Sell me on Rand's foreign policy

[ghengisconrad]

Alright, so I was able to be soft on pretty much everything else, and understand "hey, gotta compromise. If we're going from status quo to freedom, the intermittent step has to be supported, and Rand is what the supporter of that step looks like"

That I could understand. Everything he was advocating that wasn't "libertarian" enough for me, I was fine with because it was all a big step away from what is currently in play to something better.

But this support of attacking ISIS.... I just can't follow along. As far as I see it, it would be an increase in the murder of human beings from our side. And wishing for a "small" intervention, is not the same as making it so. Nothing is as close to eternity as a government program right? Attacking ISIS sounds like a government program to me... I dunno, maybe I'm a single issue voter, maybe I'm a pacifist (not really though. wars in your own land are obviously up for debate), but I just can't see my way through on this one. I've totally lost the stars in my eyes. I'm off the bandwagon. I've pretty much lost all interest in Randall.... Pretty much....

Please, please please, please; amasse for me the propaganda needed for a complete dove to support Rand's most recent comments about military intervention. I'm willing to be sold. I am a good prospect. I just need to right pitch.

[Brett85]

Rand has always said that he's generally in favor of less intervention, but he's not someone who's opposed to all military action in all circumstances. The people who are opposed to all military action no matter what, even against people who have stated that their intention is to attack us and murder Americans, probably aren't going to be able to support Rand. But many of us who support Rand basically favor a minimalist foreign policy approach. We're opposed to the vast majority of wars and interventions; but we support defensive actions for the purpose of defending our homeland. If you're just opposed to all wars and that's your number one issue, I can see why you don't support Rand, and that's fine. Some of us just feel that military action isn't always wrong.

[Crashland]

Rand has always said that he's generally in favor of less intervention, but he's not someone who's opposed to all military action in all circumstances. The people who are opposed to all military action no matter what, even against people who have stated that their intention is to attack us and murder Americans, probably aren't going to be able to support Rand. But many of us who support Rand basically favor a minimalist foreign policy approach. We're opposed to the vast majority of wars and interventions; but we support defensive actions for the purpose of defending our homeland. If you're just opposed to all wars and that's your number one issue, I can see why you don't support Rand, and that's fine. Some of us just feel that military action isn't always wrong.

This. I would also add, Rand has spoken very much about when we do have national security interests at stake in a region, we can't just invade, occupy, and impose a western democratic solution. Rand has said the ultimate solution to ISIS has to come from the Muslim world in the middle east. Otherwise it will just be an expensive investment that is bound to fall apart eventually

[Vanguard101]

It's quite simple. Ron tells the philosophy. Rand uses applied philosophy.

[kylejack]

Rand's foreign policy is indefensible. He wants to bomb two countries and voted for sanctions on Iran.

[acptulsa]

Seems to me that he isn't categorically opposed to us beating up someone we armed and who then went 'off the reservation'. Which is all right with me as long as he brings these arms giveaways to psychos to a halt as soon as he's in a position to do it, so we don't have to later tame the ones he armed the way he might have to tame the ones Obama armed.

Could also mean he's in favor of military actions he's powerless to put a stop to.

In his position, my plan would be to make the noises I have to make to get past the gatekeepers, then put a stop to that crap if and when I get in a position to do it. Doesn't mean that's what he's doing. Doesn't mean it isn't.

[CaptUSA]

You don't have to approve of his foreign policy. I don't - at least not in this case. However, even in this case, he is better than EVERYONE else who has a potential shot at winning the White House. He is calling for the debate to be had in Congress. As President, if Congress told him he could not implement his policy, he would not do it. There is no other potential candidate that would do that. None. (Understand that a third party is not a real potentiality)

So, the way I see it, I can support a guy who is marginally better on this issue and WAY better on nearly all others.

(now, my suspicions are that his latest foreign policy gambit is just a way to assure the GOP that he is not an "isolationist" and there are certain situations in which he would intervene. I don't really think he would do so in this case if it ever came to a vote.)

[CaptUSA]

One more thing... There is a non-interventionist way to view this policy, if you're predisposed to it.

