PDA

View Full Version : How should Rand Paul handle the terror attack in Paris?




Crashland
11-13-2015, 08:19 PM
This terrible tragedy is going to be politicized to no end. Can't pretend that this world event is not going to have massive fallout, and how the candidates react to this will be critical in the campaign. On its face, it looks like a nail in the coffin for Rand when people's fears are stoked at a time when they are already worried about him being weak on national defense and when there are plenty of other candidates who are willing to go full blown neocon. Is there possibly some miracle by which Rand can somehow turn this around to his advantage?

Brian4Liberty
11-13-2015, 08:22 PM
Cautiously. Anything we do needs to be authorized by Congress.

LatinsforPaul
11-13-2015, 08:24 PM
665297749403938817

665311072853712897

Brian4Liberty
11-13-2015, 08:25 PM
This will be critical:


Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 (1)
...
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

juleswin
11-13-2015, 08:31 PM
The same way he handled the bombing of Russia airline by ISIS or FSA attacking a civilian gathering in Latakia, Syria by doing absolutely nothing. France was sending heavy weapons to ISIS before Obama sent them anything. As the saying goes, if you play with fire you get burned. France should stop playing with fire or expect to get burned every so often while playing.

I have a big problem with people expecting the US to react to things that happen around the world. It is non of our business and France is more than capable of taking care of themselves.

Brian4Liberty
11-13-2015, 08:33 PM
If a NATO operation is started, it should be authorized by Congress, and the US should not put boots on the ground. We can provide air support. Let the French and British put boots on the ground if they want to take that action.

Crashland
11-13-2015, 08:36 PM
The same way he handled the bombing of Russia airline by ISIS or FSA attacking a civilian gathering in Latakia, Syria by doing absolutely nothing. France was sending heavy weapons to ISIS before Obama sent them anything. As the saying goes, if you play with fire you get burned. France should stop playing with fire or expect to get burned every so often while playing.

I have a big problem with people expecting the US to react to things that happen around the world. It is non of our business and France is more than capable of taking care of themselves.

I don't have a problem with helping our allies secure their national defense, but not significantly more so than their other allies are willing to contribute. What I do have a problem with is starting a full blown war with no plan, with no discussion of all possible consequences, no vote of Congress, and absorbing the lion's share of the cost.

Sola_Fide
11-13-2015, 08:38 PM
Deport the Mexicans. That's the answer for everything.

Crashland
11-13-2015, 08:44 PM
My concern though for Rand is that being the voice of reason is not going to resonate by itself. When people hear about terrorist attacks like this, they get emotional. Nobody wants more mass murders. There needs to be a point or two that Rand can deliver that people can actually latch onto and see Rand as a leader, but it has to be different from the "kill them all, act now think later" mentality that the other candidates are going to be tapping into.

TaftFan
11-13-2015, 08:45 PM
Speak with clarity.

Rand needs to articulate that defeating ISIS is more important than defeating Assad. Defeating ISIS is more important than standing up to Russia.

We cannot be on the side of ISIS in Syria, period.

Crashland
11-13-2015, 08:47 PM
Speak with clarity.

Rand needs to articulate that defeating ISIS is more important than defeating Assad. Defeating ISIS is more important than standing up to Russia.

We cannot be on the side of ISIS in Syria, period.

I agree that there is a big opportunity there on the point about Assad.

Crashland
11-13-2015, 08:51 PM
There is also an opportunity to bring in the 2nd amendment on this. Not just defending people's right to have firearms, but to emphasize how important it is for people to actually exercise that right. We want a nation so well armed that any terrorist who tries to attack us on our own soil will have their remaining lifespan measured in seconds.

LifeLibertyPursuit
11-13-2015, 08:54 PM
Deport the Mexicans. That's the answer for everything.

Laughed way too hard at this :)

dusman
11-13-2015, 09:01 PM
This is growing necessary more and more, unfortunately.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/politics/rand-paul-declare-war-isis/

If the United States is to have ANY military response, there needs to be a declaration of war or AUMF, so as to authorize the military action in a constitutional manner and not provide the president unilateral authority to participate in NATO operations.

I think Rand needs to revive that effort, not for political points, but to check the power of the president in these types of crisis.

juleswin
11-13-2015, 09:09 PM
I don't have a problem with helping our allies secure their national defense, but not significantly more so than their other allies are willing to contribute. What I do have a problem with is starting a full blown war with no plan, with no discussion of all possible consequences, no vote of Congress, and absorbing the lion's share of the cost.

I think we should help them with intelligence gathering, give them access to interrogate Al Qaeda (which could help with ISIS) suspects in our custody. Minor things like that but if it comes to sending ground troops to Syria, then the answer should be a big no.

And yea, we should pray for them and maybe do a few telethons to raise money for the victims. Lastly, like Taftan suggested, this should be an opportunity to call for a unified front in attacking ISIS. No more "we have to get rid of Assad first" or this nonsense of not working with Iran or Russia in fighting ISIS. This is all assuming that ISIS was responsible for the attack

juleswin
11-13-2015, 09:14 PM
Deport the Mexicans. That's the answer for everything.

You say it as a joke now but if it turns out the attackers were illegal immigrants, then it would further vindicate Trumps idea of illegals being bad for the security of a country.

TER
11-13-2015, 09:16 PM
Speak with clarity.

Rand needs to articulate that defeating ISIS is more important than defeating Assad. Defeating ISIS is more important than standing up to Russia.

We cannot be on the side of ISIS in Syria, period.

+1

TER
11-13-2015, 09:16 PM
I think we should help them with intelligence gathering, give them access to interrogate Al Qaeda (which could help with ISIS) suspects in our custody. Minor things like that but if it comes to sending ground troops to Syria, then the answer should be a big no.

And yea, we should pray for them and maybe do a few telethons to raise money for the victims. Lastly, like Taftan suggested, this should be an opportunity to call for a unified front in attacking ISIS. No more "we have to get rid of Assad first" or this nonsense of not working with Iran or Russia in fighting ISIS. This is all assuming that ISIS was responsible for the attack

+1

limequat
11-13-2015, 09:21 PM
Time to go nuclear.

1) ISIS was/is funded by Saudi Arabia. Rand talks about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mzqLWNgaxo
2) Rand has read the redacted 28 pages from 9/11 commission that reportedly implicate Saudi Arabia in funding those attacks

A pre-emptive strike against any neocon, any supporter of Saudi Arabia, or anybody who supported escalation in Syria. They are all directly responsible for the deaths the innocent French civilians. They funded Terror (TM) against america in 2001 and now against europe in 2015.

bronc_fan23
11-13-2015, 09:25 PM
Make the point that we've done about everything except an all out invasion. Thousands of drone and airstrikes, material and weapons support, Special Operations missions every where in the middle east, etc. Make the point that the next step is all out invasion in Syria, Libya and Iraq again, and if we truly want to make that choice then we need to declare war through congress.

radiofriendly
11-13-2015, 09:31 PM
My heart goes out to the people of Paris. It's time to reflect carefully as we galvanize to meet this challenge of radical Islam (red meat), but let's be clear: this enemy is best met by an agile and targeted military. I wonder about some of the establishment candidates in my own party that think more fighter jets and aircraft carriers can defeat a few dedicated thugs with rifles. Border security and targeted military strikes are how to deal with this threat....
And, let's not forget, the 2nd amendment enshrined in our constitution is the right for able bodied men and women to defend their homes and their loved ones from tyranny, whatever the form it takes. A drone and a fighter jet can't wait, hovering over every concert venue in the world, but men and women and businesses have a God given right to protect their property and loved ones...
Idea??

hells_unicorn
11-13-2015, 09:32 PM
Call a duck by it's proper name. These people were obviously either Al Qaeda or ISIS affiliates (ergo not Shiites or in anyway tied in with either Iran or Assad's government in Syria, or Russia since a lot of stupid people can vote) and tell any would be Neo-con that wants to point fingers that they are supporting this crap every time they yammer about toppling Assad or calling Saudi Arabia an ally.

TER
11-13-2015, 09:32 PM
The root of this lies in the fact that as long as there are people who are devout followers of Muhammed, there will be such atrocious and hideous acts of evil done by men.

Just as it will be on account of false (so-called) 'Christians' who have defiled the image of Christ in them and who have squandered the gifts they were given.

What is needed now is for the moderate Muslims to call for a jihad on Muslim extremism. They need to step up and squash this whole devious scheme (talking to you Saudia Arabia et al.). If this doesn't happen, our children will watch liberty in Europe be completely lost, and sharia law spreading throughout. What I fear is if the moderate Muslims don't take the lead, far-right nationalistic extremism develops as a counter-weight and attack, and then we have World War III begin.

TER
11-13-2015, 09:34 PM
Make the point that we've done about everything except an all out invasion. Thousands of drone and airstrikes, material and weapons support, Special Operations missions every where in the middle east, etc. Make the point that the next step is all out invasion in Syria, Libya and Iraq again, and if we truly want to make that choice then we need to declare war through congress.

