How will Rand Paul defeat Radical Islam?

[rich34]

Be honest and talk to em?

The real question is how do we defeat them with addition to getting "exactly" what we want. That is a bit more difficult to answer..

 

[amy31416]

Pretend like they're human beings, just like us, and see how things go from there.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Prevent the MIC's lobbyists from funding lawmakers campaigns. Get the CIA out of the business of laying the groundwork for corporate oil interests.

 

[dude58677]

Congressional Declaration of War as it will boost troop morale and not upset the rest of the world as the war was not decided on lightly. A war that is declared most likely will be a war that after diplomacy or was after marque and reprisal were tried and failed.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

How many ISIS folks should we kill because of the deeds of two or three individuals?

Two. Or three.

Or are we going after these two or three individuals only (which might more closely resemble a standard criminal investigation)?

or, it might more closely resemble proper Constitutional Marque and Reprisal.

Perhaps these were rogue outliers. Perhaps they were impostors. Their faces were covered. At least on spoke with a British accent. Some of these incidents show some signs of being staged. How do we know these few incidences were'nt false flags?

take out the guy who slices necks and those who directly enabled the neck-slicer, and who GAF which rogue agency recruited him? If it becomes a continuing pattern, find out who is cutting the paychecks and take them out too.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Congressional Declaration of War as it will boost troop morale and not upset the rest of the world as the war was not decided on lightly. A war that is declared most likely will be a war that after diplomacy or was after marque and reprisal were tried and failed.

Can you name one single time in U.S. History where M&R was tried and failed?

 

[dude58677]

Can you name one single time in U.S. History where M&R was tried and failed?

The point is that war would have to come as a very last resort.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I would suggest they are radicalized out of despair and persecution.

And how much of this dispair and persecution comes about because of the psychopathic killers just hanging about? If anything taking out the killers who kill Americans will make life better, because these people are likely killing their own people too. If some jackass cousin was holding the threat of burning me alive over my head I'd be pretty happy if a North Korean guy killed him.

Including the marauding imperialist invasion and bombing type of persecution.

who is suggesting that anybody maraud invade or bomb?

It needn't be collateral damage. It can be just direct damage. I wonder if the Revolutionary forces beheaded an occasional redcoat?

No.

Did wives and family of Nazis cheer as they were hanged (I doubt it)?

You don't have to CHEER your kid's death to understand that if he's running around chopping heads and burning folks alive that something like this was probably going to happen. And you will note that the families of hanged Nazis did not blowback and seek revenge. QED

I'm guessing the vast majority are tribal in their resolve that they are righteous in their intentions and deeds. Including family. Perhaps especially family.

The families of the hanged Nazis didn't run around blowing stuff up. They may not have liked it, but they accepted it. Cost of doing business. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The point is that war would have to come as a very last resort.

If it's done right, M&R is how one can take out active threats without creating a bunch of blowback. It is also constitutional, defensive, and when done correctly fits well within St Augustine's Just War Doctrine.

 

[idiom]

Political Islam is a truly shit political system unfit for modern economies.

One does not have to fight it.

 

[Origanalist]

We do not have to defeat radical islam, in fact we can't. We only have to show that if they attack us they will not benefit from it.

 

[dude58677]

If it's done right, M&R is how one can take out active threats without creating a bunch of blowback. It is also constitutional, defensive, and when done correctly fits well within St Augustine's Just War Doctrine.

I never said I was against it just that diplomacy and marque and reprisal would have to come first before a congressional declared war.Which is why the chances of a conflict should be very very slim.

 

[anaconda]

who is suggesting that anybody maraud invade or bomb?

Was not only suggested, but done extensively. Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush all suggested it. Before them Winston Churchill and so forth. Mesopotamians have much to be angry about.

Also, it seems that you suggested invading with intent to kill with "special forces" in post #9 of this thread.

 

[Origanalist]

Was not only suggested, but done extensively. Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush all suggested it. Before them Winston Churchill and so forth. Mesopotamians have much to be angry about.

Also, it seems that you suggested invading with intent to kill with "special forces" in post #9 of this thread.

My impression was that it was only in response to a attack on Americans. I don't see how you could call it a invasion.

 

[anaconda]

My impression was that it was only in response to a attack on Americans. I don't see how you could call it a invasion.

G.H.W. Bush attacked Iraq without being attacked. Clinton bombed with no attack. Bush II invaded and bombed Iraq with no attack. Obama, too. I'm afraid I'm not following you.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Was not only suggested, but done extensively. Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush all suggested it. Before them Winston Churchill and so forth. Mesopotamians have much to be angry about.

These guys are on Ron Paul Forums?

Also, it seems that you suggested invading with intent to kill with "special forces" in post #9 of this thread.

