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

[jmdrake]

You are the joke amongst jokesters and you're questioning if anyone takes me seriously?

You fail quite considerably in most every thing you mention. You misinterpret and deliberately misrepresent every position in any 'debate' you have held. You recycle tired cliches as if they are an argument and offer nothing with regards to substance. I mean, quite frankly, Matt Collins could have offered me that and I'd be less offended. International lawyers are better sources than you've ever offered. This is just absurd.

You wouldn't get such a response if I had not already responded to you multiple times with some regard to this matter (and if you didn't purposely misrepresent pretty much every single thing you've responded to of mine, as well as your usual nonsense... I could explain a sentence word for word and beg you not to take this to mean that, and what do you do?).

Ron Paul has apologized for, clarified that vote, and accepted responsibility for it... as awful as it was. Rand Paul has defended that vote, as awful as it was. There is a difference.

Ron Paul never apologized for the idea that going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was a noble thing to do. Rather he expressed regret that we didn't really go after Al Qaeda and instead started nation building.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=9672
We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug production and corruption have increased. We close our eyes to it because the reasons we're in Colombia and Afghanistan are denied.

Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Well, you don't want to discuss this in a rational way at all. You just want to stir up the libertarians to abandon Rand Paul or pressure us to pressure him to do something stupid. You bitched at his father for not doing what it takes to win and now you're bitching about the son doing what it takes to win. You've moved from pragmatist to purist just so you can continue bitching uninterrupted.

In partial defense of both people, what jjdoyle's critique is focused on is neither Ron's purity nor Rand's pragmatism, but Paul Inc.'s dishonesty. "Can we trust the same campaign apparatus that has bungled things twice, or was not out to win at all, and cut a secret deal with Romney last time?," is the elephant in the room he keeps pointing to. Truth be told, that is worth complaining about.

No, but I'll say outright that, having not a leg to stand on, you're putting words in my mouth. Build all the straw men you want, but don't hang my name on any of them.

Why, yes, son, it is a radical concept, at least everywhere but here. Are you so dense that you don't see that the Paul one-two punch consisted of Ron Paul introducing a bunch of concepts that worked up until fifty years ago, but have been gone so long people forgot all about them, and Rand Paul not shoving people a more sensible direction but trying to lead them a more sensible direction? You don't need to appeal to people to shove them, but you do to lead them.

We all HOPE Rand is just finessing foreign policy issues to get elected and (on balance) deliver a non-interventionist change in direction, but kcchiefs pointed out both substance and language from several bills Rand voted for that suggests otherwise, and wonders why more people aren't concerned. How do you lead people in the right direction, when they are walking in the opposite direction? How do you lead them in the path, when you seem to be walking with them the wrong way?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Ron Paul never apologized for the idea that going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was a noble thing to do. Rather he expressed regret that we didn't really go after Al Qaeda and instead started nation building.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=9672
We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug production and corruption have increased. We close our eyes to it because the reasons we're in Colombia and Afghanistan are denied.

Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.

Ron Paul has said that knowing now what he does, he would have voted against it.

That's somewhat doesn't cut much as the text of the AUMF was clearly vague and knowing what he did, he should have known it would be abused. It was a bad vote. Much as Rand Paul's votes for sanctions are, his vote for the further subsidization of Israel (including the building of a joint intelligence operation, cyber warfare provisions etc.).

Ron Paul doesn't philosophically beat around the bush, offer wishy washy stances on the matter, and in general support a certain level of intervention. Rand Paul does. Anyone who thinks that he would not vote for airstrikes if the text was limited and clearly defined (when he has explicitly stated he would) is drinking some particularly strong Kool Aid. And anyone who thinks that I would support such a stance in text or spirit, or promote such a stance, clearly has not been around here long enough.

