Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades

[Crashland]

But Rand said it himself that he voted for more foreign aid to Israel, so he voted "Yea" in the vote. He said it from his own mouth. And if it is absolutely pointless to vote "Nay", because everybody else is voting "Yea", we might as well call their oath to the Constitution pointless as well. Because we know 98%+ of them don't even consider the Constitution when voting and don't actually read the bills.

The reason for voting "Nay", is because then you are principled. You can point to the $17+ trillion of debt, and say that is your reason. Rand can't do that, because he's "playing the game". It's beyond ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous to do what you have to do to become the president? Rand votes Nay and he loses 10 votes in the primary for every 1 vote he gains.

[jjdoyle]

Why is it ridiculous to do what you have to do to become the president? Rand votes Nay and he loses 10 votes in the primary for every 1 vote he gains.

I see no evidence Rand will gain 10 votes for this. If TPTB know he is playing the game, the media follows a script, and he can't separate himself from Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Ben Carson on foreign policy, he's not gaining many voters.

I understand WHY he is doing it, and it goes back to 2012's campaign and how Mitt Romney's campaign threatened to destroy Ron Paul's legacy. But, I don't see it as a benefit, because I don't see the average GOP voter as one that thinks. So, by going along to get along, he's just like the rest with little separation.

[puppetmaster]

But Rand said it himself that he voted for more foreign aid to Israel, so he voted "Yea" in the vote. He said it from his own mouth. And if it is absolutely pointless to vote "Nay", because everybody else is voting "Yea", we might as well call their oath to the Constitution pointless as well. Because we know 98%+ of them don't even consider the Constitution when voting and don't actually read the bills.

The reason for voting "Nay", is because then you are principled. You can point to the $17+ trillion of debt, and say that is your reason. Rand can't do that, because he's "playing the game". It's beyond ridiculous.

Perhaps Rand should have done like Ron, and suggested, or even introduced a bill in the Senate, where the Senators could donate their salaries to Israel for the next 6 years, instead of tax payers having to pay for lousy Senators AND foreign aid. Israel would still get $51,000,000, and it would be coming from the 50 people in DC that love it so much more than you and me, and the U.S. Constitution that they took an oath to.

At least then I would be somewhat happy knowing my Senators might actually have to work to support their families, and maybe spend time away from DC doing so, doing less harm to the country.

utopia does not exist for us or them......

[HVACTech]

Rand Paul is not a non-interventionist.

[kcchiefs6465]

Supporting bombing an organization that poses no existential threat to America under the auspices of protecting by and large ticks, in a region where their "vatican" insults the population each day it remains, in the country which was turned to ruins in an earlier fit of shortsighted policy, is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting the undying subsidization of Israel, a joint cyber warfare and data collection facility, and as well reaffirming that Israel will remain a focal point of American foreign policy is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting sanctions against various countries is hardly non-interventionist.

The list, if I cared to compile it, would go on and on. "Non-interventionist" is more than simply being less hawkish than your counterparts with regards to foreign policy (just so you are aware).

[twomp]

Supporting bombing an organization that poses no existential threat to America under the auspices of protecting by and large ticks, in a region where their "vatican" insults the population each day it remains, in the country which was turned to ruins in an earlier fit of shortsighted policy, is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting the undying subsidization of Israel, a joint cyber warfare and data collection facility, and as well reaffirming that Israel will remain a focal point of American foreign policy is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting sanctions against various countries is hardly non-interventionist.

The list, if I cared to compile it, would go on and on. "Non-interventionist" is more than simply being less hawkish than your counterparts with regards to foreign policy (just so you are aware).

I agree. I think the term "part-time interventionist" is a better fit.

[Vanguard101]

You guys don't know what non-interventionism means. Sigh.

[Matt Collins]

Supporting bombing an organization that poses no existential threat to America under the auspices of protecting by and large ticks, in a region where their "vatican" insults the population each day it remains, in the country which was turned to ruins in an earlier fit of shortsighted policy, is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting the undying subsidization of Israel, a joint cyber warfare and data collection facility, and as well reaffirming that Israel will remain a focal point of American foreign policy is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting sanctions against various countries is hardly non-interventionist.

The list, if I cared to compile it, would go on and on. "Non-interventionist" is more than simply being less hawkish than your counterparts with regards to foreign policy (just so you are aware).

You should learn the difference between rhetoric and policy.

[Brett85]

I see no evidence Rand will gain 10 votes for this. If TPTB know he is playing the game, the media follows a script, and he can't separate himself from Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Ben Carson on foreign policy, he's not gaining many voters.

Saying that there's no difference between Rand and Cruz, Huckabee, and Carson on foreign policy is simply ridiculous. You don't see the neocons criticizing those guys the way they do Rand. The only Republican who is a threat to them is Rand. I already pointed out how Rand's foreign policy is quite a bit different from theirs, but whatever.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand Paul is not a non-interventionist.

