Ron And Rand Paul Do Not Agree About ISIS

[Brett85]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katherinemil...t-isis#20nskq3

Sen. Rand Paul on Friday told the Associated Press that the United States should pursue ISIS aggressively:


Speaking to a ballroom later, some of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: “If the president has no strategy, maybe it’s time for a new president.”

In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: “If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.”

His father, Ron Paul, on Sunday wrote that the United States should at all costs avoid intervening in Syria:


What does this mean in practice? If the neocons have their way, the Federal Reserve will “print” more money to finance another massive US intervention in the Middle East. In reality this means further devaluation of the US dollar, which is a tax on all Americans that will hit the poorest hardest.

A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!

[…] A lack of strategy is a glimmer of hope. Perhaps the president will finally stop listening to the neocons and interventionists whose recommendations have gotten us into this mess in the first place! Here’s a strategy: just come home.

[Anti Federalist]

Ron > Rand.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ron > Rand.

This^^

[LatinsforPaul]

Ron > Rand.

Agree...

Ron > Rand > Everybody else who has a chance of being President in 2016.

[69360]

I find both equally good here. You all are missing the point. Rand would not have staged the intervention that caused IS to target the US. All he is saying here is that he would respond to a threat that HE DID NOT CAUSE, in a constitutional way.

[green73]

This^^

Double that.

[enhanced_deficit]

I find both equally good here. You all are missing the point. Rand would not have staged the intervention that caused IS to target the US. All he is saying here is that he would respond to a threat that HE DID NOT CAUSE, in a constitutional way.

Correct, in beginning of this vid his view is affirmed:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRUeJYFZ94

[TaftFan]

Ron would be fine with ISIS training in Cuba, as long as no leaks of a planned attack came out. I don't take him seriously on nuanced foreign policy matters. He is great at explaining general themes and truths that have been ignored; the consequences of intervention. But he takes a dogmatic position and ignores possible costs of not acting. In essence, he is opposite of the neocons like Graham and McCain. Rand's realist foreign policy makes much more sense.

[pcosmar]

Ron would be fine with ISIS training in Cuba, as long as no leaks of a planned attack came out. I don't take him seriously on nuanced foreign policy matters. He is great at explaining general themes and truths that have been ignored; the consequences of intervention. But he takes a dogmatic position and ignores possible costs of not acting. In essence, he is opposite of the neocons like Graham and McCain. Rand's realist foreign policy makes much more sense.

If we (the USgov) had listened to Ron's advice there would be no ISIS.

You and others here,, and Rands statement on this, are convincing me to NOT Support Rand at all.

He does not represent me.

[TaftFan]

If we (the USgov) had listened to Ron's advice there would be no ISIS.

You and others here,, and Rands statement on this, are convincing me to NOT Support Rand at all.

He does not represent me.

I recognize that if we had followed Ron's advice there would be no ISIS. But ISIS exists now.

Saying "well, if you had listened to me we wouldn't be here" is not a strategy.

I don't agree with every aspect of his foreign policy. I've realized that I can have my own views. I don't have to be in lockstep with Ron, Rand, George Bush, Obama, or anybody else.

[green73]

LOL

[Original_Intent]

If we (the USgov) had listened to Ron's advice there would be no ISIS.

You and others here,, and Rands statement on this, are convincing me to NOT Support Rand at all.

He does not represent me.

If he makes it to the general, I'm pretty sure I'd break my rule of not holding my nose to vote for someone. But more and more I can't see that he is someone that I would donate to, sign wave for, or be too enthused about. the one positive about his statement is that he makes it clear he wouldn't act unilaterally, he would go to Congress. Which is at least a move in the right direction. And deep down I have to hope that he is telling the party what they want to hear...but I don't admire or respect him for it.

[rprprs]

Ron > Rand.

This^^

Double that.

Triple that.

[presence]

I don't have to be in lockstep with Ron, Rand, George Bush, Obama, or anybody else.

I'm lockstep with Smedley Butler.

Don't leave the coastline. Ever. Period.

That's defense. Anything else is offense.

[Brett85]

I find both equally good here. You all are missing the point. Rand would not have staged the intervention that caused IS to target the US. All he is saying here is that he would respond to a threat that HE DID NOT CAUSE, in a constitutional way.

Exactly. If Rand were President ISIS wouldn't have been a threat, because he wouldn't have invaded Iraq and made all of the other mistakes that led to the rise of ISIS. But we have to deal with the situation that exists today.

[alucard13mm]

"I agree with ron Paul on everything except foreign policy. So I can't vote for him"

Sounds familiar?

[cajuncocoa]

Ron > Rand.

This^^

Double that.

Triple that.

4X

[devil21]

Is there any video of Rand saying this or are we kneejerking over an alleged "email statement" alone?

[Madison320]

I recognize that if we had followed Ron's advice there would be no ISIS. But ISIS exists now.

Saying "well, if you had listened to me we wouldn't be here" is not a strategy.

I don't agree with every aspect of his foreign policy. I've realized that I can have my own views. I don't have to be in lockstep with Ron, Rand, George Bush, Obama, or anybody else.

You're wrong, Ron Paul does have a strategy. Non-intervention is a strategy. What makes you so sure that removing ISIS won't lead to an even greater threat? That's been the pattern so far. I don't see any reason it won't continue.

One thing that the interventionists don't realize is that the "bad guys" can't get along with each other. If you leave them alone they'll tend to wipe each other out.