Your right! It is about time we clean the mess our leaders created!








But will they?

Evilfox
11-13-2015, 09:36 PM
I think it might be safe for him to make a prediction. The next president they elect in France will be an extremist in the since they want to secure their borders. My brother is in Bordeaux France and waiting for a flight back as we speak and he has told me that they are fully behind this new candidate for president that is willing to keep refugees out of the country.

cindy25
11-13-2015, 09:37 PM
just let the war mongers fight each other, at least for a week or two

tod evans
11-13-2015, 09:38 PM
The root of this lies in the fact that as long as there are people who are devout followers of Muhammed, there will be such atrocious and hideous acts of evil done by men.

Just as it will be on account of false (so-called) 'Christians' who have defiled the image of Christ in them and who have squandered the gifts they were given.

What is needed now is for the moderate Muslims to call for a jihad on Muslim extremism. They need to step up and squash this whole devious scheme (talking to you Saudia Arabia et al.). If this doesn't happen, our children will watch liberty in Europe be completely lost, and sharia law spreading throughout. What I fear is if the moderate Muslims don't take the lead, far-right nationalistic extremism develops as a counter-weight and attack, and then we have World War III begin.

Given all the players on the board now I'd think treading very lightly would be advisable...

Mr Stealth
11-13-2015, 09:45 PM
There is also an opportunity to bring in the 2nd amendment on this. Not just defending people's right to have firearms, but to emphasize how important it is for people to actually exercise that right. We want a nation so well armed that any terrorist who tries to attack us on our own soil will have their remaining lifespan measured in seconds.


There is also an opportunity to bring in the 2nd amendment on this. Not just defending people's right to have firearms, but to emphasize how important it is for people to actually exercise that right. We want a nation so well armed that any terrorist who tries to attack us on our own soil will have their remaining lifespan measured in seconds.

I like this angle. Domestically, this incident makes a case for a well-armed public. From the little info I've reviewed on the Paris assault, it seems the attack was fast, organized, and dispersed, so even though a concealed-carry society like ours would still suffer many losses in a similar situation, it likely wouldn't be to such a high degree (think gun-free zones). How many hundreds of millions of guns are in the hands of the US citizenry? DHS shouldn't exist. Our homeland security is already funded, armed, and has been ready to fight for over 200 years, and it's time we ease the restrictions on them.

Internationally, that's a whole other ball game. We should always attempt to avert ground war because sending our sons away to dance with Death foolishly puts us at risk of losing our very country and culture over nothing. If war is to be had, then it should be declared and it should be all-out. If I were defending my own life, I wouldn't toss a gun to my attacker in hopes that he'd become my friend. I would instead have to annihilate him, to destroy his body and remove his threat from this existence.

In any case, I think Rand's the real deal and he'll be all right. As you can see from clowns like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, it's more about how you say something, not necessarily what you're saying. Rand just needs to say what he feels, and say it with courage.

mit26chell
11-13-2015, 10:21 PM
Have some of you learned nothing from Ron and his reading list to Rudy? Religion is the least motivating factor when it comes to suicide terrorism. Read: 'Dying to Win'

TER
11-13-2015, 10:25 PM
Have some of you learned nothing from Ron and his reading list to Rudy? Religion is the least motivating factor when it comes to suicide terrorism. Read: 'Dying to Win'

No, I haven't heard of this. What then is the most-motivating factor when it comes to suicide terrorism?

wizardwatson
11-13-2015, 10:26 PM
Deport the Mexicans. That's the answer for everything.

In 30 years when we get all the Mexicans and other swarthys out of the country we'll vote the shit out of ISIS.

PaleoPaul
11-13-2015, 10:44 PM
Rand needs to emphasize that he's had a declaration of war against ISIS prepared since last year, and that he's the *ONLY* candidate on record who has one. He needs to beat everyone else to the punch.

KEEF
11-13-2015, 10:50 PM
No, I haven't heard of this. What then is the most-motivating factor when it comes to suicide terrorism?
Project MKUltra.

TER
11-13-2015, 10:53 PM
Project MKUltra.

So how did that work in the centuries when Islam first spread with the sword? Did they have time-travelers who brought back CIA technology to control minds?

freejack
11-13-2015, 10:57 PM
No, I haven't heard of this. What then is the most-motivating factor when it comes to suicide terrorism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_bomb

TER
11-13-2015, 10:59 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_bomb

So it wasn't mind control, but rather coercion with a gun to their heads to shoot bullets into crowds until they blew themselves up when the cops closed in?

freejack
11-13-2015, 11:02 PM
So it wasn't mind control, but rather coercion with a gun to their heads to shoot bullets into crowds until they blew themselves up when the cops closed in?

Just one example of non-religiously motivated suicide bombing.

TER
11-13-2015, 11:03 PM
Rand needs to emphasize that he's had a declaration of war against ISIS prepared since last year, and that he's the *ONLY* candidate on record who has one. He needs to beat everyone else to the punch.

I think you are right.

TER
11-13-2015, 11:04 PM
Just one example of non-religiously motivated suicide bombing.

You are right. I don't think that is the most-motivating reason though. Do you?

Brett85
11-13-2015, 11:08 PM
Rand needs to focus on the immigration aspect of the issue. France is getting attacked by Muslims because they've let millions of Muslims come into their country over the last 10 years or so. France now looks nothing like it used to look like. Massive Muslim immigration is causing a huge problem in France. Rand needs to take this opportunity to advocate greatly reducing Muslim immigration into the United States. If he focused on that issue his poll numbers would probably go up significantly. Yeah, hardcore libertarians wouldn't like it, but restricting Muslim immigration certainly won't cost as much or grow the size of government as much as endless war in the Middle East will.

radiofriendly
11-13-2015, 11:12 PM
I took my thoughts and expanded them in a blog post. I would suggest that Rand consider this and add actually naming Rubio who would foolishly think that more aircraft carriers and fighter jets can tackle Radical Islam (throw them a bone and say what the red meat crowd wants by using "Radical Islam"). Emphasize only an 'agile' force can deal with these terrorists in targeted strikes - but not blindly following the tired old establishment policies of Dick Cheney (Didn't he say, "deficits don't matter?"). Focus on border security and immigration as others are saying...

http://iroots.org/wp-content/uploads/what-the-french-revolution-tells-us-about-todays-activist-movements-e1342168521376-638x360-e1447476360374.jpg

First off, it’s not the time to get into politics or even policy right now. All of our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Paris tonight as they grieve and struggle to get back control of their city. But the wheels and machinery of government are plowing ahead relentlessly in one direction and we all know what direction the wheels of state turn. More power and more centralization.

France, you have a choice…as do we all. Will an expanded military keep us safe from future attacks like tonight? Will X number of fighter jets and few more aircraft carriers do the trick against a few radicals willing to terrorize a city? Will you bomb allegedly connected radicals in a Middle Eastern nation in an attempt to eradicate those who hate you?

Or is this enemy, lets take a wild guess that it’s some form of radical Islam, better met by an agile military with targeted strikes and a careful approach to border security? Will you consider that perhaps bombing villages in another country may inspire even more terrorists than you originally set out to kill?

Is it possible that the terrorists would be delighted by western powers going further into debt to grow the size of their conventional weapons? If a few thugs can organize together to kill a hundred people in an evening, can that threat be met by troops stationed on every street corner or a drone hovering over every concert venue?

And let us not forget that in the United States, the 2nd amendment recognizes the right of all able bodied people to defend their loved ones and businesses from tyranny, whatever the form it takes.

And I would argue that this right is universal and a thousand times more effective than the empty promises of a bloated State.

POUR LA LIBERTÉ

http://iroots.org/2015/11/14/will-bigger-government-keep-paris-safe/

TaftFan
11-13-2015, 11:59 PM
Have some of you learned nothing from Ron and his reading list to Rudy? Religion is the least motivating factor when it comes to suicide terrorism. Read: 'Dying to Win'

Al Qaeda and ISIS have very different motivations and goals.

timosman
11-14-2015, 01:14 AM
Rand needs to focus on the immigration aspect of the issue. France is getting attacked by Muslims because they've let millions of Muslims come into their country over the last 10 years or so. France now looks nothing like it used to look like. Massive Muslim immigration is causing a huge problem in France. Rand needs to take this opportunity to advocate greatly reducing Muslim immigration into the United States. If he focused on that issue his poll numbers would probably go up significantly. Yeah, hardcore libertarians wouldn't like it, but restricting Muslim immigration certainly won't cost as much or grow the size of government as much as endless war in the Middle East will.

This is the obvious reason but somehow very few are making the connection between the recent influx of hundreds of thousands refugees in Europe and this event.