It's kinda hard to take down someone beheading your citizens without doing collateral damage when you are shooting from 10,000 miles away.

It is certainly not an invasion.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

G.H.W. Bush attacked Iraq without being attacked. Clinton bombed with no attack. Bush II invaded and bombed Iraq with no attack. Obama, too. I'm afraid I'm not following you.

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.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I never said I was against it just that diplomacy and marque and reprisal would have to come first before a congressional declared war.Which is why the chances of a conflict should be very very slim.

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.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

We do not have to defeat radical islam, in fact we can't. We only have to show that if they attack us they will not benefit from it.

Why did it take this long for somebody to point this out? In fact, how can anybody talk about defeating something without defining victory, or if it is possible?

By "defeating Islam," do we mean ending the existence of violent extremist Muslims? Is that even possible, anymore than we can completely eliminate the existence of similarly radical Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc? Or do we mean ending their potential of "threatening the US" with violent actions? Again, how is it possible to end the potential of something from ever happening? And how is threatening the US defined? If an American tourist or worker in the Mideast gets attacked, do we send in the drones and ground troops? If a Muslim country 8 time zones away from us ever does anything we don't like, or acts independent of us, is that "threatening the US?"

Do we see the problem here? The question, as framed, sets the US on a course for never ending war. The stated enemy is one that will always exist, or always have the potential of mounting an attack on somebody. And there is no distinction made whatever between a specific nation attacking our nation, versus isolated attacks on Americans on foreign soil by private cells of extremists---nor a distinction made between defending our actual borders, versus protecting the "full spectrum dominance" of the US global Empire. No limits in describing enemy, no limits in defining our "interests," and no limits in casting any outcome we don't like around the world as a "threat." Since the posited enemy and threat potential will always be there, and our "interests" subject to being threatened are cast as omnipresent worldwide, we thus must always be at war.

It's the MIC and neocons who benefit from this no-limits, always at war framework. Rather than committing to defeating an unending faction with unending potential, and essentially defining the entire world as an American interest, we should be confronting the promoters of this no limits mindset and tell them we won't be fooled again. We must return to the precise definitions of enemies based on nations, not factions, and follow Constitutional criteria for formally declaring wars after a nation has attacked us, not launching aggression on whomever we so select. Stop rewarding the fear-mongers with more wars, and ceding to their global pro-war framework. These warbots are the ones attacking us and what America is supposed to be, and they are the ones who should be shown they will no longer benefit from it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Why did it take this long for somebody to point this out? In fact, how can anybody talk about defeating something without defining victory, or if it is possible?

By "defeating Islam," do we mean ending the existence of violent extremist Muslims? Is that even possible, anymore than we can completely eliminate the existence of similarly radical Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc? Or do we mean ending their potential of "threatening the US" with violent actions? Again, how is it possible to end the potential of something happening? And how is threatening the US defined? If an American tourist or worker in the Mideast gets attacked, do we send in the drones and ground troops? If a Muslim country 8 time zones away from us ever does anything we don't like, or acts independent of us, is that "threatening the US?"

Do we see the problem here? The question, as framed, sets the US on a course for never ending war. The stated enemy is one that will always exist, or always have the potential of mounting an attack on somebody. And there is no distinction made whatever between a specific nation attacking our nation, versus isolated attacks on Americans on foreign soil by private cells of extremists---nor a distinction made between defending our actual borders, versus protecting the "full spectrum dominance" of the US global Empire. No limits in describing enemy, no limits in defining our "interests," and no limits in casting any outcome we don't like around the world as a "threat." Since the posited enemy and threat potential will always be there, and our "interests" subject to being threatened are cast as omnipresent worldwide, we thus must always be at war.

It's the MIC and neocons who benefit from this no-limits, always at war framework. Rather than committing to defeating an unending faction with unending potential, and essentially defining the entire world as an American interest, we should be confronting the promoters of this no limits mindset and tell them we won't be fooled again. Stop rewarding the fear-mongers with more wars, and ceding to their global pro-war framework.

I've been trying to shuffle the discourse into defensive type action, only acting against those individuals who are actively trying to harm us or our citizens. Of course some even object to doing that lol. Don't even bother trying to educate the voters on the idea of "radical Islam" not being a threat, their mind is set and their heart is hardened. In my experience it is best to channel the inclination towards aggression into a productive, or at least non-destructive avenue, such as actual defense.

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.

Like it or hate it does not change the fact that voters, and particularly Primary voters, only think an inch deep on this subject. If you are not talking about 'force' in the context of this question, then you are headed straight for 5%. So take the context of this question and talk about legitimate, principled, and constitutional uses of force. Such as in this case, being a stateless entity committing acts more akin to heinous crimes than acts of war, Congressional Marque and Reprisal.