Hotair: Rand Paul differentiates foreign policy from his father’s brand

[twomp]

If you were president and Switzerland was invaded by a country with a dictator hell bent on stealing all its gold and enslaving its population and the president of Switzerland pleads with you to help by sending in troops from nearby bases in Germany, would you put the phone down on him and say 'sorry, I can't help your people despite us being friends for 230 years i'm a libertarian with an a non-intervenionist foreign policy' or would you go to congress and ask for authorization to send in those troops?

I like how you changed the scenario from Israel (who is threatening other countries) to Switzerland (who isn't threatening anyone). Please continue to spin stuff.

 

[itshappening]

I like how you changed the scenario from Israel (who is threatening other countries) to Switzerland (who isn't threatening anyone). Please continue to spin stuff.

There's a lot of threats and bluster in international politics.

North Korea says they will annihilate the USA nearly every day and are currently testing nuclear weapons.

Are you more worried about them or Israel attacking someone?

 

[Brett85]

If you were president and Switzerland was invaded by a country with a dictator hell bent on stealing all its gold and enslaving its population and the president of Switzerland pleads with you to help by sending in troops from nearby bases in Germany, would you put the phone down on him and say 'sorry, I can't help your people despite us being friends for 230 years i'm a libertarian with an a non-intervenionist foreign policy' or would you go to congress and ask for authorization to send in those troops?

I said that I would likely support helping out Israel if they were attacked in an unprovoked way, but not if they provoked the attack. In your analogy, I would not support helping out Switzerland militarily if they actually provoked the attack.

 

[twomp]

There's a lot of threats and bluster in international politics.

North Korea says they will annihilate the USA nearly every day and are currently testing nuclear weapons.

Are you more worried about them or Israel attacking someone?

Well if North Korea is threatening to attack the USA, then I would be more worried about them because the USA is where I live you see. If Israel is threatening to bomb Iran, I don't see how that is of any issue to me. Isn't that kind of obvious?

 

[itshappening]

I said that I would likely support helping out Israel if they were attacked in an unprovoked way, but not if they provoked the attack. In your analogy, I would not support helping out Switzerland militarily if they actually provoked the attack.

So what if our hypothetical dictator came to power in a nearby border state to Switzerland and was amassing the troops ready for the invasion along with missile launchers and Switzerland's spies detected this activity and came to the conclusion that they were under threat and therefore carried out an operation which wasn't completely successful and our dictator regrouped and sent in his troops, would you support them then or would you have determined they made a provocative move in their initial strike?

 

[american.swan]

Wait a moment.

Paul goes to Israel explaining his hands off libertarian approach to the Middle East. He explains his dislike for sending arms to Egypt and Israel and other nations. (upsetting the Military Industrial Complex). He then continues to request the end of all foreign aid, even to Israel. (Mind our own business and we're broke)

Paul then drills Kerry in a congressional hearing on Presidential power to start wars. (follow the constitution)

Now he says to defend Israel. How? He doesn't want to support an arms race in the region. He doesn't want the president starting wars.

Without a declaration of war from Congress, Paul wouldn't defend Israel. Also, I suspect Paul would go in and get out. None of this nation building trash.

I want to remind you there was a three president plan to fix the US. Jackson, the second, ended the bank. The third didn't win. I say that because it will take more than one president to fix this mess.

 

[twomp]

I said that I would likely support helping out Israel if they were attacked in an unprovoked way, but not if they provoked the attack. In your analogy, I would not support helping out Switzerland militarily if they actually provoked the attack.

I also fairly certain that if Tradtional Conservative were President, he wouldn't have many troops in nearby Germany to help out Switzerland anyways.

 

[twomp]

So what if our hypothetical dictator came to power in a nearby border state to Switzerland and was amassing the troops ready for the invasion along with missile launchers and Switzerland's spies detected this activity and came to the conclusion that they were under threat and therefore carried out an operation which wasn't completely successful and our dictator regrouped and sent in his troops, would you support them then or would you have determined they made a provocative move in their initial strike?

Where in this fantasy scenario of yours is Germany, France, Britain, Spain... Have they all been wiped off the map already too? WHY ARE WE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN HELP OUT!!

 

[american.swan]

Right now we don't have a plan. Imagine Rand wins. How much would he be able to do before he's out? Who continues the revolution in the White House? We haven't got a plan.

 

[Brett85]

So what if our hypothetical dictator came to power in a nearby border state to Switzerland and was amassing the troops ready for the invasion along with missile launchers and Switzerland's spies detected this activity and came to the conclusion that they were under threat and therefore carried out an operation which wasn't completely successful and our dictator regrouped and sent in his troops, would you support them then or would you have determined they made a provocative move in their initial strike?

There's a difference between using military action to respond to an imminent threat and using military action the way that Israel is threatening to, which is to simply prevent Iran from aquiring one nuclear weapon. I'm not opposed to allowing Israel to do what it feels is necessary to defend itself, but I don't believe we should get involved in that kind of situation. But in the analogy you presented, I wouldn't consider what Switzerland did to be an unprovoked attack. That would just be an example of self defense.