PaleoPaul
11-14-2015, 01:20 AM
This is the obvious reason but somehow very few are making the connection between the recent influx of hundreds of thousands refugees in Europe and this event.
More like the influx of Islamic immigrants into Western Europe for the past 25 years.

puppetmaster
11-14-2015, 01:48 AM
I think it might be safe for him to make a prediction. The next president they elect in France will be an extremist in the since they want to secure their borders. My brother is in Bordeaux France and waiting for a flight back as we speak and he has told me that they are fully behind this new candidate for president that is willing to keep refugees out of the country. that would be a start.multi culturalism is a failure.

MarcusI
11-14-2015, 02:39 AM
I think it might be safe for him to make a prediction. The next president they elect in France will be an extremist in the since they want to secure their borders. My brother is in Bordeaux France and waiting for a flight back as we speak and he has told me that they are fully behind this new candidate for president that is willing to keep refugees out of the country.

Marine Le Pen leads in polls with a plurality of 28% atm, yes

(ofc that poll was before the attacks)

However, in France you will have a final ballot between only the two strongest candidates in the first round, so its still unlikely that she will win - if the mood doesnt turn in her favor much more until April 2017, the date of the election.

Still, France will hold regional elections in three weeks, will be very exciting to watch the outcome for the Front National, Le Pens Party.

01000110
11-14-2015, 05:48 AM
Rand needs to emphasize that he's had a declaration of war against ISIS prepared since last year, and that he's the *ONLY* candidate on record who has one. He needs to beat everyone else to the punch.
Yup.

clint4liberty
11-14-2015, 06:34 AM
What is missing other than intelligence services missed this series of attacks or stunning lack of a armed citizenry. The lack of correlation with mentioning this is France's Pearl Harbor. Under the right of just war, self defense, and other Costiutional principles Rand Paul has every right to be hawkish when speaking of the French response. The other US should provide any material support short of ground troops. Rand Paul urging France to go to war in this specific incident is his way of showing his emotional and ideological consistency of standing up of barbarism and war.

luctor-et-emergo
11-14-2015, 07:37 AM
What is missing other than intelligence services missed this series of attacks or stunning lack of a armed citizenry. The lack of correlation with mentioning this is France's Pearl Harbor. Under the right of just war, self defense, and other Costiutional principles Rand Paul has every right to be hawkish when speaking of the French response. The other US should provide any material support short of ground troops. Rand Paul urging France to go to war in this specific incident is his way of showing his emotional and ideological consistency of standing up of barbarism and war.

I heard reports on the news last night after the attack that people saw extra armed guards at the French embassy in London. The journalist who mentioned it suggested that France may have had an indication an attack was coming but no clue about the location. It was either on France24 or BBC. Haven't heard about it since. Does make sense, they can probably detect increased communications with all that spying but it's quite obvious it doesn't help prevent anything at this point.

I don't live far from France. Couple hours drive.
I've been against all aspects of the war in Iraq etc. for the past 12 years. However, the mistakes of the past have to be fixed now. Unfortunately, mistakes that were made in the past are leading to today's events. The US is the main cause of these problems, several EU countries and others were very happy to assist. I think all those countries that were involved in the war in Iraq should seriously consider wether they do not have a moral obligation to declare war on ISIS.

The thing is, the only valid response to this from France is WAR. There's no other response. Now the question is, is this going to be just France ? IMO that would be rather sad, they certainly weren't alone in creating the problem.. But now we'd leave them to solve it on their own ?

Just some random thoughts here.

jmdrake
11-14-2015, 07:41 AM
This terrible tragedy is going to be politicized to no end. Can't pretend that this world event is not going to have massive fallout, and how the candidates react to this will be critical in the campaign. On its face, it looks like a nail in the coffin for Rand when people's fears are stoked at a time when they are already worried about him being weak on national defense and when there are plenty of other candidates who are willing to go full blown neocon. Is there possibly some miracle by which Rand can somehow turn this around to his advantage?

Simple. By saying "I told you so." Rand Paul warned against going into Libya. The neocons and neolibs didn't listen. Rand Paul warned against trying to destabilize Syria. The neocons and neolibs didn't listen. But for the overthrow of Khaddafi in Libya and the attempted overthrow of Assad in Syria, ISIS would not exist! And some if jerkwad responds "Well ISIS would exist in Iraq"....not if we hadn't overthrown Saddam. In making this point he needs to reach out to ideological allies on this issue like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Michael Steele, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Franklin Graham, George H.W. Bush and others who have at some point or another stated opposition to some aspect of the "Bush doctrine." He should, for a moment, put political advantage to the back burner. This is an ideological fight. The more players within the GOP that he can recruit willingly or unwillingly to bolster the idea that "regime change" and "importing democracy" is in general a bad idea, the more he wins the ideological fight. Ron Paul's foreign policy is winning the GOP primary right now. The top two candidates, Caron and Trump, both are on record opposing the Iraq war. But as a movement we are too busy looking for short term political gain to recognize this key longterm strategic opportunity.

liveandletlive
11-14-2015, 08:19 AM
this tragedy hurts Rand. the average voter acts on emotion, not analyzing cause and effect. Ben Carson saying he will eliminate "them" will go over better than Rand saying he was right on foreign policy.

djinwa
11-14-2015, 08:19 AM
Rand should state we will not give the terrorists what they want. We've been doing that for decades. First, terrorists want us to be terrified. Maybe we need a president with courage, not reacting in fear - land of the free, home of the brave, right? Osama wanted to bankrupt us, as he said below in 2004. We spend billions killing a few of them and think we are winning - we are fools:

http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html


All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.
--------------
And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

Jan2017
11-14-2015, 08:23 AM
Extremely limited - if anything at all for now.
Wait for Interpol to do their investigation, and maybe be the most deliberate in a response of all the candidates.
No need do get into every knee-jerk reaction the media wants - he does NOT need to be the first of the candidate's in response, but in the end have maybe the best.
(with a 2nd Amendment angle (?)

osan
11-14-2015, 08:24 AM
This terrible tragedy is going to be politicized to no end. Can't pretend that this world event is not going to have massive fallout, and how the candidates react to this will be critical in the campaign. On its face, it looks like a nail in the coffin for Rand when people's fears are stoked at a time when they are already worried about him being weak on national defense and when there are plenty of other candidates who are willing to go full blown neocon. Is there possibly some miracle by which Rand can somehow turn this around to his advantage?

Well, he can play this a number of ways.

The so-called "liberals" tend to be pragmatists - unprincipled brats who make shit up as they go along and care only about getting what they want and to hell with everyone else. They often go on about "real solutions". OK, then if that is what they want, the first real solution during this time of crisis is to secure our borders. Will the progressives complain? Sure, but there are questions to put to them that should expose their stupidity... such as whether they think that letting in hundreds of thousands of muslim "refugees" could not possibly result in attacks such as those that have occurred in Paris.

IOW, you have to map out reality and the apparent positions of the opposition, then find the contradictions to which those positions lead and put it to THEM to explain their ways out of it. Keep the ball in their court at all times. Good offense -> best defense... as the adage goes. I would go on a major offensive against these idiots - now's the time for that - and force them to PROVE how their bankrupt ideas will lead to peace and prosperity.

I would NOT rule out foreign military intervention. It may not be right in principle, but the fucked up thinking of world leaders has brought us to this sad pass and we may have to bend those rules a bit... or maybe not, I am not really sure at this point. My point, however, is that IF it turns out that it is to OUR (USA) advantage to, say, bail Europe out AGAIN, this time things will be fundamentally different. Europe will PAY every cent that WE expend on dragging their sad, sad bacon out of the flames. That would be my upfront requirement and that would likely play very well to many people. We help you and prevail - we hold a lien on the very ground on which you live and breathe until such time as the debt is paid, including every last penny of interest. Barring that, the ground in question becomes sovereign American territory upon foreclosure. That would get someone's attention. We bailed those stupid bastards out twice and we footed the bill in toto. Screw that. Those dumbasses refuse to exercise the least intelligence in learning the lessons, let them pay because as far as I am concerned we ought not pay a thin dime toward those oafs.

Furthermore, part of the deal is that Europe pay $10MM for every injured American soldier (loss of limbs, eyesight, burned, etc. and not paper cuts) and $100MM to the families of every American soldier killed in action, in GOLD, platinum, silver, or other precious metal. No compromise on that.

This position helps us in several ways. With such high cost, governments of Europe would likely think thrice before contracting with us, meaning that they would really have to be looking at extinction to even consider the deal. That helps us because we do not get involved unless their extinction looms, which we all should recognize would NOT be in our better interests... not where the vacuum is filled with these muslim loons.

There's your position. We go in if long term practicality calls for it, but do so with the invoice going directly to those availing themselves of our services. No more free rides for anyone. You want? You EARN. Period. How much more liberty-oriented can that be? Oh, and all troops are strictly VOLUNTEER... not as in "volunteer army", but as in "volunteer for this mission". If we cannot scrape up enough, then the American people have spoken and we let Europe or whomever burn.

