How will Rand Paul defeat Radical Islam?

[Peace&Freedom]

Unless you are talking about firing weapons and killing those who harm us, you will get exactly nowhere in a GOP primary, and probably not in a DEM primary either.

The thread subject is about Rand Paul and his position on that subject, it is not about Mises, or An-Caps, or philosophical truths.

If you are Rand Paul and you are proposing a method of addressing the threat posed by some individual persons who happen to identify as radical Muslims, this notion of "do nothing," or talk it over, or cry it out, or whatever is plain simply political suicide.

Rand's approach, while practical, is another reason-based approach, which will either work or it won't work, and we will know by next spring. IF IT DOESN'T WORK, which is likely, and his campaign sees most of the same goose-eggs (in terms of no primary wins) Ron saw in his two GOP runs, we'll have to try something else. Since the pure, sweet reason approach of Ron (straightforwardly talk non-intervention, and blowback) and the pragmatic finesse approach of Rand (let's intervene only some places, not everywhere indefinitely) will have both failed, it will finally be time to recognize the pro-war framework has to be confronted, and torn down.

I've called for the movement to press the "we've been lied to, the war on terror and radical Islam is a phony, false flag fraud" emotion approach to defeat the war framework. The framework is emotion-based (in this case, fear of terrorists, and revenge against terrorism), and so it can only be countered by another emotion (anger, over being deceived). I submit the only progress we've been making on the foreign policy front has been in exposing the lies (on WMDs, et al) over and over, til by now a lot more people (including Republicans) are less likely to believe the pretexts being put up for new war projects. Rand needs to take heed of this, and not caress the lies with finesse, but instead dispose of them with finesse, to prevail in the GOP primaries.

 

[dude58677]

Not really. It's not a condition of degrees. It's not like a slightly bad conflict takes M&R but a really bad conflict takes War. They are two completely different tools intended for completely different purposes. You wouldn't say, "Well that ten penny nail clearly needs a hammer, but this here three penny nail I'll just drive with a screwdriver."

If a situation was best served by a Declaration of War, then you would not want to bother with M&R in the first place, and the reverse is true also. It's not like you come upon a 10 penny nail and say, "Hmm, that's a pretty big nail, let me try this screwdriver first and then only if that doesn't work I'll try the hammer." You come upon a 10 penny nail, and recognizing that it's a nail, you go with the hammer right off.

I stand corrected.

 

[anaconda]

That's because you are injecting bushes and clintons and such into a conversation where they were not, and then acting like they were there all along. That's a pretty certain recipe befuddling a cogent argument, the problem you have is that nobody is taking the bait. It is not that you aren't following us, it's that we are not following you.

What I am saying is that several U.S. Presidents have committed great violence in Iraq and that their citizens might be rightly perturbed. When Ron Paul said in a 2007 debate "We've been bombing Iraq for ten years," I believe he meant to include bombing runs by Bill Clinton (i.e. "Operation Desert Fox" in 1998). Both Bushes invaded Iraq with boots on the ground. I'm suggesting that ISIS may be the blow back of the type that Ron Paul was referring to. How is this "befuddling?" It seemed, earlier in the thread, reasonable for me to quickly enumerate a few of the unprovoked military actions by U.S. Presidents as part of the possible explanation for violence in Iraq. I'm saying that ISIS may be a calculable reaction to this insane violent meddling that we've been up to for a long time. And the moment any anti-NATO uprising starts up the western media goes full throttle demonizing it as subhuman and immoral. And saber rattling for American righteousness and cherry picking some other faction to "liberate." And the circle of violence resumes. I say time to stop the hamster wheel. ISIS has not attacked the U.S. And going forward, I would caution journalists to go there at their own risk. ISIS is ZERO threat to the U.S. For the U.S. to commit violence there (which we are already doing with aircraft) would be the exact type of preemptive war that Ron Paul lamented over in a 2008 debate. The thread title is about defeating radical Islam. My suggestion is that we have no national justification for doing so and furthermore simply butting out will be the best long-term approach. I view the OP title as a bit of a straw man question. It isn't a President's job to "defeat radical Islam," only defend our borders from attack and enforce the federal laws of the land. I will concede that a "defensive" military action may involve pursuing an attacker's retreat and eliminating them in the aftermath.

 

[anaconda]

End the CIA?

 

[PierzStyx]

How will radical islam be defeated? its been a HUGE menace since the 700s. Even the Hawks such as Rick Santorum Know this!

Perhaps by not murdering women and children. Though he will fund Israel to do it. So.... He may jut shift how he inspires Middle Easterners to engage in terrorism.

Also, your assertion that Islam has been a threat since 700 AD is ignorant. While Europe couldn't figure out that dumping mounds of human fecal matter onto the streets and then wading through it was a bad idea, Muslims were making advances in science, astronomy, mathematics, literature, art, and technology that took Europe centuries to catch up on and invented the university in the process. A Muslim, al-Tunsi, even figured out the heliocentric model for the solar system 200 years before the birth of Copernicus.

 

[PierzStyx]

first off, we've already been through the whole "how do you defeat, militarily, an ideology"? and the conclusion drawn amongst RPers is that you can't.

so, with any reasonable actor taking a military option off the table (inc. "sanctions"), that leaves Rand leading a country involved with the trading of goods and services and with diplomatic neutrality.

it'll take a few years, but this is how you defeat "radical islam." the porn infiltration plan is the backup.

Sure you can. Diplomacy, trade, and peace. You replace militancy with better ideas.

 

[anaconda]

Perhaps by not murdering women and children. Though he will fund Israel to do it. So.... He may jut shift how he inspires Middle Easterners to engage in terrorism.

Also, your assertion that Islam has been a threat since 700 AD is ignorant. While Europe couldn't figure out how to wipe its own arse, Muslims were making advances in science, astronomy, mathematics, literature, art, and technology that took Europe centuries to catch up on. A Muslim, al-Tunsi, even figured out the heliocentric model for the solar system 200 years before the birth of Copernicus.

+1

 

[anaconda]

Sure you can. Diplomacy, trade, and peace. You replace militancy with better ideas.

+1