WHAT?! Krauthammer agreeing with Rand Paul ON A FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE?!

[Valli6]

BOI-YOI-YOI-YOI-YOI-YING!

(That's the sound of my head blasting off of my shoulders, while my eyes get real big, popping out of my head, and my mouth's in the shape of a huge "O".)

America Should Bet on the Kurds, Not the Baghdad Government
by CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER June 18, 2015

...Look at Fallujah, Mosul, Ramadi. The Iraqi army is a farce. It sees the enemy and flees, leaving its weapons behind. “The ISF was not driven out of Ramadi. They drove out of Ramadi,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Our own secretary of defense admitted that the “the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight.”

We can train them forever. The problem is one of will. They don’t want to fight. And why should they? They are led by commanders who are corrupt, sectarian, and incompetent.

What to do? Redirect our efforts to friendly forces deeply committed to the fight, beginning with the Kurds, who have the will, the skill, and have demonstrated considerable success. This year alone, they have taken back more than 500 Christian and Kurdish towns from the Islamic State. Unlike the Iraqi army, however, they are starved for weapons because, absurdly, we send them through Baghdad, which sends along only a trickle...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...es-krauthammer

On the same page, there is a link to a different National Review article by Rand Paul, on the same topic.

Arming the Right Allies
by RAND PAUL June 17, 2015

President Obama announced he will send 450 ground troops to “train” Iraqi forces, but haven’t we already spent $25 billion in taxpayer money on a new Iraqi military?

After over a decade of war in Iraq, we do know this: The Kurds are willing to fight, and are one of our strongest and most consistent allies in the region.

Sending two additional company-sized units into a quagmire is unlikely to impart to Iraqi forces the will to fight once and for all.

There is another way to defeat ISIS without a large-scale deployment of American forces in Iraq. I agree that we need boots on the ground to combat ISIS — local boots. We should support our consistent ally, the Kurdish forces on the ground who are actively taking the fight to ISIS.

That’s why this week I voted for an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow direct funding to the Kurdish Peshmerga battling ISIS. Such funding would rush weapons to our critical Kurdish partners on the front lines who have been slow to receive necessary reinforcements from the government in Baghdad....

(more) http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...lies-rand-paul

Of course, Rand Paul talked about this back in February (2/26/15), during an interview with Katie Couric.

...“I would arm the Kurds directly,” the Republican senator and potential presidential candidate told Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric. The two sat down in Washington on Wednesday, just hours after the FBI announced it had arrested three men charged with plotting to join the Islamic State, or ISIS, and stage attacks against the United States.

Despite urging Congress to make an official declaration of war — for the first time since World War II — against ISIS last November, the Kentucky senator’s reputation as an isolationist still precedes him. Dismissing that as a “mischaracterization,” Paul told Couric he’s not willing to send American troops to fight anywhere if the people who live there are not also willing to fight.

And he believes the Kurds — the disenfranchised ethnic groups whose Iraqi contingent has been fighting ISIS for months — are particularly up to the task.

“The only people over there that can fight and have been showing some ability to fight are the Kurds,” Paul said. “The president has been sending weapons to Baghdad. They’re not adequately getting to Kurdistan. I would fund them directly. I would take some of the weaponry that we have left over in Afghanistan and I would send that directly to the Kurds.”

http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-i...160100857.html

[Brian4Liberty]

[luctor-et-emergo]

I don't think he's in it to destroy Rand. I think he simply has been wrong on a whole lot of things. Call me crazy but that's what I think.

[erowe1]

That does not speak well of Rand's foreign policy.

[Feeding the Abscess]

That does not speak well of Rand's foreign policy.

That should be the take away; not that Krauthammer is somehow out in left field. News at 11: Krauthammer takes an interventionist position on a foreign policy issue.

[mz10]

That does not speak well of Rand's foreign policy.

Would you rather temporarily arm the Kurds? Or be dragged into another endless war in the Middle East? Rand is taking the most non-interventionist position he possibly can without committing political suicide. That's his job. Our job, as the grassroots, is to advocate a pure non-interventionist position, and change the political environment enough that Rand can be a pure non-interventionist without committing suicide.

