National Review: Rand Paul’s War

[AuH20]

No answer for this yet?

They are very similar, but Rand isn't dominantly ruled by non-interventionism & the commonplace "who started it" paralysis and frankly, thank god for that. Rand is a non-interventionist, but let's say there was a critical event in the Gulf of Mexico or Panana Canal, Rand wouldn't hesitate as CiC. He's meshed Ron's teachings with his own sense of national responsibility.

 

[cajuncocoa]

They are very similar, but Rand isn't ruled by non-interventionism & the commonplace "who started it" paralysis and frankly thank god for that. Rand is a non-interventionist, but let's say there was a critical event in the Gulf of Mexico or Panana Canal, Rand wouldn't hesitate as CiC. He's meshed Ron's teachings with his own sense of national responsibility.

If he's not "ruled by non-interventionism", how can you call him a non-interventionist?

 

[AuH20]

If he's not "ruled by non-interventionism", how can you call him a non-interventionist?

90% of the events you would come across as CiC you would fall back on the tried and true non interventionist approach. Then there is that rare ten percent where you would have to deviate (see Cuban Missile Crisis).

 

[cajuncocoa]

90% of the events you would come across as CiC you would fall back on the tried and true non interventionist approach. Then there is that rare ten percent where you would have to deviate (see Cuban Missile Crisis).

The events of the Cuban Missile Crisis put us in imminent danger (if the official story is to be believed...that disclaimer must always be stated explicitly). That's not interventionism IMO; that would fall into the category of legitimate defense.

 

[Brett85]

Well, apparently I have been living under a rock for the last 12 years, because I don't remember a time when Afghanistan attacked us.

Ok, so if our country gets attacked by an organization rather than another country, we just have to sit back and do nothing.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Ok, so if our country gets attacked by an organization rather than another country, we just have to sit back and do nothing.

No, of course not. Next time an organization attacks us, we'll draw another country's name out of a hat and go attack them to make all the neocons feel better.

 

[Brett85]

No, of course not. Next time an organization attacks us, we'll draw another country's name out of a hat and go attack them to make all the neocons feel better.

We didn't draw Afghanistan out of a hat. We went there because Osama Bin Laden was located there, who was responsible for the attacks and was the #1 Al Quaeda leader.

 

[cajuncocoa]

We didn't draw Afghanistan out of a hat. We went there because Osama Bin Laden was located there, who was responsible for the attacks and was the #1 Al Quaeda leader.

Yep, that's what we were told....that's why I initially supported it. Who knows what the truth really was?

 

[klamath]

Ok, so if our country gets attacked by an organization rather than another country, we just have to sit back and do nothing.

well I would say go after that organization specifically, and leave the regime change nation building out of it. The nation of afganistan did not attack us but wouldn't extradite OBL to us which they really had no obligation to do. However if they tried to stop our direct attack on OBL we would be forced to defend and neutralize that attack.

 

[alucard13mm]

Yeah, I agree with that foreign policy of yours. The only problem with that and 9/11 is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were not from Afghanistan, but Saudi Arabia. Assuming you believe the official story in the first place, that is.

None of the 19 were from Afghanistan.

yep.. we shouldve went into saudi arabia. those snakes.

 

[Brett85]

well I would say go after that organization specifically, and leave the regime change nation building out of it. The nation of afganistan did not attack us but wouldn't extradite OBL to us which they really had no obligation to do. However if they tried to stop our direct attack on OBL we would be forced to defend and neutralize that attack.

I don't think we should've used our military for nation building in Afghanistan either. I'm just talking about the initial invasion to go after Osama Bin Laden.

 

[Occam's Banana]

90% of the events you would come across as CiC you would fall back on the tried and true non interventionist approach. Then there is that rare ten percent where you would have to deviate (see Cuban Missile Crisis).

As you have been told before, the Cuban Missile Crisis was entirely precipitated by U.S. interventionism. Specifically, the Crisis was provoked by the emplacement of NATO missiles in Turkey aimed at Moscow and by U.S. attempts to overthrow the Cuban regime (Bay of Pigs, etc.). "We" were NOT just innocently "standing there" doing nothing - only to disover that "we" suddenly had to "deviate" from non-interventionism because the Soviets sent nukes to Cuba for no good reason. The Soviets were doing nothing but responding to the fingers "we" were repeatedly poking in their eyes. If the "true non-interventionist approach" you find so woefully inadequate "ten percent" of the time had actaully been practiced, there never would have beeen a Cuban Missile Crisis in the first place.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah, I still do. My foreign policy, generally speaking, is very simple.

1) You don't mess with us, we don't mess with you.
2) You mess with us, we kill you.

If you begin time at 9/11 then sure, you can make a tortured excuse of an argument. If you know history however, you know we messed with them, and then they fought back. Afghanistan was a debacle from the beginning, aided by an even worse debacle in Iraq. Quagmires and rustbins of Empires. Besides, did we send an invasion and occupation force to Tripoli against the Barbary Pirates, who were the actual aggressors in the situation? No. Ron wasn't against ALL action, he was against open-ended, invasive, and aggressive occupation and war. He was FOR letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would have done the job a lot cleaner and easier, but of course that doesn't line the pockets of the War Profiteers for a decade.

 

[Brett85]

If you begin time at 9/11 then sure, you can make a tortured excuse of an argument. If you know history however, you know we messed with them, and then they fought back. Afghanistan was a debacle from the beginning, aided by an even worse debacle in Iraq. Quagmires and rustbins of Empires. Besides, did we send an invasion and occupation force to Tripoli against the Barbary Pirates, who were the actual aggressors in the situation? No. Ron wasn't against ALL action, he was against open-ended, invasive, and aggressive occupation and war. He was FOR letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would have done the job a lot cleaner and easier, but of course that doesn't line the pockets of the War Profiteers for a decade.

1) If you have a situation in your own personal life where you start a fight with someone else for whatever reason, and that person knocks you to the ground and starts beating you, you have to fight back in that situation regardless of how the altercation started. You still have to defend yourself.

2) Ron voted in favor of the AUMF after 9-11. I've heard him say that he didn't like that the AUMF was overly broad and didn't like that Afghanistan turned into a nation building campaign, but I've never heard him say that it was wrong to go into Afghanistan originally to go after Osama Bin Laden.

 

[specsaregood]

2) Ron voted in favor of the AUMF after 9-11. I've heard him say that he didn't like that the AUMF was overly broad and didn't like that Afghanistan turned into a nation building campaign, but I've never heard him say that it was wrong to go into Afghanistan originally to go after Osama Bin Laden.

That is because he has never said that.

 

[idiom]

Just a reminder...

Al-Qaeda translates as 'the list' or 'the database'. This is because it was literally the CIA database of Mujahideen being trained in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Thus even though their nationalities were largely non-afghani, they were ideologically linked.

There is a good argument to be made that the entire 'radical islam' movement "Qutbism" was entirely thought up by the CIA. All one would have to do is place Sayyid Qutb in solid contact at some point...

The turning point in Qutb's views resulted from his visit to the United States, where he aimed for further studies in educational administration. Over a two-year period, he worked in several different institutions including what was then Wilson Teachers' College in Washington, D.C., Colorado State College for Education in Greeley, as well as Stanford University.[22] He also traveled extensively, visiting the major cities of the United States and spent time in Europe on the return journey to Egypt.

Anyways, the point is:

The Official Story of 9/11 is that Members of the (previously) CIA's Database hijacked aircraft and flew them into buildings.

 

[idiom]

Just a reminder...

Al-Qaeda translates as 'the list' or 'the database'. This is because it was literally the CIA database of Mujahideen being trained in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Thus even though their nationalities were largely non-afghani, they were ideologically linked.

There is a good argument to be made that the entire 'radical islam' movement "Qutbism" was entirely thought up by the CIA. All one would have to do is place Sayyid Qutb in solid contact at some point...

The turning point in Qutb's views resulted from his visit to the United States, where he aimed for further studies in educational administration. Over a two-year period, he worked in several different institutions including what was then Wilson Teachers' College in Washington, D.C., Colorado State College for Education in Greeley, as well as Stanford University.[22] He also traveled extensively, visiting the major cities of the United States and spent time in Europe on the return journey to Egypt.

Anyways, the point is:

The Official Story of 9/11 is that Members of the (previously) CIA's Database hijacked aircraft and flew them into buildings.

 

[klamath]

If you begin time at 9/11 then sure, you can make a tortured excuse of an argument. If you know history however, you know we messed with them, and then they fought back. Afghanistan was a debacle from the beginning, aided by an even worse debacle in Iraq. Quagmires and rustbins of Empires. Besides, did we send an invasion and occupation force to Tripoli against the Barbary Pirates, who were the actual aggressors in the situation? No. Ron wasn't against ALL action, he was against open-ended, invasive, and aggressive occupation and war. He was FOR letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would have done the job a lot cleaner and easier, but of course that doesn't line the pockets of the War Profiteers for a decade.

sorry but what TJ did in Libya was exactly the same as afganistan, Amercan led local army with the intention of regime change.

 

[AuH20]

As you have been told before, the Cuban Missile Crisis was entirely precipitated by U.S. interventionism. Specifically, the Crisis was provoked by the emplacement of NATO missiles in Turkey aimed at Moscow and by U.S. attempts to overthrow the Cuban regime (Bay of Pigs, etc.). "We" were NOT just innocently "standing there" doing nothing - only to disover that "we" suddenly had to "deviate" from non-interventionism because the Soviets sent nukes to Cuba for no good reason. The Soviets were doing nothing but responding to the fingers "we" were repeatedly poking in their eyes. If the "true non-interventionist approach" you find so woefully inadequate "ten percent" of the time had actaully been practiced, there never would have beeen a Cuban Missile Crisis in the first place.

Too bad succeeding presidents don't have time machines. But like I earlier said, you can't be paralyzed by "who started it" when doom is perilously occurring in realtime, whether it be the CIA's fault or whomever.

 

[jmdrake]

They are very similar, but Rand isn't dominantly ruled by non-interventionism & the commonplace "who started it" paralysis and frankly, thank god for that. Rand is a non-interventionist, but let's say there was a critical event in the Gulf of Mexico or Panana Canal, Rand wouldn't hesitate as CiC. He's meshed Ron's teachings with his own sense of national responsibility.

Rand is playing politics and anyone who doesn't get that by now is just stupid. Before Rand ran for the U.S. Senate he said that Iran having a nuclear weapon was not a significant threat to the U.S. After running for senate he changed his tune. Was he lying then? Is he lying now? Is he just that fickle? Or is he being pragmatic? I would say he's being pragmatic. And I have no problem with him being pragmatic. Ron was pragmatic too. Since being out of office he's made much more "9/11 truthier" type statements, talking about "false flags" and even going so far as to say WTC 7 was suspicious. Good for him. It's freaking politics. You have to lie, or at least mask your true feelings on some things, to get votes. But pre-emptively going to war over some sense of "national responsibility" is asinine. Number one we can't afford it. Number two somebody can always claim some national interest somewhere in the world. If you want to go fight in Panama I won't get in your way. Just don't ask for my money or my children for your fight.