Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 45

Thread: Sen. Rand Paul to Promote "Founders' Vision of Foreign Policy" (The New American)

  1. #1

    Default Sen. Rand Paul to Promote "Founders' Vision of Foreign Policy" (The New American)



    Sen. Rand Paul to Promote "Founders' Vision of Foreign Policy"
    Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

    On February 6, Senator Paul will deliver a message to the Heritage Foundation entitled “Restoring the Founders’ Vision of Foreign Policy.”

    In an outline of the speech provided to The New American in advance of the meeting, Paul says he plans to describe “his vision of a foreign policy that respects the plain language of our Constitution, the legal powers of Congress and the important role of a strong presidency.” He will also emphasize the importance of “maintaining the strongest national defense among nations while also questioning what constitutes actual ‘defense.’”
    more here..... http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...foreign-policy
    “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
    - Josef Stalin



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Looks like an end to the war machine...good stuff.

  4. #3

    Default

    That sounds good. Maybe he's heard some of the criticism from some of his previous foreign policy comments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    1 John 2:2

    He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

  5. #4
    Member talkingpointes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix,Az
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    How does this mesh with the "the us should retaliate if anyone attacks Israel."?

  6. #5
    Mr. Republitarian FSP-Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    A^2
    Posts
    10,242
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingpointes View Post
    How does this mesh with the "the us should retaliate if anyone attacks Israel."?
    The just of what he was saying that some won't accept is that an attack on Israel would be seen as an attack on the US.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    That sounds good. Maybe he's heard some of the criticism from some of his previous foreign policy comments.
    I think it is more likely that some of the criticizers jumped the gun. But, time will tell.
    “I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,”
    he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political
    action.
    ” -- Ron Paul


    "We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=pB5JgzBVHN0

    The Property Basis of Rights

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FSP-Rebel View Post
    The just of what he was saying that some won't accept is that an attack on Israel would be seen as an attack on the US.
    “Well, absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

    He thinks it should be announced to the world.
    Something, something, something...Whatever my rage for the day.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    “Well, absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

    He thinks it should be announced to the world.
    Yeah I am tired of the rand paul spin docters trying to make us look like the bad guy from that statement. Rand clearly states that in HIS OPINION and attack on israel is an attack on us. That is NOT the founder FP AT ALL

  10. #9

    Default

    I am sure that if Rand would have told the Israeli/and Arabs that they need to work it out themselves RP would have said Rand encouraged the inevitable war.
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    He thinks it should be announced to the world.
    He thinks it should be announced to the world because it would be a deterrent against any country invading Israel. He thinks that it would be less likely that Israel would get attacked by another country if that country realizes that they would have to go up against the strongest military in the world. So he basically thinks that by saying that it will serve as a deterrent and keep the Middle East more stable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    1 John 2:2

    He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

  12. #11
    Mr. Republitarian FSP-Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    A^2
    Posts
    10,242
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    “Well, absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

    He thinks it should be announced to the world.
    He's just stating the obvious. Just a reminder to the world that an attack on Israel "will be treated" as an attack on us. More of a recognition statement than a personal opinion yet comes off as a personal opinion to those that need to see it that way.

  13. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    California, Iowa & Texas
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    That sounds good. Maybe he's heard some of the criticism from some of his previous foreign policy comments.
    Yeah . . . including criticism from Dad.


  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    He thinks it should be announced to the world because it would be a deterrent against any country invading Israel. He thinks that it would be less likely that Israel would get attacked by another country if that country realizes that they would have to go up against the strongest military in the world. So he basically thinks that by saying that it will serve as a deterrent and keep the Middle East more stable.
    And in the process emboldens the enemies of the state of Israel to further anti-American sentiment. Blow-back.

    I wonder how this will be covered from a founders standpoint.

    "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world" G.Washington

    "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." T. Jefferson
    Something, something, something...Whatever my rage for the day.

  15. #14

    Default

    Looking forward to this...

  16. #15
    Mr. Republitarian FSP-Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    A^2
    Posts
    10,242
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Since Israel is in a unique situation based upon where they lay, I can see why this rhetoric is espoused. No other ally is in a similar scenario, the closest being S. Korea which is pretty much in its own situation of a long standing armistice yet they're ethnically close with their adversary. Religious and cultural differences make the middle east quite different but I too am interested in his complete foreign policy package.

