Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades

[Occam's Banana]

Let's say in 1 year, we don't care about civilian casaulties. We kill 100,000 innocent people to defeat/kill our enemy during that year, but we achieve victory. I think that is way better than being very careful, and maybe kill 1,000 civilians a year for the next 10 years (10,000 total). WHY? Would you want to live in constant fear for the next 10 years? Worrying about getting droned or airstriked. Worrying about "terrorists" setting road bombs meant for the invading force, but instead you or a love one get's killed by accident by the road bomb? I know we don't deliberately target civlians, but we shouldn't worry about them too much.

Living in fear for 1 year or Living in fear for 10 years? Your pick.

Sounds great! What about the part where after that 1 year is over, you would have created even MORE enemies for yourself. Do you think 100,000 people can go missing without anyone noticing or wanting revenge? Actions have consequences. You seem to have forgotten to discuss about the consequences part. Unless you are talking about outright genocide. Kill every last one of them on earth. But then again, I'm sure there will be blow back from that as well.

I will never understand people who think they can sanely do utilitarian "calculus" when it comes to killing innocents (especially the ones who are able to twist themselves into imagining that it's really what "you" would want if "you" were one of the innocents).

 

[Brett85]

I say bring it on if the Democrats want to take the neocon/warmongering position on foreign policy against Rand. Rand will clean their clock and completely transform the political landscape.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-makes-his-case-foreign-policy

Democrats, preparing for a likely run by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are already signaling that they’ll use Paul’s foreign policy pronouncements over the years to portray him as an isolationist kook. “Paul’s been clear about his goal: he wants to see America retreat from our responsibilities around the world,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin said in a statement before Paul’s speech. “That includes support for a fringe proposal to end our membership in the United Nations, ending all aid to our allies like Israel and slashing programs that help developing nations combat major public health crises.”

 

[jjdoyle]

There isn't a single other Republican who's going to be running in 2016 who even has a remotely decent foreign policy, from what I can see. Rand is going to be on his own in promoting a foreign policy that isn't just completely belligerent.

Ted Cruz? How do Rand and Ted differ on foreign policy now, in actual VOTES? Same with Mike Huckabee? Ben Carson? Even Chris Christie? The neo-cons have co-opted EVERYTHING since President Obama was elected, and are acting all (fake) conservative now.

The voters are ignorant, and don't think. They do as instructed by the media figures they watch and listen to. And, I don't see anything to show me that the media is on "our" side.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

This one's worth spreading around. In fact, this will be my response to everyone I hear calling a non-interventionalist an 'isolationist'.

Rand Paul is not a non-interventionist.

 

[Brett85]

Ted Cruz? How do Rand and Ted differ on foreign policy now, in actual VOTES? Same with Mike Huckabee? Ben Carson? Even Chris Christie? The neo-cons have co-opted EVERYTHING since President Obama was elected, and are acting all (fake) conservative now.

The voters are ignorant, and don't think. They do as instructed by the media figures they watch and listen to. And, I don't see anything to show me that the media is on "our" side.

Cruz is much more hawkish towards Iran and won't say whether or not it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Rand has said that the Iraq War was a huge mistake and is also much more supportive of diplomacy with Iran than Cruz. Cruz wants to blow up the negotiations and impose new sanctions on them immediately and possibly attack them. Rand also has made it clear recently that he ultimately supports phasing out all foreign aid, while Cruz has said that we should increase aid to Israel. That's probably just a start.

 

[jjdoyle]

Cruz is much more hawkish towards Iran and won't say whether or not it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Rand has said that the Iraq War was a huge mistake and is also much more supportive of diplomacy with Iran than Cruz. Cruz wants to blow up the negotiations and impose new sanctions on them immediately and possibly attack them. Rand also has made it clear recently that he ultimately supports phasing out all foreign aid, while Cruz has said that we should increase aid to Israel. That's probably just a start.

Saying and doing. What difference in votes do they have? Rand voted for MORE foreign aid to Israel, just like very other Senator.
Rand talked about blowback, but ignores ONE of the THREE main reasons given for the attack on 9/11 by voting for MORE aid to Israel?

