Rand Paul Exclusive: Arm the Kurds To Battle ISIS and Reward Them With Kurdistan

[AuH20]

Well done, King Solomon. Well done. Cut off the warmongers before they can get started.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...e-isis-and-radical-islam-give-them-kurdistan/

I think they would fight like hell if we promised them a country. It’s a little easier to say than it is to actually make it happen, because in order to actually draw a new country you’d have to have the complicity of Turkey and probably Iraq a little bit as well. There really is no Syria to be complicit with, but there is just a little piece of Syria—Kobani and in there is predominantly Kurdish. I think if you did that and could get piece between the Kurds and the Turks, and then the Turks would actually fight if the Kurds would give up any claim to Turkish territory.

There’s a thousand year war between Sunni and Shia. There’s a more recent war between radical Islam and civilized Islam and between radical Islam and the West. But it’s all about religion and has to do with different religious sects.

If you don’t understand the religion, then you won’t be able to get a solution. So for example Mosul is predominantly, vastly Sunni Muslim. No Shia army is going to be able to occupy and control Mosul. It’s going to need to be Sunni.

When people say boots on the ground, I agree—there need to be Arab boots on the ground. And they need to be able to recognize the religious part of the conflict and there can’t just be Arab boots on the ground they need to be Arab Sunni boots on the ground to take back the areas that are predominantly Sunni.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

"There really is no Syria to be complicit with,"

Maybe it seems so at the moment, but you might want to consider Syria in any Nation Building exercise that includes a portion of their borders.

 

[The Gold Standard]

This is infinitely more despicable than signing that letter. There really is no way to excuse calling for this.

 

[AuH20]

This is infinitely more despicable than signing that letter. There really is no way to excuse calling for this.

So you're in favor of U.S. troops? I hate to be the bearer of bad news.

 

[The Gold Standard]

So you're in favor of U.S. troops? I hate to be the bearer of bad news.

I am? Maybe you can cite where I said that.

 

[AuH20]

I am? Maybe you can cite where I said that.

I'm just stating, it's either/or at this point. The true 'non-interventionist' argument left the building when the CIA and Saudis were allowed to grow ISIS into a destabilizing force.

At this point, you either let the usual suspects dictate the terms or you formulate the best counter-option. Rand, formulated the alternative to direct U.S. involvement. You may disagree, but I'm just laying out the playing field.

 

[LawnWake]

Yeah, a foreign body promising a piece of land in the Middle East to a people without a country has worked out great before. Go Rand!

I'm just stating, it's either/or at this point. The true 'non-interventionist' argument left the building when the CIA and Saudis were allowed to grow ISIS into a destabilizing force.

At this point, you either let the usual suspects dictate the terms or you formulate the best counter-option. Rand, formulated the alternative to direct U.S. involvement. You may disagree, but I'm just laying out the playing field.

Arming the Kurds is one thing. Promising them a country is insanity and completely unnecessary.

 

[The Gold Standard]

I'm just stating, it's either/or at this point. The true 'non-interventionist' argument left the building when the CIA and Saudis were allowed to grow ISIS into a destabilizing force.

At this point, you either let the usual suspects dictate the terms or you formulate the best counter-option. Rand, formulated the alternative to direct U.S. involvement. You may disagree, but I'm just laying out the playing field.

Rand formulated his vision of direct U.S. involvement, not an alternative, and no matter what there will be U.S. troops fighting over there. That doesn't mean I will get behind the U.S. taking my money again to install another puppet government over there, and send people to die defending it. ISIS is no threat to us. There is no reason to get involved at all.

 

[mosquitobite]

If you haven't yet read this piece, I **HIGHLY** recommend it. Actually, I can't recommend it enough to those of us on RPF. I am a believer in the NAP. I despise war and despise that American troops lives and taxes pay for warmongers bloodthirst.

But we must also seek to UNDERSTAND what is going on there. And Rand is actually 100% correct. ISIS is in power because they control territory and they have declared a caliphate. If you don't know what that is, and what it means - you can't truly understand the foreign policy issues over there. Sorry. You just CAN'T!

 

[Vanguard101]

Kurds literally lost the land they had in the past. They might as well regain it.

 

[The Gold Standard]

They can declare it whatever they want. They would have no money or arms if the U.S. didn't give it to them, and they would have no support if the U.S. wasn't killing all of their relatives, destroying their property, and impoverishing them. Carving out a new puppet state isn't going to solve any of that. It will just create new enemies and you will have U.S. troops protecting the new Kurdistan for decades to come. Just bring everyone home. God I wish Ron was 20 years younger.

 

[supermario21]

Rand should just encourage Kurdish secession and that we should recognize them immediately to grant the state some sort of legitimacy.

 

[brandon]

Man. I'm probably not voting in 2016.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand should just encourage Kurdish secession and that we should recognize them immediately to grant the state some sort of legitimacy.

Yeah, that is the best way to go about this. A "unified" Iraq is a dismal failure. Recognize the autonomous Kurdistan indepedence from Southern Iraq. And as Rand infers with Mosul, allow the resident Sunnis to have their own, non-ISIS nation. Let Iraq break into it's three states rather than continue to actively enforce a single Iraq.

So for example Mosul is predominantly, vastly Sunni Muslim. No Shia army is going to be able to occupy and control Mosul. It’s going to need to be Sunni.

 

[jmdrake]

Well I heard a local right wing talk show host propose this a couple of weeks ago so it already has traction. Of course simply cutting off ISIS funding sources and ending the isolation of Assad would just make too much sense.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

They can declare it whatever they want. They would have no money or arms if the U.S. didn't give it to them, and they would have no support if the U.S. wasn't killing all of their relatives, destroying their property, and impoverishing them. Carving out a new puppet state isn't going to solve any of that. It will just create new enemies and you will have U.S. troops protecting the new Kurdistan for decades to come. Just bring everyone home. God I wish Ron was 20 years younger.

They have already declared. All it takes is our recognition of it. Up until now, the US is actively doing everything it can to prevent Iraq from breaking up. We need to stop interfering.

And we should not be giving them aid. Sell them arms for oil. No US troops.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm just stating, it's either/or at this point. The true 'non-interventionist' argument left the building when the CIA and Saudis were allowed to grow ISIS into a destabilizing force.

At this point, you either let the usual suspects dictate the terms or you formulate the best counter-option. Rand, formulated the alternative to direct U.S. involvement. You may disagree, but I'm just laying out the playing field.

It costs ISIS millions to maintain their little caliphate. Millions they wouldn't have if the Kurds and the Syrians and the Turks weren't buying oil from them and if the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and the Qataris weren't holding Muslim bake sales for them. Cut off the funding, end the sanctions against Assad, end support for all Syrian rebels, ISIS disappears in a year tops.

 

[jmdrake]

They have already declared. All it takes is our recognition of it. Up until now, the US is actively doing everything it can to prevent Iraq from breaking up. We need to stop interfering.

And we should not be giving them aid. Sell them arms for oil. No US troops.

Ummmm....the Kurds are buying oil from ISIS. So....how are they going to sell oil to us? By buying it from ISIS?

 

[jmdrake]

Really, am I the only one on the planet that sees that ISIS could easily be stopped by cutting off their funding?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ummmm....the Kurds are buying oil from ISIS. So....how are they going to sell oil to us? By buying it from ISIS?

I hadn't heard about that. Which Kurds? Any links?