Since ISIS is a creation of our past intervention, then it is incumbent upon a non-interventionist to rectify our past intervention. Why? Because, by not correcting the situation we caused, we are allowing the result of our previous intervention to linger. In that case, there will still be murdering happening as a result of our actions anyway.

I don't subscribe to that point of view, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

[kylejack]

That sort of reasoning is why realpolitik foreign policy goes on forever. Most of what happens in the world can somehow be tied to what America did in the past. The only way to quit interventionism is cold turkey.

[EBounding]

Rand's calling their bluff. He knows Obama and others won't intervene in a constitutional manner--that would require debate and the more it's debated the less enthusiastic everyone would get about going to war. At least this way he can participate in the rah-rah without marginalizing himself as a fringe politician.

Even if ISIS was a threat, I don't care for his solution (Gunny's way is better (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s7t7dg)), but its not like it matters since the president is going to act alone no matter what.

Rand is still the neo-cons worst nightmare and that's all that matters.

[Brett85]

This is also why Rand has to take this position. Republican voters basically want to bomb every country.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/08/yougov-poll-republicans-support-airstrikes-in-iraq-afghanistan-syria-somalia-yemen-pakistan-and-iran-lebanon-and-gaza/

[Natural Citizen]

It's really annoying that we cannot/choose not to discuss foreign policy outside of context of military conflict in the Middle East. There is so much more to it.

[lib3rtarian]

Of all the rhetoric I've heard so far from every politician on ISIS, Rand's is the least bellicose. Note how he stresses Congressional authorization as a per-requisite. That's the key. If it comes to a vote in Congress, even if there is to be a war on ISIS, we can define strict boundaries on it, and not give the President carte blanche to do whatever he wants.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand has always said that he's generally in favor of less intervention, but he's not someone who's opposed to all military action in all circumstances. The people who are opposed to all military action no matter what, even against people who have stated that their intention is to attack us and murder Americans, probably aren't going to be able to support Rand. But many of us who support Rand basically favor a minimalist foreign policy approach. We're opposed to the vast majority of wars and interventions; but we support defensive actions for the purpose of defending our homeland. If you're just opposed to all wars and that's your number one issue, I can see why you don't support Rand, and that's fine. Some of us just feel that military action isn't always wrong.

"All wars" is an oversimplification. I don't think anyone here would look at another country who is actually attempting an attack on the US and be like "Yeah, just lay down your arms and let them do it." That said, I can't really think of any situation where it would be moral to fight on foreign soil... there might be one but I can't envision it.

[Brett85]

"All wars" is an oversimplification. I don't think anyone here would look at another country who is actually attempting an attack on the US and be like "Yeah, just lay down your arms and let them do it." That said, I can't really think of any situation where it would be moral to fight on foreign soil... there might be one but I can't envision it.

Yeah, but an argument can be made that ISIS is attempting to attack the United States. I know you don't agree with it, but there's an argument that can be made that the air strikes killing members of ISIS are an example of defensive military action.

[twomp]

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bombing-people-creates-terrorists-222x300.jpg

[mit26chell]

But many of us who support Rand basically favor a minimalist foreign policy approach. We're opposed to the vast majority of wars and interventions; but we support defensive actions for the purpose of defending our homeland. If you're just opposed to all wars and that's your number one issue, I can see why you don't support Rand, and that's fine. Some of us just feel that military action isn't always wrong.

Rand is not proposing defensive action, what he is proposing is offensive and what you are supporting (assuming you support attacking ISIS at this point) is preemptive war - attacking someone or a group first because they may one day attack you.

[mit26chell]

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bombing-people-creates-terrorists-222x300.jpg

It really is this simple. We need a change in policy. We're already in for one bloody upcoming decade with many dead Americans.

[Krugminator2]

That sort of reasoning is why realpolitik foreign policy goes on forever. Most of what happens in the world can somehow be tied to what America did in the past. The only way to quit interventionism is cold turkey.

Most people here would say that drug laws cause gang violence and should be repealed. But even if drug laws cause the gang violence, you still have to deal with the violence. You can't just say the government caused it so it should just repeal the bad laws and be done with it. And you can't excuse people for the violence.