I see no problems with any of this. If Americans want to volunteer to go help France, let them go. But the US taxpayer shells out not even the first penny. All costs covered by the contracting party whose ass is to be saved.

sam1952
11-14-2015, 08:26 AM
this tragedy hurts Rand. the average voter acts on emotion, not analyzing cause and effect. Ben Carson saying he will eliminate "them" will go over better than Rand saying he was right on foreign policy.


Unfortunately, this is true...

Jan2017
11-14-2015, 08:29 AM
Well, he can play this a number of ways.

. . . If Americans want to volunteer to go help France, let them go. But the US taxpayer shells out not even the first penny.
All costs covered by the contracting party whose ass is to be saved.

Yeah, Rand could carefully suggest France should have Letters of Marque, as Ron Paul suggested we use after the 9-11 attack.

osan
11-14-2015, 08:44 AM
However, in France you will have a final ballot between only the two strongest candidates in the first round, so its still unlikely that she will win - if the mood doesnt turn in her favor much more until April 2017, the date of the election.

2017?!

France will likely be decided long before 2017.

jmdrake
11-14-2015, 08:44 AM
You say it as a joke now but if it turns out the attackers were illegal immigrants, then it would further vindicate Trumps idea of illegals being bad for the security of a country.

Only if you can tie the particular immigrants Trump is railing against to a security threat. Right now everyone is worrying about the hundreds of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees. But in the wake of the stupid Iraq ware there were hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christian refugees. Had we taken them in, and we should have because we screwed up their country, they would not have been a security threat. And yes, narco gang members from south of the border represent a security threat. They wouldn't if we ended the drug war. Here's another idea. A green card for every immigrant who gives information leading to the arrest, prosecution, deportation and/or incarceration of a terrorist, narco gang member, rapist, human trafficker or murderer.

osan
11-14-2015, 08:49 AM
This will be critical:

I would ignore it. We never should have entangled ourselves in that nonsense to begin. Time to withdraw and let Europe fend for itself. We saved their sorry asses twice and that was two times too many. Now we would be sucked in a third time? Shame on us is that comes to pass, which I suppose it will.

osan
11-14-2015, 08:53 AM
There is also an opportunity to bring in the 2nd amendment on this. Not just defending people's right to have firearms, but to emphasize how important it is for people to actually exercise that right. We want a nation so well armed that any terrorist who tries to attack us on our own soil will have their remaining lifespan measured in seconds.

This. Repworthy.

69360
11-14-2015, 09:23 AM
He should express sympathies and not much else.

In the end this is still an isolated criminal incident that killed a hundred in a nation of millions. With all due respect to the dead, this group is gnats. IS could be wiped out at any given time militarily if western populations had the stomach to handle large losses of innocents on both sides. The west doesn't and the terrorists do. It's what separates us from them for now. That could change.

klamath
11-14-2015, 09:30 AM
He should express sympathies and not much else.

In the end this is still an isolated criminal incident that killed a hundred in a nation of millions. With all due respect to the dead, this group is gnats. IS could be wiped out at any given time militarily if western populations had the stomach to handle large losses of innocents on both sides. The west doesn't and the terrorists do. It's what separates us from them for now. That could change.This is pretty much it.

TER
11-14-2015, 09:30 AM
I would ignore it. We never should have entangled ourselves in that nonsense to begin. Time to withdraw and let Europe fend for itself. We saved their sorry asses twice and that was two times too many. Now we would be sucked in a third time? Shame on us is that comes to pass, which I suppose it will.

It should come to a vote in Congress. And if the vote is yes, that we declare war on Isis, then we will all pay taxes to fight it.


Personally, I would have much less problem paying tax for this endeavor than for much of what the government has forced me to pay in the past with regards to military missions.

William R
11-14-2015, 09:45 AM
Rand should say we need to stop Obama from resettling anymore Middle East refuges in the United States. And like his father said after 9/11, we need to stop immigration from Muslim countries.

jkob
11-14-2015, 09:55 AM
It's a tough situation; I believe we should drop our demand that Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians must go then go from there as they are the people fighting them already. It seems inevitable that there will be a ground war against Islamic State, lets just pray that it doesn't get turned into a war against the Russians and Iranians too like the neocons/Saudis will want. Perhaps that would be a good way to dispel the isolationist label to seek cooperation, we need to demand that our so called allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia stop supporting ISIS because for all the sabre-rattling it isn't the Iranians and Russians that are hurting us. Now I'm sure some other GOP candidate would call for your assassination via drone at that point.

luctor-et-emergo
11-14-2015, 10:07 AM
1. Rand said not to arm terrorists or 'moderate' fighters.
2. Rand made a good point on NSA/intelligence not being able to capture the right data because they are overwhelmed with too much crap which they shouldn't look at.
3. Rand said he did not want to take in refugees EXACTLY because of this risk, as opposed to some other candidates, Rubio.
4. Rand is the only one already having offered a declaration of war against isis.
5. Rand WILL use overwhelming force when war is declared, win and come home.

These are all facts and when explained in the right way will completely defuse any straw-man arguments. In fact, it could completely change peoples minds.

luctor-et-emergo
11-14-2015, 10:13 AM
It's a tough situation; I believe we should drop our demand that Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians must go then go from there as they are the people fighting them already. It seems inevitable that there will be a ground war against Islamic State, lets just pray that it doesn't get turned into a war against the Russians and Iranians too like the neocons/Saudis will want. Perhaps that would be a good way to dispel the isolationist label to seek cooperation, we need to demand that our so called allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia stop supporting ISIS because for all the sabre-rattling it isn't the Iranians and Russians that are hurting us. Now I'm sure some other GOP candidate would call for your assassination via drone at that point.

Ultimately it's really sad that these people died in any circumstance but I think in the bigger picture this mostly brings Iran, Russia closer to the west. There's still the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend kind of thing. These extremists are everyones enemy. Russia just suffered a bombing on a plane, France suffers this. I'd say tensions being reduced between the 'East' and 'West' may be the only slightly positive thing to come from this. I could be totally wrong but I don't really see how. Certainly the citizens of said countries are empathetic towards 'us' for the most part.


Iran: Despite Iran's rocky relations with the U.S., both Iranian president Mohamed Khatami and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei comdemned and denounced the attacks and the terrorists who carried out the attacks. Iranians who gathered for a soccer match in Tehran two days after the 9/11 attacks observed a moment of silence. There was also a candlelight vigil. (wiki)

RonPaulMall
11-14-2015, 10:34 AM
Immigration would be the way to attack it from a political perspective, but Rand hasn't done a very good job establishing himself on that position so probably no an option. His best bet is to simply go on the attack and call out Rubio for his support of taking in even more Syrian "refugees".

Ultimately, this is going to be a huge boon for Trump because he's the candidate the public associates with wanting to end the mass migration madness. Bet Rand can do is focus attention on others so he isn't the one taking any hits.

Evilfox
11-14-2015, 10:54 AM
1. Rand said not to arm terrorists or 'moderate' fighters.
2. Rand made a good point on NSA/intelligence not being able to capture the right data because they are overwhelmed with too much crap which they shouldn't look at.
3. Rand said he did not want to take in refugees EXACTLY because of this risk, as opposed to some other candidates, Rubio.
4. Rand is the only one already having offered a declaration of war against isis.
5. Rand WILL use overwhelming force when war is declared, win and come home.

These are all facts and when explained in the right way will completely defuse any straw-man arguments. In fact, it could completely change peoples minds.

I one hundred percent agree with this. Very good clear points that are true and simple.

luctor-et-emergo
11-14-2015, 10:57 AM
Immigration would be the way to attack it from a political perspective, but Rand hasn't done a very good job establishing himself on that position so probably no an option. His best bet is to simply go on the attack and call out Rubio for his support of taking in even more Syrian "refugees".

Ultimately, this is going to be a huge boon for Trump because he's the candidate the public associates with wanting to end the mass migration madness. Bet Rand can do is focus attention on others so he isn't the one taking any hits.

He should not attack Rubio on that. He should simply point out he's been against that all along.

MaxPower
11-14-2015, 11:00 AM
1. Rand said not to arm terrorists or 'moderate' fighters.
2. Rand made a good point on NSA/intelligence not being able to capture the right data because they are overwhelmed with too much crap which they shouldn't look at.
3. Rand said he did not want to take in refugees EXACTLY because of this risk, as opposed to some other candidates, Rubio.
4. Rand is the only one already having offered a declaration of war against isis.
5. Rand WILL use overwhelming force when war is declared, win and come home.

These are all facts and when explained in the right way will completely defuse any straw-man arguments. In fact, it could completely change peoples minds.
Rand has not to my knowledge said he doesn't want to take in refugees-- only that refugees should be carefully vetted-- and neither should we. The refugees are fleeing the same sorts of people who committed these attacks.

Brian4Liberty
11-14-2015, 11:15 AM
Speak with clarity.

Rand needs to articulate that defeating ISIS is more important than defeating Assad. Defeating ISIS is more important than standing up to Russia.

