nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,408
Lindsey Graham compares Donald Trump's foreign policy to Rand Paul calling it isolationist
- Thread starter dude58677
- Start date
Non interventionism doesn't mean that we have to ignore legitimate threats. ISIS is a group that has murdered three Americans and has stated that their goal is to attack us. That's different from previous wars like the wars in Iraq and Vietnam which were simply police actions for the purpose of "spreading freedom and democracy around the world."
That was true for the Republican/Democrat candidates.
We have been bombing these people since 2003. This is Al Qaeda in Iraq under a new name.
http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/what-is-isis
ISIS goal is to create a caliphate which they have done. There isn't a country in the Middle East worth an American life or an American dollar as Michael Scheuer would say. They attack us as Ron Paul said because we are over there. If we don't make ourselves a target then we really won't be a target. Also bombing didn't work so far. Its been 13 years and ISIS has only grown.
Ron Paul says its immoral and illegal:
https://www.rt.com/usa/191404-paul-obama-isis-syria/
We are meddling in the affairs of the Middle East by bombing them.
He should have started playing that way out of the gate. Also he shouldn't let Jack Hunter in on it (the guy spilled it). He played games on things that mattered though like the Iran deal. He also didn't reorient America's understanding on the Middle East, choosing to blend in and fade away talking up Radical Islam (the enemy has a name blah blah blah, I wonder who came up with this talking point), opening the door to Ted Cruz who ate his lunch.
We will have to agree to disagree. I don't think he was playing at a higher level. He alienated his supporters with his Romney endorsement and disingenuous game playing on the Iran deal when an internet search shows he thought it was overblown when his dad was campaigning. The people who sought to play at a higher level with never trusted him and Jack Hunter basically told everyone what Rand was up to. He could have given us a clear alternative since he didn't have the money of Bush nor the mouth of Trump.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
As I said, there is blame on both sides. Anyone with 3 brain cells would know that Rand had to endorse the nominee and he had already promised to do so. The grassroots should have pulled their heads out of their asses to understand this.
The other side of the coin is that Rand did such a piss poor job in the way of which he made the endorsement and completely failed in communicating with the grassroots that it's no wonder they left the reservation.
As I said, plenty of blame to go around.
Saint Vitus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 276
After everything Rand said in the primary there is no way anybody should believe he is a non-interventionist. His complete bumbling of foreign policy is what led him to get 1% in the polls and completely flame out and destroy the liberty movement.
ProBlue33
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,130
Trump is a one issue interventionist ISIS, that's it, if he can get in and beat them, he might even declare the Bush "War on Terror" over.
Then he can change 16 years of bad foreign policy that 9/11 caused, that's what Ron wanted to do, that's what Rand wanted to do not to the extent of his dad but still a way better foreign policy than the neocons or Hillary.
It makes me wonder if Rand will endorse before Cleveland ?
Then he can change 16 years of bad foreign policy that 9/11 caused, that's what Ron wanted to do, that's what Rand wanted to do not to the extent of his dad but still a way better foreign policy than the neocons or Hillary.
It makes me wonder if Rand will endorse before Cleveland ?
I can understand Rand's butt kissing but not his lying on war and peace, spreading propaganda. He could have stood out, been tough, and told the truth instead of being a Ted Cruz gateway drug.
His views on the Middle East are incoherent just like everyone else except for Ron Paul. Trump has shown through his speeches that he at least supports the propaganda instead of challenging it. Iran bad, terrorist sponsors will fight their sponsored terrorist, we gotta take out a weak 4th generation army that is localized and is little threat to the United States.
"Scott Horton: Yeah well there’s the easy way and the hard way. It seems maybe we’ve already chosen the latter there. Well so let me ask you if you’d been the President, you’d been elected and you we’re the President, would you have any mission remaining in Afghanistan, Pakistan of course it kind of goes about saying that as long as Osama Bin Laden has not been brought to justice that the mission there is open ended, nation building aside or oil pipe lines aside."
