he uses that power and influence in a smart way. He's not doing bad, better than nearly every other politician I can think of, but in the military industrial complex and use of violence to achieve political interests department, I'm seeing him teeter totter back and forth between the two Ronald's, his father and Reagan.

helmuth_hubener
09-08-2014, 11:23 AM
I think that there exists waaaay too many isms.

That is what happens when you do not want to go to the intellectual effort of understanding how people are labeling and defining themselves. When, in other words, you are unwilling or unable to understand people on their own terms.

You think there's "too many" different systems of thought and philosophy in this world. There are billions of people in this world. They're all different. If you want to understand people, maybe you should try trying.

Rond
09-08-2014, 11:36 AM
I disagree.

jllundqu
09-08-2014, 11:46 AM
The United States of America is a third party to Radical Islam killing and raping Kurdish Sects in northern Iraq.


1. In this analogy, the United States is a third party 10,000 miles away and there are dozens of 'third parties' that are actually witnessing the act (Saudi, Jordan, Turkey, EU, etc). Why does it have to be the US?

2. In this analogy, the United States armed the rapist and "asked" them to rape Syria, but the rapist said, "No thanks, I'm going to rape the country you just got done raping."

3. This is BLOWBACK, defined. Chickens coming home, and all that. Playing whack-a-jihadi-mole across the globe is not something I would argue as a "wise foreign policy"

We are NOT, nor should we EVER BE, the world's police. If there is violence in Iraq, let the IRAQIS and her neighbors handle it.