Rand Paul Says He Supports Military Force Against Iran If They're Building Nukes

[CPUd]

That's kind of what I think but don't understand why his poll numbers are still so low if this kind of talk from Rand is supposed to help him get the kind of voters that Ron could never get.

It isn't necessarily designed to help win voters, just minimize the loss.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

That's kind of what I think but don't understand why his poll numbers are still so low if this kind of talk from Rand is supposed to help him get the kind of voters that Ron could never get.

It seems clear to me that Trump is siphoning off some of Rand's support. He's taking it to the GOP establishment, which appeals to a lot of Rand's people. You can see the Trump effect playing out even on these forums.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand WOULD go to Congress for a declaration of war, as Ron Paul said he would have to do if push came to shove.

You need to do a bit of searching into Ron's philosophy and foreign policy if you think he'd ask Congress to declare war against Iran over its nuclear program.

[eleganz]

That's kind of what I think but don't understand why his poll numbers are still so low if this kind of talk from Rand is supposed to help him get the kind of voters that Ron could never get.

Why does this strategy must include being every Republican's first choice?

[Brett85]

Why does this strategy must include being every Republican's first choice?

But even his favorability numbers aren't that great right now. In the PPP poll he's at 42% favorable, 30% unfavorable among Republicans. He still has 30% of Republican voters who view him unfavorably even though he's taken foreign policy positions that aren't radically different from the GOP establishment. So it seems to me like at the moment his strategy isn't working. It may eventually; we will just have to wait and see. But it isn't right now.

[nikcers]

Iran Vows to Buy Weapons Anytime, Anywhere

Senior Iranian official says no restrictions on import, export of weapons

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said that he insisted during the negotiations that Iran be able to purchase and ship military hardware at any time and from any place, according to the comments made on state-controlled television.

Araghchi vowed “to buy weapons from wherever possible, and [said that Iran] is to provide weapons to whomever and whenever it considers appropriate,” according to a translation of his comments made by the Open Source Center.

[Occam's Banana]

For years, we've been told that Iran is just "months" away from having "the bomb."
Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
That is even the consensus of 16 US intelligence agencies (including the CIA and NSA).
It's a lie. It's nothing but boogity-boogity bull$#@! - and so is any policy or position predicated upon it ...

[T]ell me once again why Iran deserves a special treatment amongst all NPT signatories.

Especially given the fact that Iran has never been found to be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Never. As in "not even once" ...

Come on people, stop being so dense. It is in our interest to have Iran think that America is a loose cannon.

No it isn't. It is in our interests to have Iran (and anyone else, for that matter) think that America is fair, even-handed and sane.

Bellicose belligerence driven by hypotheticals for which there exists zero evidence is none of those things.
(And never mind that at this point those "hypotheticals" are really just "counterfactuals" ...)

Iran and much of the rest of the world already think America is a "loose cannon," and justifiably so.

Because America *is* a "loose cannon." That's exactly the problem ...

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, the headline isn't reall accurate. Although, I'm definitely always willing to be talking into political dissent these days

[AngryCanadian]

Another Candidate that has being blackmailed, forced to support Isreal and the Sunni Regime Tyrant States over Iran a Country which is the only one in the region that has being fighting ISIS on the ground.

I cant say i am not surprised.

[AngryCanadian]

For years, we've been told that Iran is just "months" away from having "the bomb."
Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
That is even the consensus of 16 US intelligence agencies (including the CIA and NSA).
It's a lie. It's nothing but boogity-boogity bull$#@! - and so is any policy or position predicated upon it ...



Especially given the fact that Iran has never been found to be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Never. As in "not even once" ...



No it isn't. It is in our interests to have Iran (and anyone else, for that matter) think that America is fair, even-handed and sane.

Bellicose belligerence driven by hypotheticals for which there exists zero evidence is none of those things.
(And never mind that at this point those "hypotheticals" are really just "counterfactuals" ...)

Iran and much of the rest of the world already think America is a "loose cannon," and justifiably so.

Because America *is* a "loose cannon." That's exactly the problem ...

Remember this loose cannon?

At that time he claimed that Iran was a few months away and he had proof well apparently he didn't show. Do these morons think people are going to fall it another time?

[Occam's Banana]

Why does this strategy must include being every Republican's first choice?

Because a strategy that includes being every Republicans' second choice doesn't make any sense?

[Badger Paul]

"we have to make them think that we'll use force against them in order to get them to the negotiating table and get a good deal."

But even if we did use force Rand himself says it wouldn't stop them from developing a bomb anyways. At least on that he's realistic. And what are we talking about here? "force" lob a few cruise missles and hope we hit soemthing? Or are we talking a full scale invasion? If I were Iranians I would damn well call our bluff deaing with such ambiguity.

Bottom line is Rand did not have to say what he did and by doing so anyway he's simply moving the bar further from sanity. I guarantee you some candidates will one-up Rand by calling for an immediate attack on Iran on Inauguration Day. Is this what we're voting him for? Hmm? To repudiate his father's sanction against preventative war? No thank you.

