Rand Paul "neutral" on admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO

[Swordsmyth]

Rand Paul

The U.S. Senate will likely vote this summer on admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO. Prior to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, I have been an automatic “no” on expanding NATO to Russia’s borders. I have seen such expansion as needless provocation.

But Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has changed the world and a realistic view of foreign policy changes as the world does. In this new world, I am less adamant about preventing NATO’s expansion with Sweden and Finland.

More at: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/should-nato-admit-sweden-and-finland/

Ron must be so proud.

 

[WisconsinLiberty]

I'm a little disappointed in Rand Paul for not opposing NATO, but he did throw in a key phrase that's important.

...

But Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has changed the world and a realistic view of foreign policy changes as the world does. In this new world, I am less adamant about preventing NATO’s expansion with Sweden and Finland.

In the coming days I will propose conditions to the treaty stating that Article 5 does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before engaging in hostilities, and that the U.S. will not bear any costs caused by the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO.

...

SOURCE:
The American Conservative Op-Ed: Dr. Rand Paul: Should NATO Admit Sweden and Finland?
https://www.paul.senate.gov/america...and-paul-should-nato-admit-sweden-and-finland

 

[TheTexan]

Rand's foreign policy positions are not very good lately.

 

[tebowlives]

"In the coming days I will propose conditions to the treaty stating that Article 5 does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before engaging in hostilities, and that the U.S. will not bear any costs caused by the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO."

Next time, read the article you linked before throwing Rand under the bus.

 

[tebowlives]

I'm a little disappointed in Rand Paul for not opposing NATO, but he did throw in a key phrase that's important.

...

But Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has changed the world and a realistic view of foreign policy changes as the world does. In this new world, I am less adamant about preventing NATO’s expansion with Sweden and Finland.

In the coming days I will propose conditions to the treaty stating that Article 5 does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before engaging in hostilities, and that the U.S. will not bear any costs caused by the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO.

...

SOURCE:
The American Conservative Op-Ed: Dr. Rand Paul: Should NATO Admit Sweden and Finland?
https://www.paul.senate.gov/america...and-paul-should-nato-admit-sweden-and-finland

Remember it's 3D chess when Donald "I love big government" Trump does it but when Rand does it, he hates the Constitution.

 

[tebowlives]

Rand's foreign policy positions are not very good lately.

Because unlike Trump and the rest of the sellouts, Rand wants to follow the Constitution?

 

[TheTexan]

Because unlike Trump and the rest of the sellouts, Rand wants to follow the Constitution?

If it was purely about following the Constitution, Rand would say it's none of our business what Finland and Sweden does and otherwise keep his opinions about Russia to himself. (Ron's position on Ukraine, basically)

But Rand has chosen to take an active position to label Putin as the aggressor in this conflict, which is both an entirely false and dangerous position to take, and pushes us closer to WW III.

 

[tebowlives]

If it was purely about following the Constitution, Rand would say it's none of our business and otherwise keep his opinions to himself. (Ron's position on Ukraine, basically)

Why don't you think Rand wants us out of NATO anymore?
Do you see that plate of crap with the side of toast? Rands responsible for the side of toast.

But Rand has chosen to take an active position to label Putin as the aggressor in this conflict, which is both an entirely false and dangerous position to take, and pushes us closer to WW III.

Ohh an "active" position. Well then...

Because it's not considered aggressive when Putin attacked Ukraine?

WW3? Really? You get that from Michele Bachmanns playbook?

 

[Champ]

Rand is pathetic here and has abandoned his principles most likely because he was told to do so by the GOP leadership, or he would be punished by having a scandal arise that would ultimately remove him from his Senate seat.

Russia is just the scapegoat rationale, like it is for almost every other thing right now, inflation, gas prices, supply chain, etc. Sad he has used the exact same scapegoat that literally every other neocon, RINO, and globalist Dem has been using for 6 years now. We don't need NATO and should have nothing to do with it, which should be his response to this, just like his father.

If Ron took this approach, it would be absolutely unacceptable and contradictory, and many of us would be unhappy. He warned us for years about the dangers of entangling alliances. His son should be held accountable by the liberty movement and Ron Paul supporters, and thus far I am barely hearing a peep.

 

[69360]

My position is neutral on them joining as well because I think the US should leave NATO. It's past it's usefulness date. Putin has already stated that Russia doesn't oppose them joining so this will not lead to any new conflict if the US has to remain a member.

 

[Swordsmyth]

"In the coming days I will propose conditions to the treaty stating that Article 5 does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before engaging in hostilities, and that the U.S. will not bear any costs caused by the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO."

Next time, read the article you linked before throwing Rand under the bus.

I did.
His proposed conditions will be ignored and he knows it.
His vote will make almost as little difference as his proposed conditions but that doesn't mean he should not vote no.
The worst thing he is doing is not even voting present, the worst thing is taking the anti-Russia, pro-Ukraine, interventionist position rhetorically.
If either side is less bad and less wrong it is Russia and we should be looking to leave NATO not to expand the number of nations we are obligated to defend.
Russia is not our enemy and Ukraine has committed crimes against us in collusion with Biden and his friends.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Remember it's 3D chess when Donald "I love big government" Trump does it but when Rand does it, he hates the Constitution.

Trump didn't expand NATO and even threatened to leave it.
Trump also is not a doctrinaire noninterventionist who was betraying his principles and promises when he did or said anything close to this.

And I would oppose Trump saying anything like this.