Or a better example might be the Federal Reserve causing the housing bubble. Even if Federal Reserve intervention caused the crisis, they still had to step and intervene during the meltdown. It might be like a firefighter who sets a building fire, but that firefighter has the best chance of saving the building and should put it out.

[kylejack]

Most people here would say that drug laws cause gang violence and should be repealed. But even if drug laws cause the gang violence, you still have to deal with the violence. You can't just say the government caused it so it should just repeal the bad laws and be done with it. And you can't excuse people for the violence.
The best way to stop drug violence in this country is to legalize it. The best way to stop anti-American terrorism is to stop intervening in the affairs of other countries and other peoples. I mean, look what ISIS has done to America: killed two people traveling in a dangerous area. That is not a good cause to go to war over.

[Krugminator2]

The best way to stop drug violence in this country is to legalize it. The best way to stop anti-American terrorism is to stop intervening in the affairs of other countries and other peoples. I mean, look what ISIS has done to America: killed two people traveling in a dangerous area. That is not a good cause to go to war over.

I don't know if it makes sense to intervene or not.

My only point was that even if government intervention causes a problem, that doesn't automatically mean government intervention isn't necessary to fix it. That's what drove me nuts about Ron Paul in the debates. Giving the answer what should have been done in the first place is fine, but then what? In the drug example, you will still have residual gang violence that has to be dealt with.

[kylejack]

I don't know if it makes sense to intervene or not.

My only point was that even if government intervention causes a problem, that doesn't automatically mean government intervention isn't necessary to fix it. That's what drove me nuts about Ron Paul in the debates. Giving the answer what should have been done in the first place is fine, but then what? In the drug example, you will still have residual gang violence that has to be dealt with.
He answers that question. "Just come home. We just marched in and we can just come home." Let them repair their own broken country, because American military only knows how to break things, not how to fix broken things.

[Krugminator2]

He answers that question. "Just come home. We just marched in and we can just come home." Let them repair their own broken country, because American military only knows how to break things, not how to fix broken things.

Perfect example of what I am talking about. We should be out of South Korea. But they don't a military equipped to deal with enemies. They have been dependent on us. Immediately marching out puts them in a vulnerable spot. A much better idea is to have a timeline to drawdown to give them an opportunity to get the defense together.

Hayek always talks about predictable rules. You shouldn't have rapid course corrections in the rules in the middle of the game. The Federal Reserve and deposit insurance should probably be eliminated. But you don't change the Fed's role rapidly or during a crisis when it is needed. You give ample time for people to adjust to the new rules of the game.

[kylejack]

Perfect example of what I am talking about. We should be out of South Korea. But they don't a military equipped to deal with enemies. They have been dependent on us. Immediately marching out puts them in a vulnerable spot. A much better idea is to have a timeline to drawdown to give them an opportunity to get the defense together.

Hayek always talks about predictable rules. You shouldn't have rapid course corrections in the rules in the middle of the game. The Federal Reserve and deposit insurance should probably be eliminated. But you don't change the Fed's role rapidly or during a crisis when it is needed. You give ample time for people to adjust to the new rules of the game.
Which is what happened when we left Iraq. Of course have a timetable for tactical withdrawal, Ron Paul endorsed this as well.

[idiom]

Rand's position on ISIS is how the Syria war got shut down before it started.

Send it to congress, make sure congressmen know they will be voted out if they vote for war.

[kylejack]

Yes, responsibility needs to be back on Congress. It's supposed to be hard to go to war. It's supposed to be heavily deliberated, not just one man launching one thousand ships.

[Brett85]

Rand's position on ISIS is how the Syria war got shut down before it started.

Send it to congress, make sure congressmen know they will be voted out if they vote for war.

Then wouldn't you have to vote Rand out since he's said that he'll vote to authorize military strikes against ISIS?

[twomp]

Most people here would say that drug laws cause gang violence and should be repealed. But even if drug laws cause the gang violence, you still have to deal with the violence. You can't just say the government caused it so it should just repeal the bad laws and be done with it. And you can't excuse people for the violence.

Or a better example might be the Federal Reserve causing the housing bubble. Even if Federal Reserve intervention caused the crisis, they still had to step and intervene during the meltdown. It might be like a firefighter who sets a building fire, but that firefighter has the best chance of saving the building and should put it out.