People's issues with Rand Paul's foreign policy are legitimate. I'd much prefer not to have my intelligence insulted or my concerns belittled or even being called a shill for calling Rand Paul out on his bad stances. Who knows, maybe one day he'll change his position? Ron Paul was rather 'hawkish' during the Cold War era, now he is one of the loudest proponents for non-interventionism. Just to state the obvious, it does not make me a "Rand hater" to disagree with a few of his votes or his overall foreign policy, for that matter. He has done much good and is the best Senator in US history.

 

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul doesn't philosophically beat around the bush, offer wishy washy stances on the matter, and in general support a certain level of intervention.

And thus Ron was incapable of winning the nomination / Presidency.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

And thus Ron was incapable of winning the nomination / Presidency.

In 18 months, say by March 2016, we will see if Rand's pragmatic finesse approach works any better, or not. If it's NOT, the movement will have to make a choice going forward about taking the beat around the bush approach, or go back to supporting going with open principle, as per Ron.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So you're going to criticize Rand for supporting a war that Ron voted for, a war that we got involved in as a result of an attack on our soil? I don't think anyone here really takes you seriously at all.

Says the guy who bought into the ISIS propaganda hook, line, & sinker.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Again, you are an absolute joke. No one in their right mind is going to argue that we should be completely pacifist after we get attacked and 3,000 of our people get slaughtered, that we don't have the right to self defense. You are trolling Rand's sub forum and need to leave. You're not a supporter of Rand and are simply wasting everyone's time by posting here. Go away.

Really? Because unlike Ron Paul, Barbara Lee had it right from the beginning. And guess what, she managed to win re-election after her "crazy" lone vote against AUMF.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

And thus Ron was incapable of winning the nomination / Presidency.

And Rand's approach will be victorious? As someone else pointed out earlier, Rand's "going along to get along" approach on foreign policy isn't doing much to separate him from the rest of the Republican pack, aside from Christie or Bush (if they were to run).

 

[supermario21]

And Barbara Lee got death threats and needed extra security after that. I doubt Ron would have had anywhere near the success he had in 08 and 12 (and thus, sparking the movement) if he had voted no like Rep. Lee...

 

[Brett85]

Says the guy who bought into the ISIS propaganda hook, line, & sinker.

I do happen to view them as a threat, unlike many here. But I still understand that they're only a threat because of past U.S policies in the region, such as destabilizing Iraq as a result of our invasion, training and funding ISIS in Syria, and toppling Gaddafi which led to radical extremists taking over Libya. So although I do agree with Rand that ISIS is a threat and that the air strikes against them were necessary, I understand that ISIS rose to power because of too much intervention overseas, not too little. The neocons claim that ISIS rose to power because we didn't have enough intervention overseas.

 

[Brett85]

KCChiefs, I have to apologize to you for what I said about you last night. Even though you're sometimes not exactly civil to me, as a Christian I'm commanded to love those I don't get along with very well. So I apologize for the personal attacks and will delete my comments.

 

[Vanguard101]

You guys really need to stop comparing Ron to Rand. Ron is borderline supremely overrated.

Really? Because unlike Ron Paul, Barbara Lee had it right from the beginning. And guess what, she managed to win re-election after her "crazy" lone vote against AUMF.

Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

 

[jjdoyle]

Your negative rep said:

Yes, the following video you apparently skipped and/or didn't comprehend, addresses Israel's popularity. Since most Americans don't even know about this:

You have time to nitpick Ted Cruz' own claim that his foreign policy opinions are not like Rand Paul's but you have no time to address the points I made above?

Well alrightey then...

#1, your response you whined about me not responding at was full of stupid points, and directed at another user, not me. But, after I saw you whine about your lack of attention from me on it, I addressed it. You clearly showed in your response to my actual response, you didn't even read, or comprehend, it and the video included with it.

Here were some of your stupid points you apparently wanted addressed:

And since this is in line with the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this republic, I am pleased to see him keep this promise.