"Ron Paul: No, I said many times in the campaign “Just come home we just marched into these countries we can just march out.” I’d come home from the whole Middle East, I’d come home from Europe, I’d come home from Korea, I’d come home from Japan, save a lot of money. But do you say, “Well, what about this target? What if the evidence is really there? Like they claim that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are responsible, should we totally ignore it?” Although obviously our foreign policy was a precipitating factor, it’s pretty hard to say, “Well he just killed 3000 Americans. We don’t care about him to let him go.” But we should at least make an attempt to do it within the law, which means that if we knew he was in Pakistan, maybe we could ask the Pakistani government, “Can we go in?” But we don’t need to go in with these armed forces I’m sure. You recall my proposal back then was not to send the army in, but to revive the old idea of the Letter of Marque and Reprisal."
"Scott Horton: Right."
"Ron Paul: You know if we have an enemy of 25 people, do we declare war against the Muslim world, you know? It makes no sense. Why don’t we go after the ring leaders and target those individuals? And to me I think that’s why the founders were rather wise in giving us that option where you don’t have to declare war against an entire country if you’re dealing with a bunch of thugs."
"Scott Horton: And of course that didn’t get anywhere. Instead everyone opted for the authorization which, I guess as you said, the language you thought at the time was specific enough. That it was about the individuals not overthrowing Afghanistan’s pseudo government and replacing it with another pseudo government, but it was narrow enough to satisfy you then."
"Ron Paul: Right."
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-02-20/ron-paul-on-antiwar-radio/
Trump is a Netanyahu endorsing Israel-bot. He realizes Empire is broke and needs tribute to keep on running. He isn't going to leave the Middle East playground. Obama said the Iraq war is stupid but now more marines are heading to Iraq: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/03/21/more-marines-are-heading-to-iraq-n2137029
His views on the Middle East are incoherent just like everyone else except for Ron Paul. Trump has shown through his speeches that he at least supports the propaganda instead of challenging it. Iran bad, terrorist sponsors will fight their sponsored terrorist, we gotta take out a weak 4th generation army that is localized and is little threat to the United States.
"Scott Horton: Yeah well there’s the easy way and the hard way. It seems maybe we’ve already chosen the latter there. Well so let me ask you if you’d been the President, you’d been elected and you we’re the President, would you have any mission remaining in Afghanistan, Pakistan of course it kind of goes about saying that as long as Osama Bin Laden has not been brought to justice that the mission there is open ended, nation building aside or oil pipe lines aside."
"Ron Paul: No, I said many times in the campaign “Just come home we just marched into these countries we can just march out.” I’d come home from the whole Middle East, I’d come home from Europe, I’d come home from Korea, I’d come home from Japan, save a lot of money. But do you say, “Well, what about this target? What if the evidence is really there? Like they claim that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are responsible, should we totally ignore it?” Although obviously our foreign policy was a precipitating factor, it’s pretty hard to say, “Well he just killed 3000 Americans. We don’t care about him to let him go.” But we should at least make an attempt to do it within the law, which means that if we knew he was in Pakistan, maybe we could ask the Pakistani government, “Can we go in?” But we don’t need to go in with these armed forces I’m sure. You recall my proposal back then was not to send the army in, but to revive the old idea of the Letter of Marque and Reprisal."
"Scott Horton: Right."
"Ron Paul: You know if we have an enemy of 25 people, do we declare war against the Muslim world, you know? It makes no sense. Why don’t we go after the ring leaders and target those individuals? And to me I think that’s why the founders were rather wise in giving us that option where you don’t have to declare war against an entire country if you’re dealing with a bunch of thugs."
"Scott Horton: And of course that didn’t get anywhere. Instead everyone opted for the authorization which, I guess as you said, the language you thought at the time was specific enough. That it was about the individuals not overthrowing Afghanistan’s pseudo government and replacing it with another pseudo government, but it was narrow enough to satisfy you then."
"Ron Paul: Right."
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-02-20/ron-paul-on-antiwar-radio/
Similar threads
