[Video] Rand Paul on Fox Business w/ Kennedy 6/11/15

[jct74]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zPR1NB7g0

[surf]

not a big fan of some different plan for the Mideast that does not center around gtfo

edit: the irony of mentioning that dictator manipulation has not worked out well while at the same time talking of remaking the region and ousting Assad seems to be poorly thought out and reasoned and not at all appealing (to me).

[Sola_Fide]

More interventionist insanity. Why dont we just get out and let the animals fight amongst each other?

[Brett85]

not a big fan of some different plan for the Mideast that does not center around gtfo

edit: the irony of mentioning that dictator manipulation has not worked out well while at the same time talking of remaking the region and ousting Assad seems to be poorly thought out and reasoned and not at all appealing (to me).

I will have to watch the interview. But in the past Rand has said that he opposes ousting Assad. Why would he say something different here?

[jaymur]

You would have thought 10 years, 2 trillion dollars and 2 interventions that didn't work out would be enough to convince but evidentally that is not the case. At this point I would happy with a president who would at least require debate even if the debate winner isn't the one that makes sense.

It would also be nice to see how the debate would go if the debate is brought to congress by a president who brings it because he wants to have it debated and not because he wants to invade and wants an approval.

More interventionist insanity. Why dont we just get out and let the animals fight amongst each other?

[timosman]

You would have thought 10 years, 2 trillion dollars and 2 interventions that didn't work out would be enough to convince but evidentally that is not the case. At this point I would happy with a president who would at least require debate even if the debate winner isn't the one that makes sense.

It would also be nice to see how the debate would go if the debate is brought to congress by a president who brings it because he wants to have it debated and not because he wants to invade and wants an approval.

We can't admit democracy does not work.

[Brett85]

I didn't hear anything at all in the interview from Rand about him wanting to oust Assad. I have no idea where that comment came from. I also don't know where the criticism of Rand's position is coming from on this thread when Rand didn't say anything different in this interview than he's said in previous interviews.

[Vanguard101]

From the moment World War II happened, US foreign policy was radically changed. There is no going back. Furthermore, we never we a non-interventionist country. We just had less costly interventions. At best, Rand's foreign policy will be like Ford, Carter, or Reagan

[asurfaholic]

From the moment World War II happened, US foreign policy was radically changed. There is no going back. Furthermore, we never we a non-interventionist country. We just had less costly interventions. At best, Rand's foreign policy will be like Ford, Carter, or Reagan

Ww2 happened late in U.S. history. The USA is 239 years old and ww2 happened 70 years ago. So this time period on accounts for >1/3rd of the U.S. history.

There's no reason things can't change for the better.

[DisneyFan]

Points Rand made (in no particular order):

We've been supporting some bad people.
It only makes sense to support those who actually have the will to improve things. (e.g. Kurds) You can't make people who don't want to fight do so.
Ousting ME leaders has created a lot of problems.
It shouldn't be American troops fighting these battles.
Some American boots on the ground are OK if they're there for a good reason, like protecting American embassies.

That's about as good as you're going to get from a Republican who actually wants to win the nomination.

[Galileo Galilei]

Points Rand made (in no particular order):

We've been supporting some bad people.
It only makes sense to support those who actually have the will to improve things. (e.g. Kurds) You can't make people who don't want to fight do so.
Ousting ME leaders has created a lot of problems.
It shouldn't be American troops fighting these battles.
Some American boots on the ground are OK if they're there for a good reason, like protecting American embassies.

That's about as good as you're going to get from a Republican who actually wants to win the nomination.

sound like JFK. I'll take it.

[Brett85]

Points Rand made (in no particular order):

We've been supporting some bad people.
It only makes sense to support those who actually have the will to improve things. (e.g. Kurds) You can't make people who don't want to fight do so.
Ousting ME leaders has created a lot of problems.
It shouldn't be American troops fighting these battles.
Some American boots on the ground are OK if they're there for a good reason, like protecting American embassies.

That's about as good as you're going to get from a Republican who actually wants to win the nomination.

Yep.

[Sola_Fide]

Points Rand made (in no particular order):

We've been supporting some bad people.
It only makes sense to support those who actually have the will to improve things. (e.g. Kurds) You can't make people who don't want to fight do so.
Ousting ME leaders has created a lot of problems.
It shouldn't be American troops fighting these battles.
Some American boots on the ground are OK if they're there for a good reason, like protecting American embassies.

That's about as good as you're going to get from a Republican who actually wants to win the nomination.

Maybe. But Rand is just giving ammo to the people who are going to call him on his hypocrisy. Why should Rand complain that we are "fighting against our own weapons" when he's advocating taking sides and sending more in?

[nikcers]

He says the enemy of my enemy is not my ally if he is going to shoot me after we get rid of our common enemy for all intents and purposes the Kurds are the embodiment of "civilized Islam" people whom if we arm will only use those arms to protect where they wanna live. Everyone else we usually arm has ulterior motives.

[Brett85]

Why should Rand complain that we are "fighting against our own weapons" when he's advocating taking sides and sending more in?

Fair point.

[surf]

I didn't hear anything at all in the interview from Rand about him wanting to oust Assad. I have no idea where that comment came from. I also don't know where the criticism of Rand's position is coming from on this thread when Rand didn't say anything different in this interview than he's said in previous interviews.

really? I mean really?

around 3:00 he says "...and ultimately a government in Syria could be involved but I think it would ultimately have to be a government minus Assad"

if I missed a word or two in that quote I don't apologize because i'm not going to listen to that disappointing statement again.

[nikcers]

really? I mean really?

around 3:00 he says "...and ultimately a government in Syria could be involved but I think it would ultimately have to be a government minus Assad"

if I missed a word or two in that quote I don't apologize because i'm not going to listen to that disappointing statement again.

I am not trying to disappoint you but it looks like the Turkish governments intelligence agency has had their hands in the cookie jar. I don't think They plan on letting Assad live, but don't take my word for it.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/06/12/415486/Turkey-Syria-ISIL-National-Intelligence-Organization-MT-Cumhuriyet-Selahattin

<a href="http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/06/12/415486/Turkey-Syria-ISIL-National-Intelligence-Organization-MT-Cumhuriyet-Selahattin" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">

[Bastiat's The Law]

From the moment World War II happened, US foreign policy was radically changed. There is no going back. Furthermore, we never we a non-interventionist country. We just had less costly interventions. At best, Rand's foreign policy will be like Ford, Carter, or Reagan

The Spanish-American War and World War I were the turning points.