Rand Paul discusses immigration reform, Iran and Benghazi - WMAL Radio 1/31/2013

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Then you basically disagree with everything Ron Paul stood for and believed in.

No, I just don't agree with him on all aspects of foreign policy and national defense. Ron Paul never really thought things out too well on these issues.

Peace through strength is much smarter than peace through weakness. If you tell the enemy you are taking options off the table, that it to their advantage. That doesn't mean you have to follow through on what is on the table, because it is only on the table.

I am not afraid to admit I am a utilitarian when it comes to foreign policy instead of adhering to a somebodies determination of ethics. For example, there are different ideas of what constitutes aggression and so forth.

 

[Brett85]

Pre-emptive war and threatening and bullying other countries has absolutely nothing to do with national defense. I would think that people here would have that figured out by now.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't think it's worth it for Rand to win if he has to adopt full out neo-conservative positions on foreign policy issues.

He hasn't adopted any such positions, and there is no warrant for claiming (or even suggesting) that he has.

His purpose in stating the (blindingly obvious) fact that "pre-emptive war" is "on the table" is to prevent listeners from "pre-emptively" tuning him out and rejecting everything else he has to say.

The people who would have rejected him out of hand if he HAD denounced it (as they rejected Ron when *he* denounced it) will be more willing to listen to what else he has to say about what we *ought* to do.

And what he says we *ought* to do is seek a diplomatic/non-military solution.

So "not openly rejecting it" is NOT the same thing as "embracing & advocating it". That is disappointing to us vocal non-interventionists, but it DOES serve a useful and important purpose.

(And it will be "worth it for Rand to win" if he is in a position to demand that any war vs. Iran be Constitutionally declared - a declaration I strongly suspect he would oppose, if it came down to it. Let us hope that it does not.).

 

[Brett85]

He hasn't adopted any such positions, and there is no warrant for claiming (or even suggesting) that he has.

His purpose in stating the (blindingly obvious) fact that "pre-emptive war" is "on the table" is to prevent listeners from "pre-emptively" tuning him out and rejecting everything else he has to say.

But how exactly is Rand's position on Iran any different from any other Republican? Every Republican says that the military option is "on the table." Nobody says that we should immediately bomb Iran tomorrow.

 

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Pre-emptive war and threatening and bullying other countries has absolutely nothing to do with national defense. I would think that people here would have that figured out by now.

These are just talking points. Preemptive war in itself is not right or wrong, it depends on the situation. If you are neutral Belgium and Germany starts positioning itself for war and it is lashing out against you, you are better off striking the first blow. At a smaller level, if you are in drawdown with somebody in an old west down you do not wait until the other person fires first.

Whether Iran is positioning itself to strike out against the U.S. should be determined before there is any preemptive strike. If not, then you have a situation similar to the Iraq war. And that is why you have Congress declare war, so these deliberations can be made.

I am less concerned with Iran attacking the U.S. than I am North Korea.

 

[phill4paul]

// bah.

 

[Brett85]

These are just talking points. Preemptive war in itself is not right or wrong, it depends on the situation. If you are neutral Belgium and Germany starts positioning itself for war and it is lashing out against you, you are better off striking the first blow. At a smaller level, if you are in drawdown with somebody in an old west down you do not wait until the other person fires first.

Whether Iran is positioning itself to strike out against the U.S. should be determined before there is any preemptive strike. If not, then you have a situation similar to the Iraq war. And that is why you have Congress declare war, so these deliberations can be made.

I am less concerned with Iran attacking the U.S. than I am North Korea.

That's completely different than what Rand was talking about. He said that the military option should be on the table simply to prevent Iran from aquiring a nuclear weapon, not that it should be on the table in the event of an imminent attack. I don't have a problem with the position that we should use military force if another country is actually preparing to attack us, but we should never attack another country just because they're developing a certain weapon and could possibly be a threat to us in the future.

 

[Brett85]

Sorry, I don't like to attack Rand, but this is probably my number one issue, or at least close to it.

 

[SpreadOfLiberty]

That's completely different than what Rand was talking about. He said that the military option should be on the table simply to prevent Iran from aquiring a nuclear weapon, not that it should be on the table in the event of an imminent attack. I don't have a problem with the position that we should use military force if another country is actually preparing to attack us, but we should never attack another country just because they're developing a certain weapon and could possibly be a threat to us in the future.

The whole idea of nuclear weapons makes it tricky though. The damage they do is hard to comprehend. I am leaning on the side of Iran wanting to cause trouble. The only reason there is discussion of attacking them is because they decided to build a nuclear weapon.

So it boils down to whether it is worth the risk or not. I don't think it is for the U.S. It would be for Israel and my advice to them would be to take out their nuclear facilities.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Rand Paul: "I do agree with those who say that all options should be on the table."

In OP video @ 6:37 mark (exact quote):

I think all options are on the table, but I think it's hard to come down with a final conclusion when we don't know exactly what the future brings yet. So, you know, I do agree with those who have said "All options are on the table". Those include military, but those also include diplomatic and I don't think we've exhausted the diplomatic or the sanctions.

"are" - not "should be" ...

 

[Brett85]

Well, my intention isn't to make people upset, so I'll just say that I'm very troubled with Rand's position on this issue and his rhetoric on foreign policy issues as of late. I hope that he changes course and moves towards non intervention.

 

[itshappening]

The whole idea of nuclear weapons makes it tricky though. The damage they do is hard to comprehend. I am leaning on the side of Iran wanting to cause trouble. The only reason there is discussion of attacking them is because they decided to build a nuclear weapon.

So it boils down to whether it is worth the risk or not. I don't think it is for the U.S. It would be for Israel and my advice to them would be to take out their nuclear facilities.

Iran is co-operating with IAEA and has always said they want nuclear as a power source to lessen their dependence on oil.

 

[Occam's Banana]

But how exactly is Rand's position on Iran any different from any other Republican? Every Republican says that the military option is "on the table." Nobody says that we should immediately bomb Iran tomorrow.

You are correct - every other Republican does indeed say that the military option is "on the table" - but that's ALL that they say. They refuse to consider *anything* else. It's all "Iran better hop-to and do exactly as we say ... or else we're gonna bomb the crap out of 'em!" (or words to that effect). No mention of diplomacy. No mention of non-military approaches. Nothing but "bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran" ...

That is how Rand's position is different. He *explicitly* rejects the idea that diplomatic/non-military solutions are not viable or preferrable. By acknowledging that military options *are* on the table (not *should be*, but *are*), he prevents himself from being dismissed as someone who is "soft on Iran". He thereby at least gets a hearing for the diplomatic/non-military approach from people who otherwise would not have listened to him (anymore than they listened to Ron).

Rand is advocating the approach *we* want (peace & diplomacy), while neutrally acknowledging (without acceding to) the approach the Establishment wants.

 

[supermario21]

Watch a Republican debate. You don't think there was much difference? Look at what Frothy would say about Iran. It always seemed as if he was ready to nuke Iran that second.

 

[tsai3904]

Well, my intention isn't to make people upset, so I'll just say that I'm very troubled with Rand's position on this issue and his rhetoric on foreign policy issues as of late.

He's been saying the same thing for years.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Paul-Won-t-Rule-Out-Preemptive-Strike-on-Iran

 

[Brett85]

He's been saying the same thing for years.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Paul-Won-t-Rule-Out-Preemptive-Strike-on-Iran

Then he voted against it, and now he's for it again.

 

[tsai3904]

Then he voted against it, and now he's for it again.

Saying all options are on the table is not an endorsement of preemptive war.

Its like saying marijuana should be legalized is not an endorsement of people using mairjuana.

 

[mz10]

I too disagree with Rand's rhetoric. But I trust that as president, he will not take us to war. So I will wholeheartedly support him if/when he runs. Simple as that.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Watch a Republican debate. You don't think there was much difference? Look at what Frothy would say about Iran. It always seemed as if he was ready to nuke Iran that second.

Not just Santorum. Remember what Bachmann had to say about Iran? (And, hey - at least Santorum cares about teh gheys in Iran). And then there was McCain's insipid & disgusting Beach Boys impersonation ...

How anyone can possibly look at Rand's statements on Iran (rhetorical devices and all) and claim that his position is no different than the Establishment's is beyond me.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Traditional Conservative, I always regarded you to be one of the most pro-Rand members on here, as you ridiculed the Rand haters on the DP. Is it not possible you are pandering for +reps and support from the Rand haters with your recent frequent anti-Rand rhetoric?

I'm "pro-Rand" (I think), but frankly, I am reconsidering my support for him. I can't understand what his strategy is, and I can't go along with this neocon-lite hawkishness lately from him. It's really bothering me.