Rand Paul Op-Ed @CNN: Helping Syrian Rebels a dangerous risk

[supermario21]

Helping Syrian rebels a dangerous risk

By Rand Paul, Special to CNN
May 29, 2013

(CNN) -- The United States has a history of often picking sides in Middle East conflicts to its own detriment.

In the 1980s, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein to establish a relationship that helped the dictator gain access to American arms during Iraq's war with Iran. In the 1990s, the U.S. would drive former ally Hussein from Kuwait and impose a decade of sanctions that were devastating for Iraqis, but had little effect on the dictator. In 2003, we went to Iraq, overthrew Hussein, and became part of nation-building effort from which we only recently saw most of our soldiers return home.

Arguably one of the greatest beneficiaries of the Iraq war was Iran, which now enjoys more power and influence with the elimination of its historic enemy. President George H.W. Bush did not pursue Hussein directly during Operation Desert Storm precisely because he feared the destabilizing effects it might have on the region, or as his Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney explained in 1994, "Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place?" Today, Iraq is unstable and its future uncertain.

Moammar Gadhafi eventually accepted responsibility in the 1988 bombing of an airplane over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed hundreds of people, including American schoolchildren.

President Reagan called Gadhafi the "mad dog of the Middle East."

Fast forward to 2008, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveled to Libya to meet with Gadhafi to offer American support.

...

read more:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/29/op...arebar_twitter

[BlackTerrel]

Great article... as usual by Rand. Posting this on Facebook.

[supermario21]

I'm pretty sure his "law of unintended consequences in Washington" comment is pretty much a rewording of blowback. I like it.

[Brett85]

"In the 1990s, the U.S. would drive former ally Hussein from Kuwait and impose a decade of sanctions that were devastating for Iraqis, but had little effect on the dictator."

So Rand is opposed to sanctions now? That would be nice.

[T.hill]

Since when has Rand been doing opinion articles for CNN?

[supermario21]

He's written a few of these. I like that CNN is letting him do this.

[T.hill]

He's written a few of these. I like that CNN is letting him do this.

Yeah, it's cool they're letting em do this. If ya look at the comments they are overwhelmingly positive too.

[Brett85]

...

[supermario21]

It seems as if Rand might look at sanctions and judge them on their severity. He might not be as absolutist as Ron on sanctions but it seems that he does recognize that harsh sanctions at least are not a good idea. Would be interesting for him to maybe write a policy paper or elaborate on his views on sanctions.

[Brett85]

Does it not surprise anyone that Rand was critical of the sanctions that we placed on Iraq in this article? I didn't even mean for my first comment to come across as being critical of Rand. I'm just surprised that Rand is opposed to the sanctions that we placed on Iraq when he's voted for the Iran sanctions.

[Brett85]

It seems as if Rand might look at sanctions and judge them on their severity. He might not be as absolutist as Ron on sanctions but it seems that he does recognize that harsh sanctions at least are not a good idea. Would be interesting for him to maybe write a policy paper or elaborate on his views on sanctions.

Thanks. You might be right.

[supermario21]

But weren't the Iran sanctions just on the central bank of Iran? Moreover, I don't even think last week's vote was a sanctions bill, it was more symbolic.

[Brett85]

But weren't the Iran sanctions just on the central bank of Iran? Moreover, I don't even think last week's vote was a sanctions bill, it was more symbolic.

There have been one or two other sanctions bills that the Senate passed unanimously as well. I thought those sanctions were more far reaching than the sanctions on Iran's central bank.

[Brett85]

The article as a whole was still very solid in my opinion. I'm glad he made the point about how Christians in Iraq are worse off now than they were under Saddam Hussein.

[supermario21]

Yeah, I'd like to know as well. Sometimes it's hard because really I think only those of us on this site, the DP, and LRC follow that stuff. Plus Lew and McAdams, while I respect everything they're doing with the Mises and Ron Paul Institutes, will write an essay complaining about how everyone is a neocon if they pass the most meaningless nonbinding resolution despite there being no policy meat in a particular resolution. After all, even last week's resolution said a separate authorization vote for military action would be required.

Plus even Amash has discussed in various videos when sanctions are appropriate and when they aren't. It's a very complex topic.

[Brett85]

Yeah, I think Rand is really good overall. But it just seems like if I don't mention in every single one of my comments that Rand is almighty God himself, I get criticized or neg repped. I don't know. Maybe I should just stay off of his subforum if people are going to be this touchy.

[Brett85]

I'm not referring to you but someone else who gave me a neg rep on my first post in this thread.

[supermario21]

Yeah, some people get too easily offended when there's criticism of Ron or especially Rand lately. I don't agree with either of them 100% and when the two differ, I don't always side with Ron. Sanctions are just one of those things I don't know enough about to be a huge critic. I don't like harsh sanctions but I'm not an absolutist like Ron either. I mean Rand on drug policy is more of an area where I'd disagree if he came out against legalization than his stance on sanctions.

[Brett85]

If I were in Congress I would probably vote against practically all sanctions on foreign countries. It would have to be a very watered down sanctions bill that I was sure would cause absolutely no harm to the citizens of any of these countries before I could vote for it.

And once again, for everyone reading this thread, I'm not being critical of Rand for anything. I was just surprised by what Rand said in this article since I previously thought that Rand was in favor of sanctions. Perhaps the sanctions against Iraq were far more harsh than the sanctions we've placed against Iran. I guess I haven't researched that as much as I should've.

[supermario21]

Punitive sanctions also brought disastrous schemes such as "Oil for Food" in Iraq...

[Brett85]

"Arguably one of the greatest beneficiaries of the Iraq war was Iran, which now enjoys more power and influence with the elimination of its historic enemy."

That's very true as well. The Iraq invasion simply strengthened Iran and took away their primary enemy. Great article by Rand.

[supermario21]

Yeah, also, my last comment on sanctions. I'd lean to voting against virtually all of them. I think the humanitarian aspects are worse than the "act of war" stuff. The dictators will always shift the harm to the citizens.

[Brian4Liberty]

Good one from Rand. The best part is that it must really chap old John McSquishy's diaper-rash ridden ass.

[Rudeman]

Yeah, it's cool they're letting em do this. If ya look at the comments they are overwhelmingly positive too.

Yea a bunch of "I agree with Rand Paul on absolutely nothing but in this, I could not agree more. " type of responses. Overall looks like the vast majority agree with Rand and there was a good amount of McCain bashing.

[Rudeman]

"Arguably one of the greatest beneficiaries of the Iraq war was Iran, which now enjoys more power and influence with the elimination of its historic enemy."

That's very true as well. The Iraq invasion simply strengthened Iran and took away their primary enemy. Great article by Rand.

I love how he used quotes by Cheney and McCain against them.