Rand endorses recent Pakistan drone strikes against Americans

So killing innocent people is OK with Rand if the area is considered a "war zone"? Rand needs some help here, mainly from his dad, because someone is not advising him very well. Rand doesn't appear to have the intellect of his dad at all. That doesn't matter if has the right principles and advisers though, he clearly needs some help before people start comparing him to W.

Only if they are engaged in combat (see video). Rand says that holding another American hostage is considered to be combat. And I agree with him that this should be considered combat. The puzzling thing about what Rand said though is that at the time of the strike there was no knowledge of any hostages being held and there was also no knowledge that one of the Al Qaeda being targeted was an American.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg9G7Mi-5t4
 
Last edited:
That's so not true and it's scary that you don't even realize it. Ron spoke in terms you understand. Rand speaks in terms that small government types understand. While they certainly are different people, they agree on a great many things. What I am telling you is on those things that they absolutely agree on, Ron was booed for the position and Rand was cheered. It's all in how they described it.

We aren't small gov. types?
 
I didn't read the article. I only read some of the quotes. Give me the TL;DR. Is Rand saying that Americans are holding people hostage in Pakistan and the drone strikes killed those Americans? If that is the case, from a public policy standpoint, I would care less if we droned them or bombed them
 
By endorsing this, he's endorsing the idea that this so-called "war" extends anywhere both geographically and temporally. In reality, the so-called war against the perpetrators of 9/11, the 2001 AUMF, should have been declared unconstitutional or at least repealed as soon as we got bin Laden.
 
Back
Top