I feel its just the opposite. Rand is a lot more of a non-interventionist than he lets on. You'll see it when it's him against Hillary in the general.

[twomp]

You should learn the difference between rhetoric and policy.

You should too!

[anaconda]

I wish Senator Paul could begin to paint vivid imagery for the voters that portrays just how virulent, high tech, and lethal a purely defensive U.S. military would be. As opposed to divergent and wasteful romps around the sands of third world countries in search of market share for Exxon-Mobile. There must be some great Pentagon war game footage or defense contractor promotional footage or something that could be worked into ads.

[devil21]

Thank you Lucille for posting this thread. +rep

Anybody have a video of the speech to spread around? I'd rather spread Rand's speech than let the shills frame the narrative ahead of it.

[devil21]

heres's the vid. Lucille can you add it to your OP?

[kcchiefs6465]

You should learn the difference between rhetoric and policy.

You should learn to quit insulting Rand Paul's integrity and my intelligence.

He says what he means. He votes in alignment with what he says. It isn't some conspiracy that when the time is right he's suddenly going to unveil himself as a non-interventionist, constant veto-er.

He legitimately views ISIS as a threat and thinks it is legitimate for the United States to conduct missile strikes. I disagree. Quit acting like it's some big damn charade. I've followed his speeches, his interviews, and his votes to know well enough where he stands. He is not a non-interventionist.

[phill4paul]

You should learn to quit insulting Rand Paul's integrity and my intelligence.

He says what he means. He votes in alignment with what he says. It isn't some conspiracy that when the time is right he's suddenly going to unveil himself as a non-interventionist, constant veto-er.

He legitimately views ISIS as a threat and thinks it is legitimate for the United States to conduct missile strikes. I disagree. Quit acting like it's some big damn charade. I've followed his speeches, his interviews, and his votes to know well enough where he stands. He is not a non-interventionist.

Political "stealth" strategies. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....won't get fooled again.

[acptulsa]

You should learn to quit insulting Rand Paul's integrity and my intelligence.

He says what he means. He votes in alignment with what he says. It isn't some conspiracy that when the time is right he's suddenly going to unveil himself as a non-interventionist, constant veto-er.

He legitimately views ISIS as a threat and thinks it is legitimate for the United States to conduct missile strikes. I disagree. Quit acting like it's some big damn charade. I've followed his speeches, his interviews, and his votes to know well enough where he stands. He is not a non-interventionist.

Hmmm...

So, cutting off aid to Israel before (or without) cutting off aid to Israel's enemies (which adds up to a greater amount) is non-interventionalist? Really? Sounds like taking sides to me. Admittedly, the aid to Israel's enemies shouldn't be happening. But to say two things--related things--shouldn't be happening, and we will throw a situation which is in some kind of uneasy balance out of any semblance of balance if we end one of the related things without ending the other one simultaneously, but I will end one whenever I have a chance on principle without regard to that balance, is the kind of 'principle over pragmatism' that makes voters really, really nervous. As they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in both 2008 and 2012.

What's more, Rand Paul has promised that, much as he wants to end all foreign aid, he won't start with Israel. And since this is in line with the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this republic, I am pleased to see him keep this promise.

Not non-interventionalist. And if, just for the sake of argument, China was supporting Israel and Russia was supporting several of Israel's enemies, and we made China stop without doing anything about Russia, would that be non-interventionalist as well...?

Rand Paul's position of end all foreign aid, but don't start with Israel's, is the kind of pragmatic principle that his father never expressed, but which voters insist upon. Ron Paul knew there is a difference between being the contrarian one-of-435 Congressmen raging against the machine and being president, but somehow he never convinced voters that he knew that difference and he would change his style if elected president. Rand has a right to learn from that mistake, and Rand has a right to choose to fail to repeat that mistake--even if this knowingly trades the support of people like you for dozens or hundreds of times as many voters. I guess he figures you'd just have to get over it.

And you can. You've gotten over worse these last two administrations.

So, the resident (mod edit) say that someone who wants to take a moment to find (or build) a safe bridge to the other side of the bottomless chasm obviously doesn't really want to cross the chasm or he'd just jump and make us jump too. Goebbels would be so proud of that propaganda.

They gave him some rope and he didn't hang himself. How horrible.

[philipped]

I'm kinda confused here...

Some people were looking for Rand to give a speech about this topic with all this spotlight and sound like a carbon copy of Ron STILL???

I honestly feel you guys, trust, but...I'm really not sweating his more interventionist positions due to the rarity of them, and the circumstances of the positions he has to formulate now. He literally would have to clean up the mess, or at least try, of the past 2 administrations. Taking it for just as it was, he's pitching his FP as totally different from what people THOUGHT which is the best he can do @ this point gearing up.