 

[tebowlives]

I did.
His proposed conditions will be ignored and he knows it.
His vote will make almost as little difference as his proposed conditions but that doesn't mean he should not vote no.
The worst thing he is doing is not even voting present, the worst thing is taking the anti-Russia, pro-Ukraine, interventionist position rhetorically.
If either side is less bad and less wrong it is Russia and we should be looking to leave NATO not to expand the number of nations we are obligated to defend.
Russia is not our enemy and Ukraine has committed crimes against us in collusion with Biden and his friends.

How do you know which way he is voting?
His proposed conditions for not giving Ukraine money were ignored too. Do you have a point?
Show proof he's taking the anti-Russia, pro-Ukraine, interventionist position stance.

 

[tebowlives]

Trump didn't expand NATO and even threatened to leave it.
Trump also is not a doctrinaire noninterventionist who was betraying his principles and promises when he did or said anything close to this.

And I would oppose Trump saying anything like this.

Oh he threatened to leave, well then. That is something. Is that like how Reagan threatened to cut spending?

You oppose Rand saying, "lets have a conversation"? How in the world is he betraying his principles by making it about the Constitution?

 

[tebowlives]

Rand is pathetic here and has abandoned his principles most likely because he was told to do so by the GOP leadership, or he would be punished by having a scandal arise that would ultimately remove him from his Senate seat.

Prove this or STFU. So every time he has opposed leadership they haven't done that to him but this time they will?

Russia is just the scapegoat rationale, like it is for almost every other thing right now, inflation, gas prices, supply chain, etc. Sad he has used the exact same scapegoat that literally every other neocon, RINO, and globalist Dem has been using for 6 years now. We don't need NATO and should have nothing to do with it, which should be his response to this, just like his father.

or he could engage in a conversation and make it about the Constitution.

If Ron took this approach, it would be absolutely unacceptable and contradictory, and many of us would be unhappy. He warned us for years about the dangers of entangling alliances. His son should be held accountable by the liberty movement and Ron Paul supporters, and thus far I am barely hearing a peep.

because he wants to have a conversation and make it about he Constitution?

 

[TheTexan]

What proof do you have he bought the medias bs on Putin, you drama queen?

He tweeted the below in May. Shows that he bought the media bs in wholesale quantities.

"
While I sympathize with the people of Ukraine, and commend their fight against Putin"

 

[tebowlives]

He tweeted the below in May. Shows that he bought the media bs in wholesale quantities.

"
While I sympathize with the people of Ukraine, and commend their fight against Putin"

rest of the quote - "we cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. Passing this bill brings the total we’ve sent to Ukraine to nearly $54 billion over the course of two months."
Were you expecting Rand to say Ukraine should have just rolled over and not fight? People shouldn't defend themselves? You're seeing too much into this imo.

 

[TheTexan]

rest of the quote - "we cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. Passing this bill brings the total we’ve sent to Ukraine to nearly $54 billion over the course of two months."
Were you expecting Rand to say Ukraine should have just rolled over and not fight? People shouldn't defend themselves? You're seeing too much into this imo.

The beauty of libertarian positions is that you usually arrive at the correct actions, even when youre wrong about everything else.

Rand has arrived at the right conclusion - we should stay put of this, stay out of NATO, definitely not send them weapons. All good.

But at the same time he is taking an unnecessary pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin position.

He's clearly not informed on this conflict, as there is nothing "commendable" about Ukraine's fight against Putin. He has also said there is "no justification" for Putins invasion.

The reason why I even bring this up, is because basically 99% of people have bought into the left's bulllshit about Putin being the aggressor in this conflict. It simply is not true, and that realization, if communicated by someone could at the very least provide some foundation to improve relations with Russia. And if Rand, Massie, and other libertarians wont be this communicator, then who will?

When you're taking the same opinion as George Soros, maybe it's time to reevaluate..

 

[tebowlives]

The beauty of libertarian positions is that you usually arrive at the correct actions, even when youre wrong about everything else.

Rand has arrived at the right conclusion - we should stay put of this, stay out of NATO, definitely not send them weapons. All good.

But at the same time he is taking an unnecessary pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin position.

He's clearly not informed on this conflict, as there is nothing "commendable" about Ukraine's fight against Putin.

The reason why I even bring this up, is because basically 99% of people have bought into the left's bulll$#@! about Putin being the aggressor in this conflict. It simply is not true, and that realization, if communicated by someone could at the very least provide some foundation to improve relations with Russia. And if Rand, Massie, and other libertarians wont be this communicator, then who will?

It is commendable of Ukraine to protect their own borders. I don't recall Ukraine goose stepping into Russia and firing shots.

 

[TheTexan]

It is commendable of Ukraine to protect their own borders. I don't recall Ukraine goose stepping into Russia and firing shots.

Well the thing is, Ukraine isn't protecting their borders. It ceased to be their borders when DPR and LPR seceded from Ukraine.

It even further ceased to be their borders when they began shelling innocent people in DPR and LPR for simply being ethnically Russian.

If you want to use "commendable" and "Ukraine" in the same sentence, it comes with an epic shitload of nuance, as the vast majority of Ukrainians fighting this war are civilian murdering shitbags if not outright nazis. Rand Paul has not demonstrated that he understands this conflict to any significant degree, so when he says "commendable Ukraine" its safe to assume he's lacking the necessary nuance.

For people who understand this conflict, " commendable" is basically the last way you would describe the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians aren't defending their homeland, they are defending their right to continue the systematic genocide of innocent people.