 

[itshappening]

Where in this fantasy scenario of yours is Germany, France, Britain, Spain... Have they all been wiped off the map already too? WHY ARE WE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN HELP OUT!!

The Swiss president decides to call TC first and ask for help believing that because he has the strongest military in the world he could help out in repelling the invasion and stopping the slaughter of his citizens.

 

[trey4sports]

ughh, why would he say that an attack on Israel is an attack on the united states? That's just disgusting.

 

[itshappening]

There's a difference between using military action to respond to an imminent threat and using military action the way that Israel is threatening to, which is to simply prevent Iran from aquiring one nuclear weapon. I'm not opposed to allowing Israel to do what it feels is necessary to defend itself, but I don't believe we should get involved in that kind of situation. But in the analogy you presented, I wouldn't consider what Switzerland did to be an unprovoked attack. That would just be an example of self defense.

So are we basing policy on listening out for threats now?

Are you concerned by North Korea's near daily propaganda in which it promises to annihilate the USA?

 

[twomp]

The Swiss president decides to call TC first and ask for help believing that because he has the strongest military in the world he could help out in repelling the invasion and stopping the slaughter of his citizens.

Well if he decides to help out the innocent citizens in OTHER countries. I hope he helps out the unemployed and poor citizens of THIS COUNTRY first. You know give them universal health care and unemployment benefits and such. I mean since we are handing out stuff why not give it to your people first?

 

[Brett85]

So are we basing policy on listening out for threats now?

Are you concerned by North Korea's near daily propaganda in which it promises to annihilate the USA?

That's a problem, but there are ways to respond to threats without invading a country that poses a threat to us. We can enhance our defenses at home, such as funding a missile defense program that could shoot down any missile that North Korea launches at us.

 

[RP Supporter]

Yay, Rand's winning over people who don't have a nice word to say about his father, the person who got me (and surely many others) into the liberty movement. Not to mention the man who helped form the movement that Rand got elected on the back of. I mean seriously, read the comments. Smug dislike of Ron and support for MORE wars, MORE saber rattling. And a glee that Rand seems to be straying from his "nutty" father.

I'm sorry, but if the only way Rand Paul can get elected is by pandering to these types and pretending that he's one of them, I really fail to see the difference between him and say, Mitt on this. I don't believe either hypothetical president would go to war with Iran, but neither are they interested in changing the conversation to reflect a non interventionist viewpoint.

I like Rand. I have been backing him through most of these controversies. I understand that part of the game is making the people think you're one of them. But I'd like to see him defend his father's vision a little more, instead of constantly sounding like a hawk who considers Israel's interests to be in our interests. By constantly sounding like them, non interventionism makes no headway and remains outside of the mainstream, and the neocons and the like can claim Rand as one of their own.

 

[itshappening]

Yay, Rand's winning over people who don't have a nice word to say about his father, the person who got me (and surely many others) into the liberty movement. Not to mention the man who helped form the movement that Rand got elected on the back of. I mean seriously, read the comments. Smug dislike of rand and support for MORE wars, MORE saber rattling. And a glee that Rand seems to be straying from his "nutty" father.

I'm sorry, but if the only way Rand Paul can get elected is by pandering to these types and pretending that he's one of them, I really fail to see the difference between him and say, Mitt on this. I don't believe either hypothetical president would go to war with Iran, but neither are they interested in changing the conversation to reflect a non interventionist viewpoint.

I like Rand. I have been backing him through most of these controversies. I understand that part of the game is making the people think you're one of them. But I'd like to see him defend his father's vision a little more, instead of constantly sounding like a hawk who considers Israel's interests to be in our interests. By constantly sounding like them, non interventionism makes no headway and remains outside of the mainstream, and the neocons and the like can claim Rand as one of their own.

Unfortunately this is the only way he gets elected, pandering to the more hawkish elements in the GOP. The ones who chant USA, USA, USA and want their candidate to sound tough. If Rand doesn't sound tough and hawkish some fraud will outdo him on the issue and peel off those supporters.

His dad never won a single primary. I think he knows what he's doing and I think he deserves some trust.

As for broader foreign policy, he makes a speech in Feb at heritage where he will lay it out.

 

[pcosmar]

I think he deserves some trust.

You can think that.
Dishonesty does not deserve trust.

 

[Maximus]

Rand is a Constitutionalist, he wouldn't join a war unless Congress voted for it. Chill. No one is attacking Israel.

 

[AlexAmore]

You can think that.
Dishonesty does not deserve trust.

It's called "diplomacy" - "skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility". Rand is sweet talking his way to presidency. There's no other way. Nobody has even come close to winning a presidency by talking about their deepest darkest desires.

I think everyone should be able to go down to their local military store buy a fully armed tank, a fighter jet, and a supercarrier with cash and have same day delivery no questions asked. But would I run on that platform or even talk about it? Of course not. I wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. I would tow the party line and talk about reasonable 2nd amendment rhetoric.