We cannot be on the side of ISIS in Syria, period.


I agree that there is a big opportunity there on the point about Assad.

Did anyone hear John Kerry today? Typical of neoconservatives and their comrades on the left, this is a opportunity to go after the people they don't like. Kerry talked about the need to remove Assad. These scum have no shame.

Next thing you know, to respond to this attack by ISIS, these scumbags will say we need to address the new 'Axis of Evil', which will be Assad, Iran and Russia, the only people who are actually fighting ISIS. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Brandywine
11-14-2015, 11:39 AM
This article is making the rounds all over Facebook, or similar articles.

Rand Paul “the Isolationist” Proposed Declaration of War on ISIS in December of 2014 (http://www.youthforrandpaul.com/post/133205556158/rand-paul-the-isolationist-proposed-declaration)

PCKY
11-14-2015, 11:40 AM
In December 2014, Rand brought forth a resolution to declare war on ISIS. So which of our candidates supported it? Who did not. We all know that Obama is not going to Congress with anything. Rand can tout the resolution for effect. He can continue the stand that if we go to war, even as a response to a NATO agreement, we must do so Constitutionally.
I do have a question about the NATO treaty...ISIS is not a sovereign state...does that count?

PCKY
11-14-2015, 11:42 AM
This article is making the rounds all over Facebook, or similar articles.

Rand Paul “the Isolationist” Proposed Declaration of War on ISIS in December of 2014 (http://www.youthforrandpaul.com/post/133205556158/rand-paul-the-isolationist-proposed-declaration)
I saw this in my Facebook feed from Texas For Rand Paul and one other support group.

PCKY
11-14-2015, 11:45 AM
Did anyone hear John Kerry today? Typical of neoconservatives and their comrades on the left, this is a opportunity to go after the people they don't like. Kerry talked about the need to remove Assad. These scum have no shame.

Next thing you know, to respond to this attack by ISIS, these scumbags will say we need to address the new 'Axis of Evil', which will be Assad, Iran and Russia, the only people who are actually fighting ISIS. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Welcome to World War 3.

Brian4Liberty
11-14-2015, 11:45 AM
Throwing this out as an idea for Constitutional conservatives in Congress...



The opportunity here is to demand a declaration of war for any actions taken, if expansion can not be avoided. This would be in line with a Constitutional conservative position in the Congress.

This Declaration should contain the following:

- Repeal of all past AUMFs.
- A strict definition of the territory (nation) of ISIS (ie. action only in ISIS territory in the former Iraq and Syria).
- Explicitly state that this does not authorize use of force against any other sovereign nation. No bombing in any other nation.
- Explicitly state the goal. Ie. elimination of ISIS as a nation with territory. This is not an ongoing war against territory-less organizations, ISIS or otherwise.
- Explicitly state that this will only be carried out in support of allies in NATO, and in no way will be pursued as a unilateral effort or even primarily funded by the US.
- Explicitly give timetables, and expiration of this Declaration/AUMF.
- Explicitly state that nothing in this AUMF overrides the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
- Explicitly state that nothing in this AUMF grants the Executive Branch any additional power and authority, other than to carry out the mission outlined in the Declaration.
- Explicitly state that any action deemed necessary outside of this Declaration requires an amendment to this Declaration.
- Explicitly state that this will not be a nation-building exercise. This is an authorization for war, not foreign aid.
- Explicitly state strict budget and spending controls on this actions carried out under this Declaration.


And that's just a start of the restrictions for any new Declaration of War, made necessary by the abuse of the previous AUMF by the Executive Branch.

PCKY
11-14-2015, 11:47 AM
Rand has not to my knowledge said he doesn't want to take in refugees-- only that refugees should be carefully vetted-- and neither should we. The refugees are fleeing the same sorts of people who committed these attacks.
I heard what you heard. But I would add that half-assed vetting probably would come close to a flat out refusal. In other words, because we can't vet them, we should say no.

PCKY
11-14-2015, 11:51 AM
Throwing this out as an idea for Constitutional conservatives in Congress...
This assumes that ISIS doesn't melt into the woodwork the moment the first boot hits the ground. They are in this for the long haul. We may be able to take the wind from their sails now, but this won't end...not for a thousand years and then some.

PCKY
11-14-2015, 11:53 AM
He should not attack Rubio on that. He should simply point out he's been against that all along.
The plus for Rand with the Trump boon is that Trump agrees with his positions on Syria.

PCKY
11-14-2015, 11:55 AM
Immigration would be the way to attack it from a political perspective, but Rand hasn't done a very good job establishing himself on that position so probably no an option. His best bet is to simply go on the attack and call out Rubio for his support of taking in even more Syrian "refugees".

Ultimately, this is going to be a huge boon for Trump because he's the candidate the public associates with wanting to end the mass migration madness. Bet Rand can do is focus attention on others so he isn't the one taking any hits.
Actually Rand has been advocating reinstating the Bush policy of uber scrutiny of Visas from countries that support terror. Obama discontinued that in 2010. Rand is most criticized for saying that we can't deport 11million people.

PCKY
11-14-2015, 12:00 PM
Ultimately it's really sad that these people died in any circumstance but I think in the bigger picture this mostly brings Iran, Russia closer to the west. There's still the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend kind of thing. These extremists are everyones enemy. Russia just suffered a bombing on a plane, France suffers this. I'd say tensions being reduced between the 'East' and 'West' may be the only slightly positive thing to come from this. I could be totally wrong but I don't really see how. Certainly the citizens of said countries are empathetic towards 'us' for the most part.

(wiki)
This is ISIS' own doing. They target believers that don't believe purely enough as well as the Sunni's. They've made enemies of everyone. But their stated goal is Armageddon...that's a good way to get it started.

CaptUSA
11-14-2015, 12:00 PM
We mustn't allow our fears to dictate out actions. Tragedies have a way of compelling us to consider the inconsiderable. Instead, we should forge a path forward with tempered resolve so that liberty and justice may prevail.

jclay2
11-14-2015, 12:01 PM
Deport the Mexicans. That's the answer for everything.

This! Seriously. One of the terrorists has already been identified as a 'Syrian Refuggee'. Easiest political layup I have ever seen.

PCKY
11-14-2015, 12:02 PM
This is pretty much it.
I don't think they would be wiped out. The similarities to Vietnam Nam are really scary.

P3ter_Griffin
11-14-2015, 12:07 PM
He could set up a fund where individuals from around the world could voluntarily donate for causes such as arming the Kurds, arming and transporting individuals interested in fighting ISIS, sending investigative forces to help France, funding Russian and Syrian operations against ISIS, etc. Forced contribution is an especially big moral hazard when it comes to war.

P3ter_Griffin
11-14-2015, 12:11 PM
It should come to a vote in Congress. And if the vote is yes, that we declare war on Isis, then we will all pay taxes to fight it.


Personally, I would have much less problem paying tax for this endeavor than for much of what the government has forced me to pay in the past with regards to military missions.

Part of me thinks you are relaying reality, but the 'should' confuses me.

LawnWake
11-14-2015, 12:15 PM
I think Rand has so far always responded politically savy to subjects relating to the War on Terror. I have no worries about him putting his foot in his mouth. Sure there is a polarized Republican electorate on the matter of foreign policy, so in a way, he ALWAYS puts his foot in his mouth when it comes to war in the Middle East to some people, regardless of what he says. But he's been good on the matter so far.

derek4ever
11-14-2015, 12:28 PM
The plus for Rand with the Trump boon is that Trump agrees with his positions on Syria.

I strongly believe that this is the reason the Neocons want to draft Romney. This tragic event will back what Trump and Rand have said (I'm not sure about Carson, if anybody knows, let me know and correct me please) and just might get the two closer. The biggest losers here are Rubio, Jeb, Christie and Fiorina (I think Cruz is in this camp too, I don't remember)

Jan2017
11-14-2015, 12:40 PM
UK Guardian stated early this morning that ISIL stated France was considered by them as "a major target" . . .

(note this September 27 CNN headline)
France launches its first airstrikes against ISIS in Syria

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/middleeast/syria-france-isis-bombing/


(http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/middleeast/syria-france-isis-bombing/)

Brian4Liberty
11-14-2015, 12:42 PM
This assumes that ISIS doesn't melt into the woodwork the moment the first boot hits the ground. They are in this for the long haul. We may be able to take the wind from their sails now, but this won't end...not for a thousand years and then some.

Absolutely they would do that. "ISIS" would still make videos and do terrorist attacks. Acknowledging that would be a good thing to add to a proposed Declaration of War. Chasing nation-less terrorists forever is explicitly not part of the authorization.

Addressing violence by nation-less organizations (and lone wolves) will always be part of standard Police/FBI/InterPol/CIA work.

Brian4Liberty
11-14-2015, 12:49 PM
Not to state the obvious, but the US should not do anything if France doesn't want to anything. This was an attack on France, not the US.

clint4liberty
11-14-2015, 12:53 PM
Rand needs to emphasize that he's had a declaration of war against ISIS prepared since last year, and that he's the *ONLY* candidate on record who has one. He needs to beat everyone else to the punch.