  17. #16

    Default

    I don't necessarily think that Washington and Jefferson meant that under no circumstances at all should we ever intervene overseas, even if it's an extraordinary situation. When Washington was talking about a "permanent alliance," I think he was referring to something like Nato which forces us by an international treaty to defend other countries around the world. The U.S should not be involved in any treaty that forces us to defend other countries around the world. It would be nice if Rand believed that as well, but I'm not sure. But I just wouldn't go quite as far as some others in saying that under no circumstances at all should we intervene overseas, even if it's an extraordinary situation. I think I would've supported an exception to my non interventionist stance during WWII when Hitler was massacring all of the Jews, invading country after country, and trying to take over the entire world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    1 John 2:2

    He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingpointes View Post
    How does this mesh with the "the us should retaliate if anyone attacks Israel."?
    Or how a founder president used public money and the military to attack Barbary pirates.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    I think I would've supported an exception to my non interventionist stance during WWII when Hitler was massacring all of the Jews, invading country after country, and trying to take over the entire world.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=gkr...page&q&f=false

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FSP-Rebel View Post
    He's just stating the obvious. Just a reminder to the world that an attack on Israel "will be treated" as an attack on us. More of a recognition statement than a personal opinion yet comes off as a personal opinion to those that need to see it that way.
    The contingency that wants their movement to be as small as possible will find anything they can to check another politician off their list. They hear what they want to hear. In reality, it doesn't matter because if it wasn't this statement on Israel, they would find something else. Life goes on without them. For everyone of them we lose, we can gain dozens more genuine activists that understand the long term political strategy of the libertarian/conservative movement and are willing to see it through

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Or how a founder president used public money and the military to attack Barbary pirates.
    Isn't that legal under the constitution? Letters of Marque right? (I could be wrong, my knowledge of british legal concepts is lacking)

  22. #21

    Default

    I'm not going to take the time to read the entire book. What exactly was Buchanan's position on that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    1 John 2:2

    He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptLouAlbano View Post
    The contingency that wants their movement to be as small as possible will find anything they can to check another politician off their list. They hear what they want to hear. In reality, it doesn't matter because if it wasn't this statement on Israel, they would find something else. Life goes on without them. For everyone of them we lose, we can gain dozens more genuine activists that understand the long term political strategy of the libertarian/conservative movement and are willing to see it through
    Rand Paul could praise Adolf Hitler and you guys would find a way to spin it. He clearly states an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcannon98188 View Post
    Rand Paul could praise Adolf Hitler and you guys would find a way to spin it. He clearly states an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.
    No he said "an attack on Israel will be viewed as an attack on the US". He did not say, that if someone attacks Israel he would subvert the Constitution and carry out military operations from the Executive Branch.

    And to the contrary there are some here that if Rand said he enjoyed German food, they would somehow spin that as if he praised Hitler.

    Like I said in my previous post - it's no big loss. There are plenty of other people to gain for everyone we lose.

  25. #24
    Mr. Republitarian FSP-Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    A^2
    Posts
    10,242
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcannon98188 View Post
    Rand Paul could praise Adolf Hitler and you guys would find a way to spin it. He clearly states an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.
    Anytime a vague statement like this comes out I try to understand exactly what he actually meant by that remark, not how someone from antiwar.com would take it w/o further introspection. Some people are just quick on the draw I guess.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FSP-Rebel View Post
    Anytime a vague statement like this comes out I try to understand exactly what he actually meant by that remark, not how someone from antiwar.com would take it w/o further introspection. Some people are just quick on the draw I guess.
    Does anyone know where the complete interview is? The only clip I saw was around 2 minutes or so and seems like it cuts off right at the end of the statement in question.

    EDIT: Never mind - read this

    http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...tion-on-israel
    Last edited by CaptLouAlbano; 01-31-2013 at 10:54 AM.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptLouAlbano View Post
    No he said "an attack on Israel will be viewed as an attack on the US". He did not say, that if someone attacks Israel he would subvert the Constitution and carry out military operations from the Executive Branch.

    And to the contrary there are some here that if Rand said he enjoyed German food, they would somehow spin that as if he praised Hitler.

    Like I said in my previous post - it's no big loss. There are plenty of other people to gain for everyone we lose.
    No, he said "an attack on Israel will be TREATED as an attack on the US" is what he said. Spin away.
    Something, something, something...Whatever my rage for the day.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptLouAlbano View Post
    Does anyone know where the complete interview is? The only clip I saw was around 2 minutes or so and seems like it cuts off right at the end of the statement in question.

    EDIT: Never mind - read this

    http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...tion-on-israel
    Oh, now you want to actually see the clip AFTER wading into the issue? Lol.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ed_states.html
    Last edited by phill4paul; 01-31-2013 at 11:07 AM.
    Something, something, something...Whatever my rage for the day.

  29. #28
    Mr. Republitarian FSP-Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    A^2
    Posts
    10,242
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Oh, now you want to actually see the clip AFTER wading into the issue? Lol.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ed_states.html
    As was stated in another thread, the clip was cut off thus making the vague comment the main takeaway from the audio. Clarification from Rand's Chief of Staff

  30. #29

    Default

    Rand wants to keep the Department of Homeland Security?

  31. #30

    Default

    Would Monroe be considered a founder? Remember the Monroe doctrine where the US warned the European powers that if they interfered with the new republics in South America, the US would consider it an aggressive act and would be forced to intervene to counter them?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •