And Rand said it out of his own mouth that he did so.Originally Posted by anaconda
None of these battles or arguments can be won unless the FRAMEWORK changes. The framework is currently one of "Israel must OF COURSE be funded by the US, and protected from its enemies." That is an emotional meme, not one that will budge with an "argument" or incremental gesture---that's an open-ended, ongoing, 100% commitment to financially and militarily intervene. Frameworks have to be broken, as reason cannot overcome them. Same for Iraq, we should be openly talking about how many US puppet leaders our government installs after each invasion, via overt military or covert intelligence ops, who then "invite" the US to continue to intervene.
Rand (and Ron) should have said things like "no, we've been lied to, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, it is already able to defend itself. It is ILLEGAL under US and international law, including treaties we are signatories to, for us to be funding a country with nukes if they refuse to allow inspections of them, in the first place. Aid to Israel has to STOP, as it has subsidized extremists in its government to foment more violence and hostility with the Arabs in the region. And US and Mossad intelligence has too often false flagged us into these continuing interventions in the Mideast." Shock therapy, paradigm busting, and major truth injection, is what is needed at this point.
Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 09-28-2014 at 09:01 PM.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
That means that there wasn't actually a roll call vote on it. Either way though, that's not inconsistent with what Rand has said, since he's said that he supports eventually phasing out foreign aid to Israel and all other countries, but supports foreign aid to Israel until the time that we cut off foreign aid to everyone else.
Well, you said it like it was an absolute fact, not just your opinion. I thought you might actually have some kind of evidence that ISIS poses "zero" threat to the United States.
A border encroaching attack where the responsibility is verified and the offense at least exceeds car crash fatalities for a given month. And where a military response does not directly benefit oil or natural gas companies.
Last edited by anaconda; 09-27-2014 at 09:36 PM.
Lol, so you wouldn't have even been in favor of responding to the 9-11 attacks since the number of people killed didn't exceed the number of car crash fatalities for a given year. You would've just sat back and done absolutely nothing. Do you not understand why Rand has no choice but to ignore people like you?
ISIS has no navy or air force.
Last edited by anaconda; 09-29-2014 at 12:05 AM.
A responsible investigation would have been a decent approach. The affronts to our constitution were in no way justified by the fatalities (which is my point). More bomber pilots died in a month in WWII than the fatalities on 9-11. Fighting on behalf of the Constitution to which they recited their military oath?
Last edited by anaconda; 09-27-2014 at 10:00 PM.
I gave him a fat chunk of cash in 2010 and generally support him, but do from time to time expect his feet to be held to some smallish BTU level of fire.
Last edited by anaconda; 09-27-2014 at 10:04 PM.
I agree that we shouldn't have violated the Constitution after the 9-11 attacks, such as passing the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. But I think we must respond with military force whenever we get attacked. ISIS isn't quite as clear since they've only killed two of our citizens overseas rather than attacking actual U.S territory, but I think they pose far more of a threat than what we faced from other countries during previous interventions. I don't believe that either Saddam or Gaddafi ever posed any kind of threat to us. Those wars made things far worse. I do however believe that a full blown terrorist group with an army and millions of dollars in funding represents a rare instance when there's actually a legitimate threat to U.S national security.
Fair enough. I do disagree with him at times and have criticized him at times, but I have come to agree with him on the threat posed to us from ISIS.
http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2...#.VCeD_PldX-s=
I am 100% not okay with Rand Paul voting to send billions to Israel, for ANY reason. We are $17+ TRILLION in debt. And this "going along to get along", is a failure. Just look at the Values Voters Summit straw poll if you need any further proof that his pandering on this issue, is not helping him with that crowd.“We’ve never had a legislative proposal to do that…Israel has always been a strong ally of ours and I appreciate that. I voted just this week to give money — more money — to the Iron Dome, so don’t mischaracterize my position on Israel,” he added.
Thank you. And you are hereby reported to Homeland Security for thinking for yourself without the proper permits.
I'm worried that there may be "Rand Fatigue" and that his continual mixed messages (based on his particular audience) will become a tiresome and defining characteristic and a strategic failure. But I hope not.
The CIA is in fact a huge threat.
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
The money sent to Israel is a rounding error. Iron Dome funding was $225 million which is basically 0% of the Federal Budget. Foreign aid should be wiped out because it is counterproductive in the same way welfare should be eliminated. You create dependency and it stunts the development of the countries receiving it. Israel is a welfare queen. It does drive me nuts though when Rand makes a big deal out of the cost of foreign aid when it is so insignificant.
TC: You are a very articulate and civil individual. But I believe that the risk to our country is far, far greater by enabling the bureaucrats and their sponsors than by choosing to not respond to seemingly provocative events. The intelligence agencies and the media have a terrible record of functioning in the best interests of the citizenry. I much prefer to place the burden of proof upon them. I think we may fear different things. And that's OK, and makes for worthy discussion.
Last edited by anaconda; 09-28-2014 at 02:35 PM.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...#ixzz3Ea5PQemS"Given that U.S. military aid to Israel was $2.775 billion in 2010, $3 billion in 2011, $3.07 billion in 2012 (and $3.15 billion per year from 2013-2018) while Israel's defense budget is around $15 billion, it made us wonder how much Israeli taxpayers contribute and where the other $12 billion non-U.S. aid comes from.
I expect nothing less than Rand to vote for whatever funding is brought up for Israel from now on. It has been in the billions, and I expect it to continue to be in the billions.
Yes. And along with all of their other chums, Mossad, ISI, MI6, DGSE, etc. Just keep them poppy fields healthy and it should be business as usual.
Last edited by anaconda; 09-27-2014 at 10:40 PM.
You realize $3 billion a year is the equivalent to nothing right? The budget is almost $4 trillion. I wish people would get as worked up about things that actual matter in a way that could ruin the country like Social Security and Medicare. I'm against foreign aid but it is not something that really affects the financial well being of the country.
Yes, $3 billion is nothing. And we got to $17+ trillion with lots of little nothings. Social Security and Medicare are a nightmare for future generations, nobody said it wasn't that I've seen.
That is such a load of B.S. so when the Sunnis in the north (who helped the U.S. kick out al Qaeda in Iraq) asked for help to keep Shia government from oppressing them, you say, let's not interfere, but when the government asks to help against ISIS a product of their own blowback for mistreating the Sunnis, you say let's go in guns blazing? Consistency is tough for you huh?
Btw, you like to makeup history don't you? We didn't come in at the request of the Iraqi government to fight ISIS, we went in to help stop the "mass genocide" of the 40,000 Yazidi which later ended up being just 2,000. You believe your own lies don't you?
Last edited by twomp; 09-28-2014 at 05:49 AM.
He sounds like his dad.“Some seem to believe you must choose either liberty or virtue — that to be virtuous you can’t have too much liberty. That is exactly wrong. Liberty is absolutely essential to virtue. It is our freedom to make individual choices that allows us to be virtuous.”
Tolerance, explained Paul, doesn't mean you necessarily endorse others' choices, only their right to make those choices.
Economic liberty and personal liberty can't be separate, Paul emphasized. "It's so crucial that we realize that it's one unit... that liberty is liberty and it's your life and you have a right to use it as you see fit."Just because you allow somebody to have a lifestyle you disapprove of doesn't mean you have to endorse it. A lot of people don't quite understand that. They think legalizing freedom of choice is an endorsement of what people do. And there's no reason in the world that this can't bring people together. If you have people on the left and people on the right and they want liberty for something over here, and somebody wants liberty for this over here… why shouldn't everybody come together for liberty to use it as they see fit?
Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
--Albert J. Nock
I'm probably not going to debate this issue very much from now on, because it's gotten to the point where people think that I have some pro war ideology just because I support military action in this one instance. But that simply isn't the case when you look at my overall foreign policy views. When you look at my overall foreign policy views, my support for air strikes against ISIS is merely an exception to my overall non interventionist foreign policy views. I was even pretty critical of Rand's foreign policy positions in the past, such as his support for sanctions against Iran. I haven't even changed my position on those issues either; I still oppose sanctions against Iran and preemptive war with Iran. I still take the position that we should close down the foreign bases we have and bring our army home from overseas. I still believe that we should end all foreign aid. I still believe that we should withdraw from the U.N and Nato. Ect. My overall foreign policy views are very similar to Ron Paul's, which is why I supported him in 2008 and 2012 and even gave a speech for him at my local caucus in 2012. So I'm not someone who supports some kind of "McCain-Graham" doctrine on foreign policy. I've just come to the conclusion that ISIS represents a significant threat to our national security and has to be an exception to non interventionism.
One last point I would make is that beyond all of the arguments that I've already made for why I believe that military strikes against ISIS are necessary, I think it needs to be pointed out that the Christians who are being slaughtered in Iraq are being slaughtered as a result of our invasion into the country in 2003. Before we invaded Iraq, Christians in Iraq were allowed to worship freely. They had freedom of religion, and there weren't a group of people running around trying to kill them. Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 is entirely responsible for the hardships that the Christians in Iraq (and even some Muslims) are experiencing right now. So because of the fact that we're responsible for the massacre of Christians in Iraq, I think a strong argument can be made that we should at least do something to try to help them. The lives of these people would not be threatened had it not been for our decision to invade Iraq. So it seems to me that since our government responsible for what's going on, the least we can do is launch a few air strikes to try to help out the people who are being slaughtered by ISIS.
I think he needs a better speech coach. He has repeatedly missed simple talking points to address flat out lies in certain interviews (Sean Hannity). And, he is continuously missing a key talking point on foreign policy, that would speak directly to the GOP base. It might take a few times for their minds to fully wake up (assuming that is even possible), but it would be in words they understand.
When you are talking to dense voters like those that are Fox News viewers, they need talking points that they can hear and understand. If not, it's going to take a battering ram to try and wake them up. I don't see him using the battering ram, and unfortunately I don't see him using key talking points right now that they hear and understand. They need to hear language that they have been programmed with for years, that they can understand.
This language is 100% consistent, and doesn't need to be re-explained or walked back. Like his current position on Israel and foreign aid. Claiming to be against it, but voting for it.
Last edited by jjdoyle; 09-28-2014 at 05:55 PM.
See, there you go again. More propaganda. Killing civilians to save civilians. Here is a quote to an article that you won't read because you like to shield yourself from the truth apparently.
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/09/26/r...in-iraq-syria/The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has warned that the US-led airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria have “compounded the humanitarian consequences of the conflicts in both countries.”
Even though the US couched the initial attacks in Iraq as a “humanitarian intervention,” their focus has since expanded to a full scale war to “destroy” ISIS, in which officials have promised to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, but didn’t appear overly concerned about the deaths in the strikes so far.
The Red Cross warns that the situation is continuing to worsen, and warned that all the combatant factions must refrain from harming civilians and must allow humanitarian workers to bring help.
As US strikes have increased, ISIS has moved most of its forces to less conspicuous targets that are less convenient to hit. This has made the US more likely to go after difficult targets, particularly those in populated areas, which means the humanitarian woes of the conflict are likely to grow as the war continues.
Do you see that? The BOMBS are making the situation for these people that you claim to care so much about WORSE. WORSE TC! The whole "bombing for peace" and killing to save lives argument that the neo-cons (not calling you a neo-con btw) has been used over and over again. I wonder why you have resorted to using it now as a reason for war.
It seems as though there are really no good options at this point because of past failed U.S foreign policy decisions. All options are bad right now. We just have to choose the least bad option. Perhaps you will be right that doing nothing will end up being the least bad option, but perhaps you won't be. The fact of the matter is that none of this would be happening if the foreign policy that Rand and I advocate had been followed and we had never invaded Iraq in 2003.
So instead, let's make sure that the foreign policy you and Rand allegedly advocate (which, curiously, you aren't advocating when the chips are down and difficult decisions need to be made) will never be able to be implemented.
You do see how ridiculous your position is, right? We can't try non-interventionism, because we have interventionism. Can't end welfare because we have welfare! Can't cut food stamps because we have food stamps! Can't end the EPA because we have the EPA! The lack of logic is stunning.
The epitome of libertarian populism
@Feeding the Abscess-I think Rand views ISIS as being a legitimate threat, unlike Saddam when we invaded Iraq in 2003. He's generally in favor of non intervention but supports military action when he feels there's a legitimate threat to our national security. If Rand were President we at least wouldn't be funding and bombing ISIS at the same time. It's the funding of ISIS and then bombing them that's going to lead to perpetual war, because it's just a vicious cycle. So we should at least stop the funding so that this group doesn't have so much money to work with. We should stop funding the so called "moderate" Syrian rebels. I'm also not 100% in line with Rand on foreign policy issues either. I've criticized some of his foreign policy views and still do. I'm somewhere in between Ron and Rand on foreign policy issues. I think Rand probably agrees with about 80% of Ron's foreign policy. I agree with about 95% of Ron's foreign policy.
Why does Rand view ISIS as being a legitimate threat though? I'm curious. I mean, ISIS may use anti-Israel stuff for recruitment purposes for their Middle East crusade (like other organizations have), but Rand voted to give Israel more foreign aid? So, Rand sees ISIS as a threat, and voted to do something like giving Israel funds, which causes certain groups in the Middle East to not like us. So, Rand's solution, is to continue bombing people (which isn't effective in making friends), and doing something as a politician that the 9/11 Commission (Fraud) Report says was one of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11?
Rand voting to give Israel more funds, makes us (the U.S.A) less safe, based on what I know is said to cause outrage for some in the Middle East.
Rand supporting airstrikes in the Middle East against the equivalent of Tusken Raiders, makes us less safe, based on what I know is the history of causing outrage and likely retaliation from some in the Middle East.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us