Rand talked about a bankrupt nation in this, and voted for MORE foreign aid to Israel?

Rand needs a speech coach IMO that gives him better talking points on foreign policy, and that doesn't RUN from what his dad's CONSTITUTIONAL position was.
Foreign aid to Israel. Sanctions on Russia. Supporting airstrikes on ISIS/ISIL/CIA-DUH.

Ben Carson was against Iraq, and apparently even against going into Afghanistan:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/19/ben-carsons-most-surprising-policy-positions/

So no, if someone like Carson or Cruz run in 2016, Rand won't be the only Republican that

"even has a remotely decent foreign policy"

.

At least on paper. Which is why he needs to separate himself from others, and he hasn't been doing that, especially with the things I listed above.

 

[Brett85]

There aren't hardly any votes in the Senate anymore, since Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate and doesn't allow votes on hardly anything.

There was no roll call vote on foreign aid to Israel. There was a bill that passed by voice vote, which means that Rand didn't object to it. It would've been absolutely pointless since no other Senator would've voted against it.

He's also said that we should cut and end foreign aid to countries that are hostile to us and then phase out foreign aid to Israel over time. So even if he voted for temporary foreign aid to Israel, that wouldn't go against his position that we should eventually phase out foreign aid to Israel as well.

 

[jjdoyle]

There aren't hardly any votes in the Senate anymore, since Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate and doesn't allow votes on hardly anything.

There was no roll call vote on foreign aid to Israel. There was a bill that passed by voice vote, which means that Rand didn't object to it. It would've been absolutely pointless since no other Senator would've voted against it.

He's also said that we should cut and end foreign aid to countries that are hostile to us and then phase out foreign aid to Israel over time. So even if he voted for temporary foreign aid to Israel, that wouldn't go against his position that we should eventually phase out foreign aid to Israel as well.

But Rand said it himself that he voted for more foreign aid to Israel, so he voted "Yea" in the vote. He said it from his own mouth. And if it is absolutely pointless to vote "Nay", because everybody else is voting "Yea", we might as well call their oath to the Constitution pointless as well. Because we know 98%+ of them don't even consider the Constitution when voting and don't actually read the bills.

The reason for voting "Nay", is because then you are principled. You can point to the $17+ trillion of debt, and say that is your reason. Rand can't do that, because he's "playing the game". It's beyond ridiculous.

Perhaps Rand should have done like Ron, and suggested, or even introduced a bill in the Senate, where the Senators could donate their salaries to Israel for the next 6 years, instead of tax payers having to pay for lousy Senators AND foreign aid. Israel would still get $51,000,000, and it would be coming from the 50 people in DC that love it so much more than you and me, and the U.S. Constitution that they took an oath to.

At least then I would be somewhat happy knowing my Senators might actually have to work to support their families, and maybe spend time away from DC doing so, doing less harm to the country.

 

[Michael Landon]

Tube?

- ML

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Tube?

- ML

Transcript:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...aul-gives-foriegn-policy-address-(transcript)

 

[Crashland]

But Rand said it himself that he voted for more foreign aid to Israel, so he voted "Yea" in the vote. He said it from his own mouth. And if it is absolutely pointless to vote "Nay", because everybody else is voting "Yea", we might as well call their oath to the Constitution pointless as well. Because we know 98%+ of them don't even consider the Constitution when voting and don't actually read the bills.

The reason for voting "Nay", is because then you are principled. You can point to the $17+ trillion of debt, and say that is your reason. Rand can't do that, because he's "playing the game". It's beyond ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous to do what you have to do to become the president? Rand votes Nay and he loses 10 votes in the primary for every 1 vote he gains.

 

[jjdoyle]

Why is it ridiculous to do what you have to do to become the president? Rand votes Nay and he loses 10 votes in the primary for every 1 vote he gains.

I see no evidence Rand will gain 10 votes for this. If TPTB know he is playing the game, the media follows a script, and he can't separate himself from Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Ben Carson on foreign policy, he's not gaining many voters.

I understand WHY he is doing it, and it goes back to 2012's campaign and how Mitt Romney's campaign threatened to destroy Ron Paul's legacy. But, I don't see it as a benefit, because I don't see the average GOP voter as one that thinks. So, by going along to get along, he's just like the rest with little separation.

 

[puppetmaster]

But Rand said it himself that he voted for more foreign aid to Israel, so he voted "Yea" in the vote. He said it from his own mouth. And if it is absolutely pointless to vote "Nay", because everybody else is voting "Yea", we might as well call their oath to the Constitution pointless as well. Because we know 98%+ of them don't even consider the Constitution when voting and don't actually read the bills.

The reason for voting "Nay", is because then you are principled. You can point to the $17+ trillion of debt, and say that is your reason. Rand can't do that, because he's "playing the game". It's beyond ridiculous.

Perhaps Rand should have done like Ron, and suggested, or even introduced a bill in the Senate, where the Senators could donate their salaries to Israel for the next 6 years, instead of tax payers having to pay for lousy Senators AND foreign aid. Israel would still get $51,000,000, and it would be coming from the 50 people in DC that love it so much more than you and me, and the U.S. Constitution that they took an oath to.

At least then I would be somewhat happy knowing my Senators might actually have to work to support their families, and maybe spend time away from DC doing so, doing less harm to the country.

utopia does not exist for us or them......

 

[HVACTech]

Rand Paul is not a non-interventionist.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Supporting bombing an organization that poses no existential threat to America under the auspices of protecting by and large ticks, in a region where their "vatican" insults the population each day it remains, in the country which was turned to ruins in an earlier fit of shortsighted policy, is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting the undying subsidization of Israel, a joint cyber warfare and data collection facility, and as well reaffirming that Israel will remain a focal point of American foreign policy is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting sanctions against various countries is hardly non-interventionist.

The list, if I cared to compile it, would go on and on. "Non-interventionist" is more than simply being less hawkish than your counterparts with regards to foreign policy (just so you are aware).

 

[twomp]

Supporting bombing an organization that poses no existential threat to America under the auspices of protecting by and large ticks, in a region where their "vatican" insults the population each day it remains, in the country which was turned to ruins in an earlier fit of shortsighted policy, is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting the undying subsidization of Israel, a joint cyber warfare and data collection facility, and as well reaffirming that Israel will remain a focal point of American foreign policy is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting sanctions against various countries is hardly non-interventionist.

The list, if I cared to compile it, would go on and on. "Non-interventionist" is more than simply being less hawkish than your counterparts with regards to foreign policy (just so you are aware).

I agree. I think the term "part-time interventionist" is a better fit.

 

[Vanguard101]

You guys don't know what non-interventionism means. Sigh.

 

[Matt Collins]

Supporting bombing an organization that poses no existential threat to America under the auspices of protecting by and large ticks, in a region where their "vatican" insults the population each day it remains, in the country which was turned to ruins in an earlier fit of shortsighted policy, is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting the undying subsidization of Israel, a joint cyber warfare and data collection facility, and as well reaffirming that Israel will remain a focal point of American foreign policy is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting sanctions against various countries is hardly non-interventionist.

The list, if I cared to compile it, would go on and on. "Non-interventionist" is more than simply being less hawkish than your counterparts with regards to foreign policy (just so you are aware).

You should learn the difference between rhetoric and policy.

 

[Brett85]

I see no evidence Rand will gain 10 votes for this. If TPTB know he is playing the game, the media follows a script, and he can't separate himself from Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Ben Carson on foreign policy, he's not gaining many voters.

Saying that there's no difference between Rand and Cruz, Huckabee, and Carson on foreign policy is simply ridiculous. You don't see the neocons criticizing those guys the way they do Rand. The only Republican who is a threat to them is Rand. I already pointed out how Rand's foreign policy is quite a bit different from theirs, but whatever.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand Paul is not a non-interventionist.

I feel its just the opposite. Rand is a lot more of a non-interventionist than he lets on. You'll see it when it's him against Hillary in the general.