I haven't seen a poll showing the majority of U.S. citizens support foreign aid to Israel, maybe you can provide one? I did search, but didn't find one reflecting your claim here.
Just because a majority want something, doesn't mean it's the right thing, as history should show us.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.", Mark Twain.
“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”, Leo Tolstoy.
“In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.”, Mahatma Gandhi.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/majority

I found a poll mentioned showing that 81% polled in it supported foreign aid for reducing hunger and extreme poverty, but nothing about Israel or military foreign aid specifically.

And again, if Israel knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and didn't warn us, as the FOX NEWS video says, Israel should not be getting foreign aid.

Rand Paul's position of end all foreign aid, but don't start with Israel's, is the kind of pragmatic principle that his father never expressed, but which voters insist upon.

You are incorrect on Ron not taking or expressing a pragmatic principle. Going for an audit of the Federal Reserve first, though ending it would be the goal. Ron Paul didn't like Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, but he introduced a budget in 2012's race to keep those in place while cutting in other areas.

but somehow he never convinced voters that he knew that difference and he would change his style if elected president. Rand has a right to learn from that mistake, and Rand has a right to choose to fail to repeat that mistake--even if this knowingly trades the support of people like you for dozens or hundreds of times as many voters. I guess he figures you'd just have to get over it.

I was one of many that said Ron Paul could have used a speech coach, to simply help with talking points. He had the best congressional record to run on as a Republican ever, and his presidential campaigns didn't really help deliver that message and record to the voters in better ways. Yes, Ron Paul 2012 ran some great ATTACK ads against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum helping Mitt Romney win the nomination, but it failed to address the ONE BIG AREA holding GOP voters back from Ron Paul, and that was foreign policy.

It's not that Ron didn't have the record for it, it was (and is) simply messaging it so the braindead GOP voters HEAR the words they UNDERSTAND. Repeatedly.

So, the resident Rand haters...

I don't know any resident Rand haters, but maybe you can go talk to them. But this was your biggest STUPID line of your post.

I thought that Rand was supposed to be the better communicator, and that he would be championing constitutional, conservative, foreign policy positions. Instead of taking his father's constitutional conservative record and running with it, he is now moving more towards the positions of Ted Cruz, John McCain, and others in certain areas of foreign policy. Sanctions. Supporting airstrikes on ISIS. Foreign aid to a country that apparently knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, and didn't warn us.

I think Rand needs to get a speech coach to help him tailor talking points to the GOP braindead base. I listen to most of his interviews and videos, and he is missing them in very key areas. He has some talking points, and he might be saving others for the race, but I don't see it from many things and now votes.

I understand 100% HOW Rand is going to get attacked in the 2016 race, assuming he runs, and I have shared it with a few around here. And I understand that's why he is taking certain positions now, but in doing so, he's becoming more like them with less differences between them.



And, I don't care if you have a 7 point rep, or a 100 point rep. It won't deter me from seeking truth, and promoting better ways. I can't help it that you posted something stupid, and then whined I didn't address it, because I was talking about another point with another member.

 

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul has said that knowing now what he does, he would have voted against it.

Right. Because we didn't actually do what he voted for us to do which was to go in and get Osama Bin Laden. OBL was allowed to escape through Tora Bora into Pakistan because the Bush administration denied requests by CIA on the ground to drop troops behind him to cut off his escape. Then after OBL was allowed to leave we turned the invasion into an occupation and a nation building crusade. That's not what Ron Paul was voting for. Had the mission focused solely on getting OBL, and had it ended immediately after it was clear OBL was no longer in the country, Ron Paul may not have regretted his vote. Come on. Compare apples to apples.

That's somewhat doesn't cut much as the text of the AUMF was clearly vague and knowing what he did, he should have known it would be abused. It was a bad vote. Much as Rand Paul's votes for sanctions are, his vote for the further subsidization of Israel (including the building of a joint intelligence operation, cyber warfare provisions etc.).