The thing is about ISIS and your example is this. If a firefighter sets a building on fire. The solution to put out the fire would not be adding gasoline to the fire. I will also add that a firefighter who sets a building on fire should not be trusted to put it out.

We started all this with our bombings. So the answer to fix it is to bomb some more? Does that make sense to you? Iraq war #3 will be as productive as Iraq war #1 and #2. History tells us this.

[erowe1]

Alright, so I was able to be soft on pretty much everything else, and understand "hey, gotta compromise. If we're going from status quo to freedom, the intermittent step has to be supported, and Rand is what the supporter of that step looks like"

That I could understand. Everything he was advocating that wasn't "libertarian" enough for me, I was fine with because it was all a big step away from what is currently in play to something better.

But this support of attacking ISIS.... I just can't follow along. As far as I see it, it would be an increase in the murder of human beings from our side. And wishing for a "small" intervention, is not the same as making it so. Nothing is as close to eternity as a government program right? Attacking ISIS sounds like a government program to me... I dunno, maybe I'm a single issue voter, maybe I'm a pacifist (not really though. wars in your own land are obviously up for debate), but I just can't see my way through on this one. I've totally lost the stars in my eyes. I'm off the bandwagon. I've pretty much lost all interest in Randall.... Pretty much....

Please, please please, please; amasse for me the propaganda needed for a complete dove to support Rand's most recent comments about military intervention. I'm willing to be sold. I am a good prospect. I just need to right pitch.

What did I miss? Did the Senate vote on this already?

[kylejack]

The thing is about ISIS and your example is this. If a firefighter sets a building on fire. The solution to put out the fire would not be adding gasoline to the fire. I will also add that a firefighter who sets a building on fire should not be trusted to put it out.

The important aspect to add to your story is that the firefighter in this story doesn't actually know how to put out fires, only how to start them.

[Brett85]

Whether you support the air strikes or not, the fact of the matter is that Rand would have no chance whatsoever to win in 2016 if he didn't come out in favor of them. The last poll I saw showed that only 13% of Americans are opposed to the air strikes. Taking that position would even hurt him in a general election.

[asurfaholic]

I know Rand is for military use in some situations, but I am having a very hard time accepting that ISIS is a legitimate threat to Amerika. I am all for having a extremely powerful defense force, but I am almost 100% in agreement with OP and can say that the OP perfectly reflects where I'm at.

Voting for another military conflict by Rand would betray some serious reasons why I support him. I wouldn't be able to defend his position on using more bombs to kill people who are upset that we already bombed them. Stop meddling in the affairs of countries and the terrorists go away. But because we are toppling leaders in countries around the world and bombing all over the place killing countless people who would never be a threat to us just is indefensible.

I'm watching Rand closely now.

[Christian Liberty]

Whether you support the air strikes or not, the fact of the matter is that Rand would have no chance whatsoever to win in 2016 if he didn't come out in favor of them. The last poll I saw showed that only 13% of Americans are opposed to the air strikes. Taking that position would even hurt him in a general election.

I think this just shows we aren't ready for Presidential politics yet as a movement. People still need to wake up. And yes, that includes you, and it also includes Rand if he actually believes what he's selling.

[erowe1]

Whether you support the air strikes or not, the fact of the matter is that Rand would have no chance whatsoever to win in 2016 if he didn't come out in favor of them. The last poll I saw showed that only 13% of Americans are opposed to the air strikes. Taking that position would even hurt him in a general election.

They might become unpopular a year from now, and Rand would be able to capitalize on having been against them when it counted.

[Brett85]

They might become unpopular a year from now, and Rand would be able to capitalize on having been against them when it counted.

It's doubtful that they'll be that unpopular a year from now. Wars usually only become unpopular when our troops are getting killed, and that won't be happening as long as it's just air strikes and not troops on the ground for combat purposes.

[Brett85]

I think this just shows we aren't ready for Presidential politics yet as a movement. People still need to wake up. And yes, that includes you, and it also includes Rand if he actually believes what he's selling.