[Uriah]

I think Rand should be stronger if we get attacked like...

"We should mind our own business, but if a country or organization attacks us first, we will respond by bombing and killing them, kill their families/friends and destroy their homes and living. Kill all of them."

I believe in a strong response if someone does try to do something or attack USA, but we should be neutral for the majority of the time. I believe if we go to war, we gotta win. War is about killing people until the people don't want to fight anymore. Not $#@!ing nation building and worrying about casualties (which increases the time we are at war).

Let's say in 1 year, we don't care about civilian casaulties. We kill 100,000 innocent people to defeat/kill our enemy during that year, but we achieve victory. I think that is way better than being very careful, and maybe kill 1,000 civilians a year for the next 10 years (10,000 total). WHY? Would you want to live in constant fear for the next 10 years? Worrying about getting droned or airstriked. Worrying about "terrorists" setting road bombs meant for the invading force, but instead you or a love one get's killed by accident by the road bomb? I know we don't deliberately target civlians, but we shouldn't worry about them too much.

Living in fear for 1 year or Living in fear for 10 years? Your pick.

I do not believe killing innocent people is ever justified.

[Brett85]

I do not believe killing innocent people is ever justified.

Then I guess you don't believe that war is ever justified, because there is always going to be innocent people killed during war.

[Brett85]

If TPTB know he is playing the game, the media follows a script, and he can't separate himself from Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Ben Carson on foreign policy, he's not gaining many voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...oreign-policy/

[Vanguard101]

I do not believe killing innocent people is ever justified.

Then I guess you don't believe that war is ever justified, because there is always going to be innocent people killed during war.

Did you really conclude this?

[Peace&Freedom]

Then I guess you don't believe that war is ever justified, because there is always going to be innocent people killed during war.

Innocents are killed in war, but there are established rules that govern moral conduct of war. The Just War principles that have guided western civilization for 1600 years precisely define the protocol for justifiably entering into (and cleanly exiting from) military conflict. One key principle is not INTENTIONALLY or willfully targeting civilians. The other big one is not initiating or launching aggression in the first place. Both concepts (and the other ones as well) have been obliterated by the current Empire's standing policy of pre-emptive war, or permitting bomb attacks on any targets "of potential military significance" (obliterating the whole difference between civilian and military).

The debate is not over pacificism, it is over restoring ANY kind of moral or procedural restraints on military aggression. The US is now structurally committed to excusing away any and all military intervention, and ignoring any and all conventions that define the rules by which war will be waged.

[Brett85]

Innocents are killed in war, but there are established rules that govern moral conduct of war. The Just War principles that have guided western civilization for 1600 years precisely define the protocol for justifiably entering into (and cleanly exiting from) military conflict. One key principle is not INTENTIONALLY or willfully targeting civilians. The other big one is not initiating or launching aggression in the first place. Both concepts (and the other ones as well) have been obliterated by the current Empire's standing policy of pre-emptive war, or permitting bomb attacks on any targets "of potential military significance" (obliterating the whole difference between civilian and military).

The debate is not over pacificism, it is over restoring ANY kind of moral or procedural restraints on military aggression. The US is now structurally committed to excusing away any and all military intervention, and ignoring any and all conventions that define the rules by which war will be waged.

I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems like the way that he should've framed his statement is, "I don't believe that intentionally targeting and killing innocent people overseas is ever justified." The way he said it made it sound like he would just be opposed to all war, since war always involves the deaths of innocent people.

[Todd]

I read Fukuyama's book back in College and it very much influenced my international relations beliefs for many years. Looking back his thesis was completely false. The fact that Rand can speak in the language of I.R community and has a basis of understanding political science dynamics is one of the most important strengths he will have going into the foreign policy conversation. Fantastic!

[Lucille]

heres's the vid. Lucille can you add it to your OP?

Done, thanks!

[dillo]

Incoming Jennifer Rubin article

[twomp]

Then I guess you don't believe that war is ever justified, because there is always going to be innocent people killed during war.

How about wars against a group that has never done anything to us?

[jjdoyle]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...oreign-policy/

What Ted Cruz said in this piece is nothing extreme. He used Ronald Raygun, and basically said the same rhetoric as Rand in this speech about America leading. So, perhaps now Rand is more like Ted Cruz on foreign policy?

[Peace&Freedom]

I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems like the way that he should've framed his statement is, "I don't believe that intentionally targeting and killing innocent people overseas is ever justified." The way he said it made it sound like he would just be opposed to all war, since war always involves the deaths of innocent people.

Since consistent adherence to Just War principle leads to the moral conclusion that war is almost never justified, his shorthand version of opposing all war, on instinct or by default, is basically correct.