[Christian Liberty]

If he makes it to the general, I'm pretty sure I'd break my rule of not holding my nose to vote for someone. But more and more I can't see that he is someone that I would donate to, sign wave for, or be too enthused about. the one positive about his statement is that he makes it clear he wouldn't act unilaterally, he would go to Congress. Which is at least a move in the right direction. And deep down I have to hope that he is telling the party what they want to hear...but I don't admire or respect him for it.

More or less agree here. I still have some respect for Rand in general (after all, the other 99 senators are way worse) but I'm not thrilled with him either. I still have a "stand with rand" poster up in my college dorm. Not going to take it down. But he's not Ron Paul either.

4X

Let's make it five.

[69360]

You're wrong, Ron Paul does have a strategy. Non-intervention is a strategy. What makes you so sure that removing ISIS won't lead to an even greater threat? That's been the pattern so far. I don't see any reason it won't continue.

One thing that the interventionists don't realize is that the "bad guys" can't get along with each other. If you leave them alone they'll tend to wipe each other out.

Sure it's a great strategy and one I agree with. Unfortunately Obama doesn't and already intervened.

In this particular instance I think we may better served by a president who is pragmatic rather than philosophical.

Sure something worse than IS may pop up if they are eradicated. If this theoretical latest greatest new terror group doesn't threaten the US, leave them be. IS didn't threaten the US until Obama bombed them.

[Miss Annie]

Exactly. If Rand were President ISIS wouldn't have been a threat, because he wouldn't have invaded Iraq and made all of the other mistakes that led to the rise of ISIS. But we have to deal with the situation that exists today.

This ..... and I do stand with Rand. If you think ISIS is going to stay away from our borders, you are crazy. Their goal is a global caliphate.
Rand would not have created the mess to being with, but he does see that it can't be ignored.

[Christian Liberty]

This ..... and I do stand with Rand. If you think ISIS is going to stay away from our borders, you are crazy. Their goal is a global caliphate.
Rand would not have created the mess to being with, but he does see that it can't be ignored.

ISIS would never get that far. THe US has done more evil in this world than ISIS ever could.

[bunklocoempire]

I'm lockstep with Smedley Butler.

Don't leave the coastline. Ever. Period.

That's defense. Anything else is offense.

You mean like how I live my life and many others live theirs everyday? How weird is that!?

+ rep

[CPUd]

Exactly. If Rand were President ISIS wouldn't have been a threat, because he wouldn't have invaded Iraq and made all of the other mistakes that led to the rise of ISIS. But we have to deal with the situation that exists today.

This is really the only way to handle the press. Ron used to try to go into the history in the debates (when the topic was the Middle East), and whenever someone had him on one of the big networks, he would get cut off. A few months ago, when Rand started getting on the Sunday morning shows, they were feeling him out on FP. I think it was the weekend of "Rand does not blame Obama", but that weekend Rand was leading his responses with the history, and they were all cutting him off- asking "what would you do right now?". After that weekend, he changed it up so that he emphasized he was open to doing air strikes.

He does have an advantage now, though. Since he's been talking about this long enough, he can now go back to his earlier statements and show he could have avoided the current mess. That's how you use the press to bring in the history.

[Christian Liberty]

This is really the only way to handle the press. Ron used to try to go into the history in the debates (when the topic was the Middle East), and whenever someone had him on one of the big networks, he would get cut off. A few months ago, when Rand started getting on the Sunday morning shows, they were feeling him out on FP. I think it was the weekend of "Rand does not blame Obama", but that weekend Rand was leading his responses with the history, and they were all cutting him off- asking "what would you do right now?". After that weekend, he changed it up so that he emphasized he was open to doing air strikes.

He does have an advantage now, though. Since he's been talking about this long enough, he can now go back to his earlier statements and show he could have avoided the current mess. That's how you use the press to bring in the history.

Politics? Fine. It sucks, but whatever. But there's no excuse for people HERE falling for that level of intellectual absurdity. Its just ridiculous. I feel like I'm on TOL right now, and its sad that I feel that way on RPF.

[orenbus]

Some background for those that haven't seen it.

[twomp]

This ..... and I do stand with Rand. If you think ISIS is going to stay away from our borders, you are crazy. Their goal is a global caliphate.
Rand would not have created the mess to being with, but he does see that it can't be ignored.

You are the one that is crazy. Devouring so much MSM news that you actually think ISIS can attack here with no air force or navy. If you are simply worried about terrorist attacks then we should be bombing Chechnya. After all, wasn't it the Chechens who bombed us in Boston? Why are we not bombing Chechnya too? Let's bomb every country who dares threaten us!!!

[twomp]

It's amazing how ISIS with the help of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States can't even take Syria, they can't take Baghdad or southern Iraq but they have some of you here thousands of miles away $#@!ting in your pants. The power the media has over the weak minded is astonishing.

[dannno]

I recognize that if we had followed Ron's advice there would be no ISIS. But ISIS exists now.

Saying "well, if you had listened to me we wouldn't be here" is not a strategy.

I don't agree with every aspect of his foreign policy. I've realized that I can have my own views. I don't have to be in lockstep with Ron, Rand, George Bush, Obama, or anybody else.

So your answer to having to combat self created monsters is to create more monsters to combat. Sounds pretty circular and f'd up imo.

You know the beheading vids are faked western intelligence, right? I mean, what sense is there in fighting these fake created enemies? It's exactly what they want.