If the policy that Rand and I propose would actually be carried out, the war would probably be over within three weeks and ISIS would be defeated. We would actually work with all the groups that hate ISIS like Assad, Iran, etc. But President Obama and the neocons want regime change in those countries and refuse to work with those leaders. They're still even trying to get rid of Assad by arming the Syrian rebels. The policy that Rand and I support would get the conflict over with quickly, and then we would come home and have peace and mind our own business.

[erowe1]

If the policy that Rand and I propose would actually be carried out, the war would probably be over within three weeks and ISIS would be defeated. We would actually work with all the groups that hate ISIS like Assad, Iran, etc. But President Obama and the neocons want regime change in those countries and refuse to work with those leaders. They're still even trying to get rid of Assad by arming the Syrian rebels. The policy that Rand and I support would get the conflict over with quickly, and then we would come home and have peace and mind our own business.

Work with those groups to do what? Arrest people? Because I wouldn't even call that a war. And if that is what Rand wants, why would he support bombings?

[Brett85]

Work with those groups to do what? Arrest people? Because I wouldn't even call that a war. And if that is what Rand wants, why would he support bombings?

Iran and Syria have militaries. They could help us militarily, provide troops on the ground to battle ISIS, if we would simply be willing to engage them.

[acptulsa]

That sort of reasoning is why realpolitik foreign policy goes on forever. Most of what happens in the world can somehow be tied to what America did in the past. The only way to quit interventionism is cold turkey.

No, I don't think it is.

It probably is the best way, if you can pull it off politically. It is what I'd like to see done. But it isn't the only way. One can bomb into uselessness most of the weapons you gave to the assholes you trusted (and who turned on you) on the way out. It can be done without getting yet another fist stuck in the Tar Baby. The reason you never see it happen is simply because the Military Industrial Complex has been in increasing control of U.S. foreign policy for over fifty years now.

American idealism might seem completely antithetical to the discussion at hand, but there is some of it left and the idea of cleaning up our mess is a strong force within it. If we must bow to that in order to get this age of American Imperialism behind us, then we must.

Not my first choice. But I think it can be done. I don't think the Cold Turkey solution will fly politically. So, what about it isn't worth a try? Is there any argument against it other than the fact that many have pretended to do it, but have kept us in the war in question instead?

[kylejack]

No, I don't think it is.

It probably is the best way, if you can pull it off politically. It is what I'd like to see done. But it isn't the only way. One can bomb into uselessness most of the weapons you gave to the assholes you trusted (and who turned on you) on the way out. It can be done without getting yet another fist stuck in the Tar Baby. The reason you never see it happen is simply because the Military Industrial Complex has been in increasing control of U.S. foreign policy for over fifty years now.

American idealism might seem completely antithetical to the discussion at hand, but there is some of it left and the idea of cleaning up our mess is a strong force within it. If we must bow to that in order to get this age of American Imperialism behind us, then we must.

Not my first choice. But I think it can be done. I don't think the Cold Turkey solution will fly politically. So, what about it isn't worth a try? Is there any argument against it other than the fact that many have pretended to do it, but have kept us in the war in question instead?
You need the right tool to complete the task. The US military is good at breaking things, not good at putting them together.

[dillo]

I justify it like this,

Ron was against welfare, but he realized you couldn't just end it over night you had to ween off of it.

The fact of the matter is that the past 50 years of intervention has made so many problems that a withdrawl overnight would be chaos. It needs to be gradual.

[acptulsa]

You need the right tool to complete the task. The US military is good at breaking things, not good at putting them together.

Who was talking about putting things together?

Was I or was I not talking about breaking the toys of the children whom we gave toys to and who aren't playing nice with them?

Is destroying weapons the same as 'building' something? And if so, since when?

[twomp]

I justify it like this,

Ron was against welfare, but he realized you couldn't just end it over night you had to ween off of it.

The fact of the matter is that the past 50 years of intervention has made so many problems that a withdrawl overnight would be chaos. It needs to be gradual.

Withdrawl from what? We aren't WITHDRAWING from Iraq, we are RE-ENTERING!