Look at all the neocon attacks on Rand the last month or so. He truly is their worst nightmare. I'd rather have Rand running for president and fighting the neocons, then see him thrown out of office and fade back into obscurity. Wouldn't you?

[Sola_Fide]

So Krauthammer agrees with Rand's interventionism? Not stunning.

[Brian4Liberty]

Of course, Rand Paul talked about this back in February (2/26/15), during an interview with Katie Couric.

Rand was first.

Now Krauthammer not only has to say that Rand was right, he has to acknowledge that Rand was right long before Krauthammer changed his mind.

[jj-]

WHAT?! Krauthammer agreeing with Rand Paul ON A FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE?!

In other words, Rand agrees with Krauthammer.

Your surprise should go the other way around, because they're agreeing on a neocon/interventionist position, not on a limited government position.

[jj-]

Would you rather temporarily arm the Kurds? Or be dragged into another endless war in the Middle East?

Neither. Go with Donald Trump's position of taking the oil and not arming anybody. That's less interventionist than either of the two things you mentioned.

[Rudeman]

Neither. Go with Donald Trump's position of taking the oil and not arming anybody. That's less interventionist than either of the two things you mentioned.

No it isn't.

[Sola_Fide]

Neither. Go with Donald Trump's position of taking the oil and not arming anybody. That's less interventionist than either of the two things you mentioned.

Invade another country, kill a bunch of innocent people, and steal its resources. Trump 2016

[Rudeman]

Invade another country, kill a bunch of innocent people, and steal its resources. Trump 2016

Haven't you heard? Conquest is totally non-interventionist now.

[69360]

Buy the Kurds oil and SELL them heavy weapons. That's not an intervention, it's a business transaction.

[mz10]

Neither. Go with Donald Trump's position of taking the oil and not arming anybody. That's less interventionist than either of the two things you mentioned.

Yes, great idea! Let's steal the one stabilizing resource that exists in the Middle East and leave it as even more of a desolate wasteland than it already is, so that terrorist groups can flourish in the void that we leave and drag us into even more wars.

Isn't that what Ron Paul wanted all along?

[idiom]

Would you rather temporarily arm the Kurds?

Lol. Temporarily.

Gonna put expiry dates on those arms?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Buy the Kurds oil and SELL them heavy weapons. That's not an intervention, it's a business transaction.

Government doesn't produce or own anything. The only things it has comes from force and theft, taken from the productive effort of others. The government buying oil and selling weapons would be intervention.

[rich34]

I don't understand why some has a problem with Rand's position here. The fact is this issue isn't going away on it's own and as long as it's there the republicans are going to have a uhh.. measuring contest on who can deal with Isis the best. Rand is taking the most logical non interventionist position for the American people as possible. Simply saying I don't have a plan on how to deal with Isis is not going to win the primary. His position is similar to marquis and reprisal. He's not saying hey lets send our own troops over there he's simply saying hey werewolf already arming Iraq, but they won't and can't do $#@! so lets give the same arms to the kurds who can whip some ass. It's a win win, we don't get involved and the problem..gets taken care of.

[Rudeman]

I can understand why people would have a problem with Rand's position, but to state that Trump's plan is somehow less interventionist is just absurd.

Ask the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq which plan they would prefer. It would overwhelmingly be Rand's plan, at the very least in Rand's plan they get to keep a key natural resource and aren't left to rot.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't understand why some has a problem with Rand's position here. The fact is this issue isn't going away on it's own and as long as it's there the republicans are going to have a uhh.. measuring contest on who can deal with Isis the best. Rand is taking the most logical non interventionist position for the American people as possible. Simply saying I don't have a plan on how to deal with Isis is not going to win the primary. His position is similar to marquis and reprisal. He's not saying hey lets send our own troops over there he's simply saying hey werewolf already arming Iraq, but they won't and can't do $#@! so lets give the same arms to the kurds who can whip some ass. It's a win win, we don't get involved and the problem..gets taken care of.

The problem that Rand has is he's not consistent. On the one hand he's saying that by intervening into middle east affairs we cause the rise of radical groups, then on the other hand he's saying that more intervention is needed. Why not just say what Ron has said for decades now? Our intervention always causes unintended results. We need to stop intervention.