I was also include it fits in with yielding against reckless offensive preemptive war. Rand Paul needs to hold a major press conference on Monday, November 23rd and restate his clarion call for a declaration of war against IS. A defined war that sets out clear over arching goals for victory. Defeat IS and allow the Kurds and other Christians in Syria and Iraq to live without fear of being murdered.

luctor-et-emergo
11-14-2015, 12:55 PM
Not to state the obvious, but the US should not do anything if France doesn't want to anything. This was an attack on France, not the US.

I'm not French either but this is rather close to home (4-5hrs by car). I think it's about time to declare war on them. The threat is in every European country and to a lesser extent in the US. It has nothing to do with Islam. It's crazy people who hate the way the world is run, like we do essentially, but for all the wrong reasons. They are the modern day anti-freedom force.

Look, I don't want to commit to any futile or unprovoked war but they will continue to provoke. They WANT to die. That's the problem. And I would never have thought I'd ever say this and believe it but, we either kill them over there, or we'll have to kill them here (Europe).

Brandywine
11-14-2015, 12:55 PM
Absolutely they would do that. "ISIS" would still make videos and do terrorist attacks. Acknowledging that would be a good thing to add to a proposed Declaration of War. Chasing nation-less terrorists forever is explicitly not part of the authorization.

Addressing violence by nation-less organizations (and lone wolves) will always be part of standard Police/FBI/InterPol/CIA work.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again.

luctor-et-emergo
11-14-2015, 12:58 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again.

I totally agree.. The advantage though, even though nationless terrorists are harder to chase, they also have much less support. Hardly any intelligence. Little money. So they are by definition less of a threat.

clint4liberty
11-14-2015, 01:03 PM
Yes, France is going full board into Syria and Iraq now against IS. The US should join forces with France in this effort to defeat IS. Rand Paul's ideals is the way forward. As I stated in earlier post, share intelligence, declare war, air strikes, battle ship cruise missle air strikes, and increase special forces. It is very true that France was attacked and must lead the way in this response, but Americans were killed in this attack as well.

wizardwatson
11-14-2015, 01:10 PM
Yes, France is going full board into Syria and Iraq now against IS. The US should join forces with France in this effort to defeat IS. Rand Paul's ideals is the way forward. As I stated in earlier post, share intelligence, declare war, air strikes, battle ship cruise missle air strikes, and increase special forces. It is very true that France was attacked and must lead the way in this response, but Americans were killed in this attack as well.

So basically do exactly what we're doing now?

It seems to me, in our ignorance, we think we can eliminate blowback by using more bombs.

Even Trumps refugee promise to "send them back to Syria" is the same thing. "Send them back, so they'll all be in one place and easier to blow up."

heavenlyboy34
11-14-2015, 01:22 PM
Okay, how are you folks planning to "declare war" on a Stateless bunch of thugs? The only thing congress can do (within the Constitutional framework) is issue letters of marque and reprisal ala Jefferson during the Barbary War.

euphemia
11-14-2015, 01:27 PM
Rand is speaking on FoxNews now.

He suggests more scrutiny for people who want to come here to live and study. When asked whether we should step up military force, he says no. He thinks we should do more with what we have, but we should not go into more debt for defense.

One of the points he makes is that every time a secular leader is toppled, the religious extremists take over. He's right on that score.

r3volution 3.0
11-14-2015, 01:34 PM
Rand is speaking on FoxNews now.

He suggests more scrutiny for people who want to come here to live and study. When asked whether we should step up military force, he says no. He thinks we should do more with what we have, but we should not go into more debt for defense.

One of the points he makes is that every time a secular leader is toppled, the religious extremists take over. He's right on that score.

I only caught the end of that interview, but what I saw was solid.

...I liked how he had supporters behind him, with RAND t-shirts etc.

I get the impression that he's not going to try to make hay out of this by stepping up his anti-intervention rhetoric, but neither is he backing down at all.

Good play IMO - hold fast, wait for the storm to subside.

Liberty74
11-14-2015, 02:11 PM
Rand needs to emphasize that he's had a declaration of war against ISIS prepared since last year, and that he's the *ONLY* candidate on record who has one. He needs to beat everyone else to the punch.

Hope Rand does that.

Also, wasn't it just the other month Trump was agreeing to let in all these Syrian refugees at our tax dollar expense? Hmmm...

luctor-et-emergo
11-14-2015, 02:15 PM
So basically do exactly what we're doing now?

It seems to me, in our ignorance, we think we can eliminate blowback by using more bombs.

Even Trumps refugee promise to "send them back to Syria" is the same thing. "Send them back, so they'll all be in one place and easier to blow up."

Hardly. There's enough surveillance capabilities, drones/satellites etc. The air attacks at the moment are not aimed at defeating ISIS, they are aimed at changing the shape of the conflict so Assad is defeated, after that maybe they'll be focussed on defeating ISIS. That is the problem.

Liberty74
11-14-2015, 02:18 PM
Yes, France is going full board into Syria and Iraq now against IS. The US should join forces with France in this effort to defeat IS. Rand Paul's ideals is the way forward. As I stated in earlier post, share intelligence, declare war, air strikes, battle ship cruise missle air strikes, and increase special forces. It is very true that France was attacked and must lead the way in this response, but Americans were killed in this attack as well.

But you see, this is Europe's PROBLEM. They are the ones being all multi-cultural and "liberal" to allow millions of immigrants into their countries all in the name of being nice and changing their laws to accommodate and to be sensitive. So how do you go after a group that is literally EVERYWHERE? I am afraid that Paris is just the first massacre and ISIS is probably planning multiple attacks in many other European countries and even possibly here. But our government will catch them first because they spy on everyone. :roll eyes:

I honestly think the super elite know what they are doing. Implode the system with illegals and refugees to garner even more control over us. But then again, didn't Obama say ISIS was "contained."

Krugminator2
11-14-2015, 02:21 PM
Contrary to what the conventional wisdom is about this being bad for Rand. I think this is a TREMENDOUS positive with the seed of a great opportunity.

It gives him an opportunity to point out a rational plan. He can point out his declaration of war in 2014. He can point out he has a plan that will minimize the cost in dollars and American lives by getting the people in the region like Kurds involved. And it gives him another opportunity to point out that the Rubio's of the world have been wrong about everything, Libya, Syria, and Iraq.

I think Rand should also point out that liberals blame things like the Amtrak derailment on lack of funding and conservatives have the same nonsensical response to a terrorist attack. It is also amazingly incoherent that conservatives are strong Second Amendment supporters after a school shooting that kills 30 people but when a when a terrorist attack like the Boston Bombing kills a few people they will throw freedom down the drain.

Crashland
11-14-2015, 03:24 PM
Contrary to what the conventional wisdom is about this being bad for Rand. I think this is a TREMENDOUS positive with the seed of a great opportunity.

It gives him an opportunity to point out a rational plan. He can point out his declaration of war in 2014. He can point out he has a plan that will minimize the cost in dollars and American lives by getting the people in the region like Kurds involved. And it gives him another opportunity to point out that the Rubio's of the world have been wrong about everything, Libya, Syria, and Iraq.

I think Rand should also point out that liberals blame things like the Amtrak derailment on lack of funding and conservatives have the same nonsensical response to a terrorist attack. It is also amazingly incoherent that conservatives are strong Second Amendment supporters after a school shooting that kills 30 people but when a when a terrorist attack like the Boston Bombing kills a few people they will throw freedom down the drain.

"The problem is not lack of funding, it's lack of strategy"
We can't just put boots on the ground, rampage through Iraq and Syria, indefinitely occupy the country and declare mission accomplished. Rand needs to expose that as the foolish plan that it is.

revgen
11-14-2015, 07:29 PM
1) Rand should mention that some of the attackers in Paris were terrorists who migrated there posing as refugees from Syria. Remind the person asking the question that Rand has been sounding the warning bells about the need to closely scrutinize these refugees for the last several months.

2) Explain how it was our decision to send arms to the so-called "Islamic Moderates" in Syria to fight Assad, who eventually became ISIS and started the entire civil war over there. These refugees are fleeing the region partially due to our mistake.

3) If we decide to send troops to fight ISIS, we need to do it by official declaration of war through Congress. Remind the person asking the question that Rand introduced a bill declaring war on ISIS in 2014. When and if war is declared, we will send the troops in with overwhelming force. Win the war decisively, and go home. No nation building.

Brian4Liberty
11-14-2015, 08:04 PM
3) If we decide to send troops to fight ISIS, we need to do it by official declaration of war through Congress. Remind the person asking the question that Rand introduced a bill declaring war on ISIS in 2014. When and if war is declared, we will send the troops in with overwhelming force. Win the war decisively, and go home. No nation building.