[twomp]

If the policy that Rand and I propose would actually be carried out, the war would probably be over within three weeks and ISIS would be defeated. We would actually work with all the groups that hate ISIS like Assad, Iran, etc. But President Obama and the neocons want regime change in those countries and refuse to work with those leaders. They're still even trying to get rid of Assad by arming the Syrian rebels. The policy that Rand and I support would get the conflict over with quickly, and then we would come home and have peace and mind our own business.

I don't know if you were born yesterday but this isn't how it will work. Those air strikes you support will eventually turn into ground troops once they are deemed ineffective. Do you not remember how the air strikes started? It was supposed to be a simple operation to help stop the genocide of the Yazadi that has now morphed into an operation that will stretch several years and include bombings in Syria.

Do you notice how the bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia has not stopped once it's been started? There will always be more terrorists to kill for peace. Do you not realize that?

[Brett85]

I don't know if you were born yesterday but this isn't how it will work. Those air strikes you support will eventually turn into ground troops once they are deemed ineffective. Do you not remember how the air strikes started? It was supposed to be a simple operation to help stop the genocide of the Yazadi that has now morphed into an operation that will stretch several years and include bombings in Syria.

Rand and I propose that the ground troops be provided by Iran, Syria, and Turkey. They should do the heavy lifting, and we should provide a complimentary role by providing intelligence and targeted air strikes. This is a radically different view than President Obama has. He wants to do the exact opposite and actually arm ISIS in Syria. That's why the war will go on indefinitely, because we keep arming these people. If we just engaged the rest of the world and got the rest of the world to help us defeat these people, the military objective would be completed very quickly, and the war would be over.

[twomp]

Down the slippery slope we go!


A top Air Force commander has been quoted in USA Today tonight saying that any expansion of the ISIS air war into Syria is going to require US special operations forces on the ground, inside Syria.

“It’s absolutely crucial that pilots are talking to an American on the ground” to verify what’s being targeted, the commander insisted. President Obama has repeatedly rejected the idea of boots on the ground, despite sending more and more troops to Iraq.

http://news.antiwar.com/2014/09/11/air-force-commander-syria-strike-needs-boots-on-the-ground/

[twomp]

Rand and I propose that the ground troops be provided by Iran, Syria, and Turkey. They should do the heavy lifting, and we should provide a complimentary role by providing intelligence and targeted air strikes. This is a radically different view than President Obama has. He wants to do the exact opposite and actually arm ISIS in Syria. That's why the war will go on indefinitely, because we keep arming these people. If we just engaged the rest of the world and got the rest of the world to help us defeat these people, the military objective would be completed very quickly, and the war would be over.

Sorry you don't get your or Rand Paul's version of how to do things. The only thing they needed you and the American people to do was support the Air Strikes which you did.

[kylejack]

Who was talking about putting things together?

Was I or was I not talking about breaking the toys of the children whom we gave toys to and who aren't playing nice with them?

Is destroying weapons the same as 'building' something? And if so, since when?
The amount of American weapons being used by ISIS is troubling (as in more than 0) but not significant. They've got significant financial resources and are buying their own.

[Brett85]

Sorry you don't get your or Rand Paul's version of how to do things. The only thing they needed you and the American people to do was support the Air Strikes which you did.

I don't support Obama's strategy. I support Rand's strategy.

[kylejack]

I don't support Obama's strategy. I support Rand's strategy.
You have a source on Rand proposing that those countries provide ground troops? Can't say I'm comfortable having those countries paint targets. They'll just want to settle old scores.

[Brett85]

I've never really even said that I would vote for any specific bill to authorize military force against ISIS if I were a member of Congress. I've just said that I support the idea of being engaged in the conflict and support air strikes theoretically, but it makes no sense to bomb people and give them arms at the same time, so I would likely vote against military action in Syria if the plan is to simultaneously bomb them and arm them.

[Brett85]

You have a source on Rand proposing that those countries provide ground troops? Can't say I'm comfortable having those countries paint targets. They'll just want to settle old scores.


Paul, who is an early frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination (though he hasn’t officially announced his candidacy), said that he believes there is a role for the U.S. in fighting ISIS along with Iran, Syria, and Turkey, and if he were president, he would seek congressional approval to “take care” of them “militarily.”