[anaconda]

In that case, I vote for a full invasion. Why don't you tell me once again why Iran deserves a special treatment amongst all NPT signatories. Its the kind of stuff that turns your potential supporters off. He tries to take the middle ground on the issue but at the end satisfies absolutely no one.

Yeah what about Pakistan, Russia, Germany (they REALLY can't be trusted!..), Israel, North Korea, India, and China? We should nuke them all to eliminate the nuclear threat.

[nikcers]

"we have to make them think that we'll use force against them in order to get them to the negotiating table and get a good deal."

But even if we did use force Rand himself says it wouldn't stop them from developing a bomb anyways. At least on that he's realistic. And what are we talking about here? "force" lob a few cruise missles and hope we hit soemthing? Or are we talking a full scale invasion? If I were Iranians I would damn well call our bluff deaing with such ambiguity.

Bottom line is Rand did not have to say what he did and by doing so anyway he's simply moving the bar further from sanity. I guarantee you some candidates will one-up Rand by calling for an immediate attack on Iran on Inauguration Day. Is this what we're voting him for? Hmm? To repudiate his father's sanction against preventative war? No thank you.

Further from sanity or saying the minimum of what republicans want to here so he can't be labeled a democrat isolationist. Is Rand going to repudiate his father? No his father has his own opinion about this and he supports he and endorses Rand as the only rational choice. Lets start with your straw man argument here,

"Walker’s claim that if he were President he would cancel the new agreement with Iran on Inauguration Day, while Mr. Bush indicated that it would probably be more prudent, to borrow one of his father’s favorite words, to wait until his cabinet was confirmed and he was more settled into the Presidency."

So its either going to be cancel the agreement on day 1, or wait for bush's cabinet which is going to be all of the same players from the last bush, I wonder what they will recommend he does about Iran?

[ClydeCoulter]

“I think military force always has to back up diplomacy. And diplomacy doesn’t work without military force behind it, and I think making that decision is a difficult decision, but ultimately, yes, you have to have military force that backs up the diplomatic negotiation that you have. And then we have to say there has to be force as a backdrop to this.”

And...maybe if they want a nuke it is so that they can come to the table as equals in diplomacy, military force wise? IF that is how diplomacy really $#@!ing works?

[eleganz]

Because a strategy that includes being every Republicans' second choice doesn't make any sense?

Might make sense if you already know most of the party disagrees with your foreign policy....

[cindy25]

if Saudi starts a nuke program will they be sanctioned? why only Iran. Pakistan is far worse.

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand simply stated the truth. There does not have to be a policy or intent behind it. It just is. The potential use of force is always there. Doesn't mean that it will or won't be used. Just the facts, ma'am.

[nikcers]

if Saudi starts a nuke program will they be sanctioned? why only Iran. Pakistan is far worse.

http://nypost.com/2015/05/17/saudi-a...kistan-report/

Specifically Iran has sponsored arms that end up killing us and our allies peoples. These sanctions were put on by multiple governments so maybe the question we should be asking is why did multiple governments sanction Iran after a huge power vacuum emerged in the middle east

[Occam's Banana]

Because a strategy that includes being every Republicans' second choice doesn't make any sense?

Might make sense if you already know most of the party disagrees with your foreign policy....

No. That makes even less sense.

[JohnGalt23g]

Unbelievable...Rand is really pissing me off a lot. This is ridiculous stuff. Said this while talking to MarK Levin last night.


http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...dqpia&bftw=pol

***I think military force always has to back up diplomacy,” Paul told radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. “Diplomacy doesn’t work without military force behind it***

That right there is the very heart of realism. It doesn't call for war, but it always keeps it as an option...

[cindy25]

I would love to ask Rand and all the others what they would have done after the sinking of the USS Liberty.

[cindy25]

He is running in a Republican primary. He has to double talk about military force against Iran or that run is over. Deal with it, I'm sure that if he somehow became president, he would not bomb Iran.

not yet, not until it was down to two or three. then he would have to get more hawkish. but with 15 hawks and 1 dove, the dove would win. Iowa will be taken with 15%, so will NH. surely there are 15% doves in the GOP. Ron picked up 23% in Iowa last time. that would be a landslide this time

[Brett85]

I don't care if Rand has to be more hawkish and do some saber rattling in order to win the GOP nomination, but if he doesn't win then it just ends up being a waste of time and a double loss for the liberty movement, because he would end up losing while simultaneously watering down the message to a significant extent. So it's a strategy that carries a lot of risk.

[mit26chell]

Iran Vows to Buy Weapons Anytime, Anywhere

Senior Iranian official says no restrictions on import, export of weapons

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said that he insisted during the negotiations that Iran be able to purchase and ship military hardware at any time and from any place, according to the comments made on state-controlled television.

Araghchi vowed “to buy weapons from wherever possible, and [said that Iran] is to provide weapons to whomever and whenever it considers appropriate,” according to a translation of his comments made by the Open Source Center.

Good! Iran has a right to purchase whatever the hell it wants.

[mit26chell]

I would love to ask Rand and all the others what they would have done after the sinking of the USS Liberty.

Rand will never address the USS Liberty. And if he did I bet he would say we should send Israel more money.