Well if ^that is your argument then Rand is currently better than Ron on this issue as Rand hasn't voted to give authorization to bomb ISIS. He's just stated he's in favor of bombing ISIS. Ron was in favor of attacking Al Qaeda. He doesn't regret that Al Qaeda was attacked. He regrets that Al Qaeda wasn't focused on as promised and that the campaign became one of nation building.

Ron Paul doesn't philosophically beat around the bush, offer wishy washy stances on the matter, and in general support a certain level of intervention. Rand Paul does. Anyone who thinks that he would not vote for airstrikes if the text was limited and clearly defined (when he has explicitly stated he would) is drinking some particularly strong Kool Aid. And anyone who thinks that I would support such a stance in text or spirit, or promote such a stance, clearly has not been around here long enough.

And Ron, by your own admission, voted for attacks against Al Qaeda that weren't limited and clearly defined. Make no bones about it. ISIS is Al CIAda re-branded. If it was okay to have "limited well defined" strikes against Al Qaeda in 2002, why is it wrong for that now? Granted I'm not a fan of the strikes. But that's because I think this is all contrived anyway. Rand can't afford to take the position I have.

People's issues with Rand Paul's foreign policy are legitimate. I'd much prefer not to have my intelligence insulted or my concerns belittled or even being called a shill for calling Rand Paul out on his bad stances. Who knows, maybe one day he'll change his position? Ron Paul was rather 'hawkish' during the Cold War era, now he is one of the loudest proponents for non-interventionism. Just to state the obvious, it does not make me a "Rand hater" to disagree with a few of his votes or his overall foreign policy, for that matter. He has done much good and is the best Senator in US history.

Oh I agree. I'm probably the first Ron Paul supporter to ever express any doubt about Rand. But to ignore the fact that Ron supported strikes against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and to conflate his regret to some kind of "Never ever ever strike at terrorists anywhere no matter what" position is a bit disingenuous.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

 

[acptulsa]

Oh well. Go Royals.

And Chiefs. We can at least agree on that.

I'm on board.

And the Chiefs are, too!

 

[devil21]

If the trolling in this thread (mod edit) is any indication, the Zionists are very worried about the impact of this speech. Spread the video around!

edit: troll list in this thread removed from my post by admin.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why the obsession with Israel? We give foreign aid to a lot more countries than just Israel, but yet your obsession is with the foreign aid that we give to Israel. This is one reason why social conservatives and evangelicals are so skeptical of the liberty movement, because you have a lot of people who appear to take much more of an anti Israel point of view rather than a neutral point of view.

Those social conservatives who think Israel is "God's chosen nation" and practically think the US is as well cannot be helped. They will never join with us. We have to win without them.

Those who more support Israel for pragmatic reasons (ie. "only democracy in the Middle East" and so forth) should know the bad things that Israel is doing. No, I'm not denying that Israel is a better place to live than Iran. But they aren't exactly best buddies with Christians, and they have done wrong things in the Palestinian conflict as well.

I agree that Israeli government shouldn't be singled out in the sense that I want to cut off foreign aid for everybody, not just Israel. But our alliance with Israel is hurting our relations with the rest of the Middle East, and it is frankly bad for the United States. And Israel isn't exactly a saint of a nation either. So, I don't really see anything wrong with anti-Israel rhetoric as long as its not ridiculous and over the top. No other nation gets as much American help in that region as Israel does.

 

[philipped]

Israel supposedly knew about 9/11, didn't tell us and people are literally crying about making sure that they still get foreign aid??? This can't be real life...

 

[twomp]

You guys really need to stop comparing Ron to Rand. Ron is borderline supremely overrated.



Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

That post pretty much flew over your head huh? Barbara Lee was the ONLY person who voted against the AUMF. Do you know what that is? That is the reason the video was shown. You, showing your inability to understand the post somehow decided to turn that post into a racist comment. Way to show your ignorance.