But, he said, “I still would like to see the ground troops and the battles being fought by those who live there, and I think we can give both the technical as well as air support that can be the decisive factor in this.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/03/rand-paul-wants-to-team-up-with-assad-and-iran-to-stop-isis.html

[twomp]

I don't support Obama's strategy. I support Rand's strategy.

You don't get it do you. That poll of Americans who want to destroy ISIS that you like to brag about? It didn't say Rand Paul's or Obama's version of air strikes did it? IT JUST SAID AIR STRIKES AGAINST ISIS!

Which you are a supporter of. Once Iraq War #3 goes wrong and blows up in our faces, you and Rand Paul don't get to say you were against the air strikes or that you supported "your version" of air strikes. All you and Rand Paul get to say is "well I didn't want this to happen." Only people who speak out against the air strikes can say that and if Rand tries to say that he was against it before he was for it before he was against it, he will just be called a flip-flopper.

[Brett85]

You don't get it do you. That poll of Americans who want to destroy ISIS that you like to brag about? It didn't say Rand Paul's or Obama's version of air strikes did it? IT JUST SAID AIR STRIKES AGAINST ISIS!

I wasn't bragging about it. I was just pointing out why it's a political necessity for Rand to support it. He also hasn't abandoned his overall non interventionist foreign policy views since he still says it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, was a mistake to take out Gaddafi, was a mistake to arm the Syrian rebels, is a mistake to give foreign aid to all these countries who fund ISIS, etc.

[Brett85]

Well, I thought Rand was against ground troops, but now I just read this.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20140912/NEWS/140919929

If he comes out in favor of ground troops, I'm going to have to part ways with him on that. I don't think we can afford the expense both in terms of money spent and lives lost.

[twomp]

Well, I thought Rand was against ground troops, but now I just read this.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20140912/NEWS/140919929

If he comes out in favor of ground troops, I'm going to have to part ways with him on that. I don't think we can afford the expense both in terms of money spent and lives lost.

Sorry that ship has sailed already. You knew full well that the intention of all this fear mongering, propaganda and straight up lies were done to get the American people to support another intervention. Just like they did for Iraq#2. Remember how the Iraqi people were supposed to welcome us as "liberators?" Remember how the war will pay for itself with the oil? Remember how the American people felt a few years later once they found out they were lied to? Guess what? If you don't learn from your mistakes, you are bound to repeat them.

The propaganda machine has won again. The sad thing is when Iraq War #3 blows up in our face (which it will), Rand Paul doesn't get to say he was against it.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It's quite simple. Ron tells the philosophy. Rand uses applied philosophy.

Applied non-intervention is not intervention. Try again.


That sort of reasoning is why realpolitik foreign policy goes on forever. Most of what happens in the world can somehow be tied to what America did in the past. The only way to quit interventionism is cold turkey.

You are correct. What has been said in this thread is justification for every government program and action ever taken. In perpetuity, no less. If this is the prevailing attitude within the liberty movement - government has caused the problem, therefore more government action is needed to correct it - then the gig is over. The movement has been assimilated into the establishment faster than even the Goldwater insurgency folded.

That would be sad if Ron Paul's legacy becomes such dismal failure.

Serious question: why is bombing ISIS ok and even justified/good, but affirmative action, welfare, socialized health care, civil rights, gay marriage, etc bad? The underlying principle you stated - government created a problem, therefore it needs to do something to resolve it - is the same principle underpinning progressive arguments for all of those other things.


Rand's position on ISIS is how the Syria war got shut down before it started.

Send it to congress, make sure congressmen know they will be voted out if they vote for war.

Except that Rand is advocating voting for war. There is a massive gulf between advocating for war, and advocating for declaring the war, and opposing the war on principle and using a war declaration as one of the means to oppose it.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Whether you support the air strikes or not, the fact of the matter is that Rand would have no chance whatsoever to win in 2016 if he didn't come out in favor of them. The last poll I saw showed that only 13% of Americans are opposed to the air strikes. Taking that position would even hurt him in a general election.

So should Ron Paul have supported the Iraq invasion in 2003 because a majority of the American public supported it?

[Brett85]

So should Ron Paul have supported the Iraq invasion in 2003 because a majority of the American public supported it?

No, but invading a country with 100,000 troops is quite a bit different from helping out the Iraqi government with air strikes when they ask us to do it, and using airstrikes against people who have killed two Americans and openly state that their goal is to attack Americans and kill Americans. If you just view every single situation and every single use of military action overseas as being exactly the same, then there really isn't much of a point of debating this issue.

[kylejack]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/03/rand-paul-wants-to-team-up-with-assad-and-iran-to-stop-isis.html
Iran doesn't live in Isis-occupied areas of Syria and Iraq. So no, I think you've miscalculated somewhere.

[extortion17]

Rand's foreign policy is indefensible. He wants to bomb two countries and voted for sanctions on Iran.

No, I could defend Rand's position as . . .

Rand would - without doubt - only send in airstrikes after the US Congress voted on this . . .

Barack Obama will go down in history as totally botching this politically,
and the next President will be inheriting this at the inauguration in January 2017

Barack Obama needed - but would not - tell his Senator from Nevada that he wanted a vote in the Senate on attacks against ISIL

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/isismap0014s_zps1955707c.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/isismap0014s_zps1955707c.jpg.html)


Raqqa and Mosul are considered the "capitals" of the ISIL domain, and will get a shitload of collateral damage.
So no, a minimal interventionist/non-interventionist has to draw a line in the sand somewhere -
but ISIL is out of control right now.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/levant004t_zps6fbb8bde.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/levant004t_zps6fbb8bde.jpg.html)

The UN is going to have to be taking this up I believe shortly.


.

[erowe1]

Can someone give a link to where Rand actually says that he positively does support and intends to vote to authorize any bombings?

[ghengisconrad]

Can someone give a link to where Rand actually says that he positively does support and intends to vote to authorize any bombings?

I forget what interview, but it basically goes like "just to be clear, if there was a vote tomorrow to use military force on ISIS, you would vote for it" to which he responds that he would. That was the very moment I was like, woa, hold on, what?!?!

As I think about it, if a CIA ninja where to be sent to assassinate just a few of them, and then come back, I wouldn't really have much to say... I mean, if a State exists, its job is to protect it's citizens. If you have someone blatantly flaunting that it is killing the State's slaves, err... I mean citizens, then it is natural for that State to react. I would also, of course, expect a "good" State to also begin withdrawing and ending the drone strikes and air strikes and occupations and all other murders anyways.... and I don't know that the ninjas going in and elsewhere withdrawal going on is necessarily mutually exclusive.

At the end of the day, if I'm already down the slippery slope of CIA ninjas on the ground, can't I be in favor of ninja air strikes from the sky? I just don't see a realistic narrative where the most militarily powerful country in the history of the world sits back and does nothing whilst its president is mocked and goaded during the summary execution of it's citizens....

I'm pretty hard core about right & wrong as far as morality is concerned, but ultimately I am a pragmatist. I define right & wrong by what actually works. But what defines that which is "working" is what is not inhibiting opportunities for happiness to the most. Murder generally ends opportunities for happiness, therefore cannot be abided. Not doing what can be done to stem the flow of blood from the human race…. is bad.

I'm not sure Rand isn't, in fact, the best good available… #ConflictedEmotions

[Brett85]

I do have concerns that this could escalate into a full fledged ground war, and that this could just be another excuse for perpetual war in the Middle East. At the same time, this group has murdered two of our citizens and has threatened to attack America, so I don't see anything morally wrong with killing members of ISIS. But I don't like the fact that President Obama is talking about this being a war that will go on for "years." I wish there were some way to take these people out quickly and then come home, rather than just having perpetual war overseas.

[Origanalist]

I do have concerns that this could escalate into a full fledged ground war, and that this could just be another excuse for perpetual war in the Middle East. At the same time, this group has murdered two of our citizens and has threatened to attack America, so I don't see anything morally wrong with killing members of ISIS. But I don't like the fact that President Obama is talking about this being a war that will go on for "years." I wish there were some way to take these people out quickly and then come home, rather than just having perpetual war overseas.

You don't think we could do that if we wanted too?

[Brett85]

You don't think we could do that if we wanted too?

We probably could, but the downside would be that it would likely involve a lot more civilian casualties.