Let France send ground troops. No US ground troops!

revgen
11-14-2015, 08:24 PM
Let France send ground troops. No US ground troops!

If France wants to do it alone, then that's fine. But they may end up requesting US troops under NATO.

Brian4Liberty
11-14-2015, 08:39 PM
If France wants to do it alone, then that's fine. But they may end up requesting US troops under NATO.

They can request all they like, but NATO treaty does not specify exact type of support. Air support most likely.

RonPaulMall
11-14-2015, 08:44 PM
But you see, this is Europe's PROBLEM. They are the ones being all multi-cultural and "liberal" to allow millions of immigrants into their countries all in the name of being nice and changing their laws to accommodate and to be sensitive. So how do you go after a group that is literally EVERYWHERE? I am afraid that Paris is just the first massacre and ISIS is probably planning multiple attacks in many other European countries and even possibly here. But our government will catch them first because they spy on everyone. :roll eyes:

I honestly think the super elite know what they are doing. Implode the system with illegals and refugees to garner even more control over us. But then again, didn't Obama say ISIS was "contained."

And this is what Rand needs to be talking about. Link the shared ideology of the elites on both sides of the Atlantic and put the blame for the tragedy squarely on their shoulders. Rand should put that video "With Open Gates" up on his website and be hammering Obama over his recent decision to flood America with Somalis and expedite the transfer of Syrians to America.

WeTheVigilant
11-14-2015, 10:05 PM
He needs to go after the Syrian refugee issue HARD, he needs to talk about the dangers of opening the borders and allowing thousands of Muslims to flood the country. He needs to talk about a clear and defined plan to take out ISIS (which should help chip away at the stupid "isolationist" label pushed by the neocons) and he needs to point out, clearly, that we are at war with RADICAL ISLAM.

That should get the GOP voters on his side big time.

Crashland
11-14-2015, 10:24 PM
He needs to go after the Syrian refugee issue HARD, he needs to talk about the dangers of opening the borders and allowing thousands of Muslims to flood the country. He needs to talk about a clear and defined plan to take out ISIS (which should help chip away at the stupid "isolationist" label pushed by the neocons) and he needs to point out, clearly, that we are at war with RADICAL ISLAM.

That should get the GOP voters on his side big time.

The point about radical islam is also a good pivot point. Yes, it is important to call it what it is. Why? Because if you can't even identify what you're fighting, you can't have a good strategy to deal with it. Fighting radical islamic terrorists demands a very different strategy than fighting the Iraqi government, or fighting "violent criminals". It means that having America start another war with ground troops is precisely NOT the answer. We need to be smart about it.

JohnCollins
11-15-2015, 09:07 AM
Other than calling for more scrutiny of "refugees", which he is already doing, he should clearly articulate his strategy for defeating ISIS, and link this to the greater issue of radical Islam.

He should juxtapose his record against that of Marco Rubio. Both Senators, both entered the Senate at the same time, but two very different voting records on foreign policy. All those foreign aid bills where Rubio voted to send arms to Islamist rebels, many of whom may now be part of ISIS or Al Qaeda and Islamist supporting regimes like Pakistan. Rubio's support for Hillary's war in Libya, which destabilized North Africa, eliminated a leader who had collaborated in the War on Terror and provided a new pathway for illegal immigration into our European allies. Trump will sink himself at some point. Save Carson for the next debate, because he has no chance whatsoever of winning an exchange on the merits of a no fly zone, which will make Rand look very good by comparison. Cruz is too popular with the base. Rubio is the ideal target to start hammering right now on the media and then to call him out again in the debate for his consistent appeasement of radical Islam. Rand needs to use harsh rhetoric to counter the isolationist slurs.

Rand needs to use facts. He has introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State to the Senate. He is the only candidate in the race who would give the Kurds a state, every other candidate is prioritizing relations with the Brotherhood regime in Turkey over that. He is the only true friend of our closest ally in this conflict on that debate stage. He is the only candidate who will not only be brave enough to stand up to our enemies, but also our allies - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan - when they go against our national interest and support radical Islam. There is a huge discrepancy between the attitudes of the GOP elite towards these countries and that of the GOP grassroots. A no fly zone in Syria is NOT supporting our allies because half our allies, including the much loved Egypt and Jordan oppose it and support the Russian intervention - call out Kasich and Fiorina when they say the no fly zone is necessary to get the allies on side.

Brian4Liberty
11-15-2015, 02:09 PM
Rand needs to use facts. He has introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State to the Senate.

Yes, the Declaration of War is key, and Rand should push that.

All of the facts might not be the best tactic. The media and pundits and a whole lot of the sheeple will attack anyone who speaks the truth.

The truth in bullet points:

- With help from outside interests, the people that became ISIS were encouraged and armed to instigate an armed revolution in Syria (it worked so well in Kosovo).
- Having established themselves in Syria, they decided to take control of Sunni Iraq (where many of them were from). This would be a problem for some of those outside forces that helped them in the first place.
- ISIS goes on a mass killing spree.
- With very questionable legal justification (ie. outdated AUMF and no Declaration of War), Obama began an air war against ISIS in Iraq.
- Without any legal authority whatsoever (ie. no Declaration of War or AUMF), Obama began an air war against ISIS in Syria.
- France joined in air war against ISIS (assuming no Declaration of War there either).
- Obama escalated with boots on the ground.
- Russia escalated air war against ISIS.
- ISIS strikes back against Russia, France by killing innocent bystanders.

Declarations of war makes the sequence and history too clear. If they had been used, things would not be as confusing and the sequence of events would not be swept under the rug as easily, kind of like Hillary's email server.

65fastback2+2
11-15-2015, 03:18 PM
reading comments on articles around fb, 90% of voters are still brainwashed by the war mongers...unfortunate

enhanced_deficit
11-15-2015, 07:33 PM
This terrible tragedy is going to be politicized to no end. Can't pretend that this world event is not going to have massive fallout, and how the candidates react to this will be critical in the campaign. On its face, it looks like a nail in the coffin for Rand when people's fears are stoked at a time when they are already worried about him being weak on national defense and when there are plenty of other candidates who are willing to go full blown neocon. Is there possibly some miracle by which Rand can somehow turn this around to his advantage?

It is a big tragedy and will get lot of coverage as it should.

A broader scope should be kept keeping in view causes and solutions to avoid in future. More interventions is not the solution but part of problem.

ISIS did not just attack French people, it also attacked people in Beirut, Syria, Iraq.
It is also accused of attacking a Russian plane causing even more deaths than in Paris.

Russian Defence Ministry publishes cartoon with Grim Reaper behind French Charlie Hebdo editor (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485319-Russian-Defence-Ministry-publishes-cartoon-with-Grim-Reaper-behind-French-Charlie-Hebdo-editor&)

devil21
11-15-2015, 07:38 PM
I'm not French either but this is rather close to home (4-5hrs by car). I think it's about time to declare war on them. The threat is in every European country and to a lesser extent in the US. It has nothing to do with Islam. It's crazy people who hate the way the world is run, like we do essentially, but for all the wrong reasons. They are the modern day anti-freedom force.

As Ron always said, you can't declare war on a tactic.

Besides, the Paris events were planned by INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES and executed by ASSETS OF THOSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. If you don't know this yet you should pay more attention. This event was ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE!!! Maybe not the exact when/where but it wasn't a surprise to anyone that has followed the Syria situation.



Look, I don't want to commit to any futile or unprovoked war but they will continue to provoke. They WANT to die. That's the problem. And I would never have thought I'd ever say this and believe it but, we either kill them over there, or we'll have to kill them here (Europe).

You should stop and take a reality check when you start to sound like Dubya.
--------------------

On topic:
I think Rand should keep doing what he's doing and speak truth to power about how these events occur, trying to address the cause of terrorism, intervention (particularly by intelligence agencies) instead of the symptom, which is terrorism. Take the intellectual high road, though I do note that calling out Mossad and CIA, etc is a rather dangerous undertaking.

RabbitMan
11-16-2015, 01:37 AM
I think some points are being lost on people here:

(a) The passport found on one of the two suicide bombers that showed he came from Syria through Greece was a fake. This is a big deal that is getting way overlooked to score cheap political points against the refugees. The fear benefits right-wing nationalist parties in most European countries, so why should they care?

(B) ISIS is not Al Qaeda or some terrorist cells--they are a nation state that has taken actual ground from actual countries who are actively fighting to take it back. They may fade back into insurgent obscurity if utterly destroyed, but they take taxes from the inhabitants of lands they occupy and have a twisted system of government, though maybe a bit more mafia like in that regard.

The point is, ISIS is a nation state that can legitimately be declared war on, and I believe their intent is to make Infidels draw such a hateful divide between themselves and Muslims, that Muslims and those of Arab/Persian/Middleastern descent will never feel accepted in Secular Western Society. And then, those people who feel isolated or downtrodden by the society they live in become more sympathetic to the organization that vocalizes their frustration.