One of my favorite lines from Ron is when someone asked him how he described himself. He said I am a non-interventionist, in everything. That was perfect.

[Jan2017]

The vote on the Ernst (R-IA) amendment to emergency arm the Kurds was 54-45 . . .
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00210
Rubio DIDN'T vote and 6 GOP Senators sided with Democrats' no votes, so it may have been passable (60 votes ?), if that is what was desired -
it would have been pretty big news I'd think if it HAD passed though.

[Brian4Liberty]

Government doesn't produce or own anything. The only things it has comes from force and theft, taken from the productive effort of others. The government buying oil and selling weapons would be intervention.

How about the government actively preventing arms form being sold to a particular customer? Which is what we have now.

[TomtheTinker]

I don't understand why some has a problem with Rand's position here. The fact is this issue isn't going away on it's own and as long as it's there the republicans are going to have a uhh.. measuring contest on who can deal with Isis the best. Rand is taking the most logical non interventionist position for the American people as possible. Simply saying I don't have a plan on how to deal with Isis is not going to win the primary. His position is similar to marquis and reprisal. He's not saying hey lets send our own troops over there he's simply saying hey werewolf already arming Iraq, but they won't and can't do $#@! so lets give the same arms to the kurds who can whip some ass. It's a win win, we don't get involved and the problem..gets taken care of.

+1

[Rudeman]

The problem that Rand has is he's not consistent. On the one hand he's saying that by intervening into middle east affairs we cause the rise of radical groups, then on the other hand he's saying that more intervention is needed. Why not just say what Ron has said for decades now? Our intervention always causes unintended results. We need to stop intervention.

One of my favorite lines from Ron is when someone asked him how he described himself. He said I am a non-interventionist, in everything. That was perfect.

I don't think he is that inconsistent (if at all) because he has said by overthrowing secular dictators/rulers/leaders/governments, while they might be bad people, it creates a vacuum for radicals to take over. Plenty of examples of this. By arming the Kurds he isn't advocating an overthrow or anything like that, he's basically saying I support helping this group defend themselves from another group that is actively encroaching their territory. It isn't non-intervention but then again he hasn't claimed to be 100% non-interventionist.

[69360]

Government doesn't produce or own anything. The only things it has comes from force and theft, taken from the productive effort of others. The government buying oil and selling weapons would be intervention.

That's the biggest pile of theoretical crap I have heard lately. You could use that to justify just about anything.

Welcome to reality where our government does indeed own weapons and also actively blocks the Kurds from selling oil.

That needs to change.

[Feeding the Abscess]

How about the government actively preventing arms form being sold to a particular customer? Which is what we have now.

Lifting sanctions or government monopolies in a market is not the same as the government using taxpayer money to create and send arms to someone(s) or something. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

That's the biggest pile of theoretical crap I have heard lately. You could use that to justify just about anything.

Welcome to reality where our government does indeed own weapons and also actively blocks the Kurds from selling oil.

That needs to change.

No, actually, that load of theoretical crap justifies almost nothing the government does or will ever do. It's even the opposite - it's justification for opposition to everything government does.

[Jan2017]

The vote on the Ernst (R-IA) amendment to emergency arm the Kurds was 54-45 . . .
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00210

Would the Nay votes be considered weak on the terror war against ISIL ? Well, by Fox or Hannity standards anyway.

[Ronin Truth]

Is a Krauthammer what is used to pulverize pickled cabbage?

[juleswin]

I can understand why people would have a problem with Rand's position, but to state that Trump's plan is somehow less interventionist is just absurd.

Ask the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq which plan they would prefer. It would overwhelmingly be Rand's plan, at the very least in Rand's plan they get to keep a key natural resource and aren't left to rot.

Not if the armed and protected Kurds claim part of the major oil fields ask part of their new homeland.

I am sure if you asked the Sunni and Shia now fighting foreign mercs, they would reject Rand's plan. They want an end to foreign intervention in their country not more of it,

[Rudeman]

Not if the armed and protected Kurds claim part of the major oil fields ask part of their new homeland.

I am sure if you asked the Sunni and Shia now fighting foreign mercs, they would reject Rand's plan. They want an end to foreign intervention in their country not more of it,

There's a lot of oil where the Shia are: