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

[torchbearer]

With the way some people talk on here, they might be satisfied with Jesus. "Maybe. I don't know. He visited Israel. He seems principled, but he's no Ron Paul though......."

lulz.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Neither does Rand, goddamnit!

I don't recall saying he did.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Iran has been attacked. By Israeli intelligence arms, and I would not doubt our presence in helping to facilitate these attacks. The capitalization of "no one is going to attack Iran" is actually quite humorous. Cyber warfare, sanctions, blown up scientists- these are attacks.

I would love to hear Rand Paul state unequivocally that he does not support such attacks. Even/especially in the case of supposedly protecting Israel.

You must have missed the post where I said I had intended to say ISRAEL; not Iran.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'll just say one thing to you, something that I've come to the conclusion a long time ago, you're not as intelligent as you think you are. I know what my limitations are and I don't go discussing topics I know little about. I wish the likes of you would do a little studying of history by actually listening to Ron Paul and maybe reading his books?

Wow, imagine that. Another personal attack. lol.

Purple, I have been reading Ron Paul's stuff probably before you were even an itch in your daddy's pants. So, please stick a pin in your over-inflated ego and let the hot air blow out.

 

[COpatriot]

This was very disappointing to read. An attack on Israel is an attack on Israel, not the US. But I guess he has to do what he has to do. I'd you want a chance to succeed in this shitty party you have to placate the neocons and the rapture freaks. This was why Ron never stood a chance.

 

[Brett85]

This was very disappointing to read. An attack on Israel is an attack on Israel, not the US. But I guess he has to do what he has to do. I'd you want a chance to succeed in this shitty party you have to placate the neocons and the rapture freaks. This was why Ron never stood a chance.

Probably, but I just wonder whether he would say, "an attack on Great Britain is an attack on the United States," or "an attack on South Korea is an attack on the United States," etc. If he's just making an exception for Israel, fine. But I'm worried about how far he actually believes in taking this. Does he believe that we should be responsible for defending the 50+ countries around the world that we're currently forced to defend through treaty? If so, that would be a huge departure from Ron's foreign policy.

 

[dinosaur]

Wow, imagine that. Another personal attack. lol.

Purple, I have been reading Ron Paul's stuff probably before you were even an itch in your daddy's pants. So, please stick a pin in your over-inflated ego and let the hot air blow out.

Can a sock puppet have an over-inflated ego? Kidding, sort of...I'm not sure that I believe that some of these people are even for real.

Originally Posted by purplechoe
I'll just say one thing to you, something that I've come to the conclusion a long time ago, you're not as intelligent as you think you are. I know what my limitations are and I don't go discussing topics I know little about. I wish the likes of you would do a little studying of history by actually listening to Ron Paul and maybe reading his books?

Purplechoe, I just gave you a neg rep for arguing without even attempting to inject substance into your argument.

 

[PatriotOne]

Lady Gaga posting Hotair articles to bolster his Rand Paul hatred? Now that's what I call doing the "full-moron".

 

[iakobos]

‘any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States’

I've had my doubts about Rand for a while now. He obviously has some libertarian beliefs that match Ron Paul's and more importantly with my beliefs. But it's obvious now that entangling alliances is one of Rand's beliefs. To me this is a fairly core belief and a repudiation of libertarianism. It leads down the road to all the other foreign policy debacles that we are presently experiencing. Very disappointing.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Can a sock puppet have an over-inflated ego? Kidding, sort of...I'm not sure that I believe that some of these people are even for real.



Purplechoe, I just gave you a neg rep for arguing without even attempting to inject substance into your argument.

my +rep counters your neg- rep. the substance is there, you just don't like to hear it.

 

[Badger Paul]

No, Rand is driving a wedge between us all by lonesome by making statements like this. The U.S is under no treaty obligations to defend Israel. We did not go to war with Egypt or Syria back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. Yet Rand wants to extend the U.S. security umbrella to Israel itself which would mean we would presumably have to attack Gaza if Hamas launched a few missiles. No American President has ever done this. If we do so for Israel, then why not places Georgia for example? Where does it stop? More importantly, where does Rand's pandering stop? Is he that desperate that he'll basically try to contradict half a century of U.S. policy towards Israel by going beyond just aid to blanket security guarantees? What if Israel uses such guarantees and decided to launch not just a premptive conventional strike on Iran but a nuclear one? You see, you can say what you want to get elected but it comes back to bite you when you take office and at that point it's not worth it. I'm not joining the Rand Paul campaign to make Israel a part of NATO.

 

[Badger Paul]

"Speak for yourself. Go vote for the Libertarian, then, if you don't like Rand. But, you sure as hell don't speak for this movement. "

And neither do you. Don't think for one minute people invested their time and money for the last five years for one's man ambition. They did so for a cause and did so because one brave man spoke to that cause and was willing to stand up for it and had his back because they knew he wasn't in it for himself but for what he believed in. And it was the efforts and money of those people who created a movement around that cause and made Rand a U.S. Senator.

Rand may be the better politician, better speaker, better manager, more polished etc. I'll grant you all this. But all of these talents mean nothing if it takes repudiating what was the central core of his father's campaigns - that foreign policy with its entangling alliances and global reach and ties into global capitalism was damaging the country with its bigger government and big debts - to win higher office.

You sow trouble in your own house all you inherit is the wind. Rand should keep this Bible verse in mind the next time he want to impress his new "friends."

 

[Brett85]

No, Rand is driving a wedge between us all by lonesome by making statements like this. The U.S is under no treaty obligations to defend Israel. We did not go to war with Egypt or Syria back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. Yet Rand wants to extend the U.S. security umbrella to Israel itself which would mean we would presumably have to attack Gaza if Hamas launched a few missiles. No American President has ever done this. If we do so for Israel, then why not places Georgia for example? Where does it stop? More importantly, where does Rand's pandering stop? Is he that desperate that he'll basically try to contradict half a century of U.S. policy towards Israel by going beyond just aid to blanket security guarantees? What if Israel uses such guarantees and decided to launch not just a premptive conventional strike on Iran but a nuclear one? You see, you can say what you want to get elected but it comes back to bite you when you take office and at that point it's not worth it. I'm not joining the Rand Paul campaign to make Israel a part of NATO.

I imagine Rand meant that the U.S would come to Israel's defense if another country launched a full scale invasion into Israel, but he should've been more clear. I hope that he actually listens to people's concerns and clears this issue up.

 

[klamath]

I imagine Rand meant that the U.S would come to Israel's defense if another country launched a full scale invasion into Israel, but he should've been more clear. I hope that he actually listens to people's concerns and clears this issue up.

+1

 

[cajuncocoa]

"Speak for yourself. Go vote for the Libertarian, then, if you don't like Rand. But, you sure as hell don't speak for this movement. "

And neither do you. Don't think for one minute people invested their time and money for the last five years for one's man ambition. They did so for a cause and did so because one brave man spoke to that cause and was willing to stand up for it and had his back because they knew he wasn't in it for himself but for what he believed in. And it was the efforts and money of those people who created a movement around that cause and made Rand a U.S. Senator.

Rand may be the better politician, better speaker, better manager, more polished etc. I'll grant you all this. But all of these talents mean nothing if it takes repudiating what was the central core of his father's campaigns - that foreign policy with its entangling alliances and global reach and ties into global capitalism was damaging the country with its bigger government and big debts - to win higher office.

You sow trouble in your own house all you inherit is the wind. Rand should keep this Bible verse in mind the next time he want to impress his new "friends."

I owe you another +rep

 

[Badger Paul]

Thank you.

 

[georgiaboy]

I imagine Rand meant that the U.S would come to Israel's defense if another country launched a full scale invasion into Israel, but he should've been more clear. I hope that he actually listens to people's concerns and clears this issue up.

I agree with what you imagine to be true, and the general American population supports a view like this. For better or worse, everyone hearkens back to WWII and how we Americans came in and stopped the Nazis. We like to think that if another Hitler showed up on the world stage, we'd be there to beat him back. That's what Rand was playing to.

However, I disagree that he should've been more clear. Rand is perfectly delivering his rhetoric to appeal to a wide swath of the electorate.

Those of us who continue to watch Rand's actions, votes, amendments, fillibusters, proposals, etc., as well as these nuanced words, can see him for what he is - the greatest embodiment of conservative politics I've ever witnessed.

 

[dinosaur]

Rand may be the better politician, better speaker, better manager, more polished etc. I'll grant you all this. But all of these talents mean nothing if it takes repudiating what was the central core of his father's campaigns - that foreign policy with its entangling alliances and global reach and ties into global capitalism was damaging the country with its bigger government and big debts - to win higher office.

Claiming a permanent ally does put a nation in danger...only if they actually get sucked into a war because of it. Rand's central argument when arguing his Israel policy has been that the biggest threat to our national security is our debt, and that we can not be a friend to Israel if we compromise our own security. He is both claiming Israel as friend and saying that we can no longer afford to spend on friends because it is endangering our own security. He is making the argument that he is the strongest candidate on defense because he would stop the wars and spending that are weakening our ability to defend ourselves, but is assuring people that he is strong and unafraid to defend if attacked. The best way to prevent war with Iran is to 1) stop our spending and empire building so that we will have the advantage of strength and 2) actually be in a position to do #1 and take power away from the neocons. Rand didn't choose our current allies, but he would have no choice but to honor the commitments of the people of this nation. It is not a president that declares war (or should), it is the people through their representatives. Ultimately it is the people who choose their own allies. Ron Paul has said time and again, that if the people chose to go to war (with Ron as president), he would act with strength, win the war, and come home. This is exactly what Rand is saying, just with different rhetoric. Rand is confirming his committment to honoring the right of the people, under the separation of powers, to choose their own allies. He is also doing his best to get us out of the danger that we have put ourselves in at the same time.

 

[Badger Paul]

" Rand didn't chose our current allies, but he would have no choice but to honor the commitments of the people of this nation."

We have no commitment to defend Israel, period.

 

[cheapseats]

‘any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States’

...entangling alliances is...a fairly core belief...

Whether to get INTO them or stay OUT of them, yes, it IS a core concept.