The guys in ISIS in charge of this are such fascinating actors of propaganda, I wouldn't put this kind of manipulation past them for one second. Shoot down a Russian plane to incite more anger against Muslims, as if the Chechnyan conflict hadn't been enough. Attack in Paris with fake passports to fuel anti-refugee sentiment. Attempt lone wolf plays in the USA to keep the Us vs Them mentality up. It all feeds into itself.

And we wonder how ISIS has managed to recruit thousands of people of Western Society? Extremism begets extremism, and over again.

JohnCollins
11-16-2015, 04:19 AM
Here's another time where Rand can use facts to put down Marco's and Christie's (if he's even there next time) BS:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260215-rubio-hits-paul-for-weak-record-on-national-security
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/13/chris-christie-criticizes-obama-rand-paul-terror-attack-paris/

France has the most extensive surveillance program in the developed world. They passed it after Charlie Hebdo. Goes way further than even the pre-USA FREEDOM Patriot Act. And it failed them. This stuff doesn't work as a form of prevention!

devil21
11-16-2015, 04:50 AM
I think some points are being lost on people here:

(a) The passport found on one of the two suicide bombers that showed he came from Syria through Greece was a fake. This is a big deal that is getting way overlooked to score cheap political points against the refugees. The fear benefits right-wing nationalist parties in most European countries, so why should they care?

Oh yeah, passports again. Always sitting around ready to explain who to "blame". And they never seem to burn, no matter whether they're from an exploding plane or an exploding person. Funny that.


(B) ISIS is not Al Qaeda or some terrorist cells--they are a nation state that has taken actual ground from actual countries who are actively fighting to take it back.

No, 'ISIS' is not a nation state. They have no government, no borders, no leaders. They are 100% a creation of intelligence agencies and media that have had their sights set on taking over Syria for years. Also, it's quite clear that any advances that 'ISIS' made into actual nation state territories were prepared and assisted by the very militaries that are now claiming to fight 'ISIS'. It's a big Hegelian Dialectic psyop. Create a problem then offer the solution. Wake up.



They may fade back into insurgent obscurity if utterly destroyed, but they take taxes from the inhabitants of lands they occupy and have a twisted system of government, though maybe a bit more mafia like in that regard.

Why on earth do you believe anything churned out of the disinfo shit mill called the "mass media"? You do realize who controls the media, don't you?



The point is, ISIS is a nation state that can legitimately be declared war on, and I believe their intent is to make Infidels draw such a hateful divide between themselves and Muslims, that Muslims and those of Arab/Persian/Middleastern descent will never feel accepted in Secular Western Society.

'ISIS' is not a nation state, no matter how hard you want to believe it is. Nation states have borders. You realize you're promoting world government and loss of sovereignty every time you allege that a faceless organization that can take on any form, at any time, anywhere is suddenly a "nation state".



And then, those people who feel isolated or downtrodden by the society they live in become more sympathetic to the organization that vocalizes their frustration.

The guys in ISIS in charge of this are such fascinating actors of propaganda, I wouldn't put this kind of manipulation past them for one second. Shoot down a Russian plane to incite more anger against Muslims, as if the Chechnyan conflict hadn't been enough. Attack in Paris with fake passports to fuel anti-refugee sentiment. Attempt lone wolf plays in the USA to keep the Us vs Them mentality up. It all feeds into itself.

And we wonder how ISIS has managed to recruit thousands of people of Western Society? Extremism begets extremism, and over again.

Media tripe sold to you. It's a huge propaganda show, with the entire goal being to remove Assad and his government. Remember the failed push for a "no fly zone" a couple years ago? Remember the false flag sarin gas attacks on Syrian civilians that were blamed on Assad but were done by McCain's buddies in the FSA? Remember how many times "Al-Baghdadi" (actually Mossad agent Simon Elliot) has been reported killed yet continues to pop up? Remember how FSA got their weapons? Benghazi! Oh wait, no you probably don't remember all that since you clearly haven't followed the real story of the Syria situation and are knee-jerk reacting to more media and government perception games. Spend more time in the Foreign Affairs subforum and educate yourself. This was a 100% CREATED scenario.

I'm not saying the Paris event was fake or a hoax (though there's already videos of questionable veracity being circulated) but it was entirely created by intelligence agencies and their associates with a predefined goal of taking over Syria, just like has been done in numerous other middle east nations (ones with no bankster controlled central banks...hmmm) over the last 15 years.

Have you seen this video? Clark isn't being entirely honest about his experience but he's absolutely being honest about the list of countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

RabbitMan
11-16-2015, 01:58 PM
Here's another time where Rand can use facts to put down Marco's and Christie's (if he's even there next time) BS:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260215-rubio-hits-paul-for-weak-record-on-national-security
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/13/chris-christie-criticizes-obama-rand-paul-terror-attack-paris/

France has the most extensive surveillance program in the developed world. They passed it after Charlie Hebdo. Goes way further than even the pre-USA FREEDOM Patriot Act. And it failed them. This stuff doesn't work as a form of prevention!

Exactly!

As for the above poster--sorry, I don't buy into the alternative narrative. I'm sort of a mainstream kind of person, sorry if I get my news from plausible sources. But if we can declare war on the Barbary Pirates, I think we can safely declare war on a group that claims land that is currently being fought over and defended.

P3ter_Griffin
11-16-2015, 02:37 PM
Exactly!

As for the above poster--sorry, I don't buy into the alternative narrative. I'm sort of a mainstream kind of person, sorry if I get my news from plausible sources. But if we can declare war on the Barbary Pirates, I think we can safely declare war on a group that claims land that is currently being fought over and defended.

But is it right to do so with stolen money?

With Obama 'failing to adequately respond to ISIS' is it not a perfect time to push citizens to 'take war into their own hands' and to not rely on democracy to decide what war is just and how best to respond?

YesI'mALiberal
11-16-2015, 03:21 PM
But if we can declare war on the Barbary Pirates, I think we can safely declare war on a group that claims land that is currently being fought over and defended.

When exactly did the United States "declare war" on the Barbary Pirates? You're not suggesting an authorization to use military force is constitutionally equivalent to a Declaration, are you?

But speaking of declaring war on ISIL, Bush came out for that yesterday. Rand Paul should be all over that, right? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/jeb-bush-paris-attacks-isil-215906

Brian4Liberty
11-16-2015, 03:41 PM
Here's another time where Rand can use facts to put down Marco's and Christie's (if he's even there next time) BS:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260215-rubio-hits-paul-for-weak-record-on-national-security
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/13/chris-christie-criticizes-obama-rand-paul-terror-attack-paris/

France has the most extensive surveillance program in the developed world. They passed it after Charlie Hebdo. Goes way further than even the pre-USA FREEDOM Patriot Act. And it failed them. This stuff doesn't work as a form of prevention!

Yep. No matter how much money they waste, and how many liberties they strip, absolute safety is impossible.

devil21
11-16-2015, 07:12 PM
Exactly!

As for the above poster--sorry, I don't buy into the alternative narrative. I'm sort of a mainstream kind of person, sorry if I get my news from plausible sources. But if we can declare war on the Barbary Pirates, I think we can safely declare war on a group that claims land that is currently being fought over and defended.

It's not an alternative narrative. I told you the truth of the situation. Continue to get your "news" from Operation Mockingbird if you like but don't act surprised if informed people think you're ignorant, though my personal opinion is that you're a shill account.

Batman
11-17-2015, 11:25 PM
Rand needs a fluid message that changes depending on the circumstances, public opinion, and the attitudes on this forum. That way he can always be right at the right time.

revrsethecurse04
11-19-2015, 03:27 PM
Surprised to see a lot of these comments on the Ron Paul Forums. It seems that many people are excited about the prospect that Rand Paul points out that he put forth a declaration of war in December 2014.

The attacks bring forth a strong teachable moment regarding the importance of the non-aggression principle, and the concept of blowback. Elaborating on Ron's points on blowback would be instrumental in explaining the current ISIS condition. It should be noted that Airstrikes, Boots on the Ground, and other offensive military actions result in Collateral Damage. This leads to an explanation of how people become radicalized, and that our presence and intereference over there serves to bolster those seeking to radicalize individuals.

Rand can further elaborate by standing against Obama and Bush, by noting that meddling in the leadership of foregin countries and toppling regimes creates a power vacuum. Oftentimes there are unintended consequences to this foreign meddling, as we have seen with the Arab Spring. The intolerable dictactors that we are so fast to throw out, are replaced by "intolerable-er" dictactors under radical Islamic rule.

If our meddling both creates more terrorists, and provides them with fertile ground with which to grow, why are we meddling at all.

Rand Paul should use this as an opportunity to differentiate himself from the field, in re-affirming the strength thru defense of the homeland approach. Recognizing that France was attacked in large part because of their direct involvement with Air to Ground engagements in Syria. If the U.S. chooses to get further embroiled in this conflict, it will run contrary to the goals of limiting government, increasing liberty, and keeping the citizens of this country safer.