Rand Paul op-ed: ‘I Am Not an Isolationist’

[JK/SEA]

..

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Ugh. I wish this editorial was just a bad dream. I really don't think I can get behind this.

Let me get this straight: we have to fight a war halfway around the world to defend an embassy that we absolutely don't need? How about we just close the fucking embassy?

It's worse. We have to fight a war to preserve artificial boundary lines the British set up nearly a century ago.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well Ted Cruz was also calling for congressional authorization before those air strikes so in essence, they were both saying the same thing about Syria. He just added in the caveat of wanting to send in "special forces" to destroy the chemical weapons. WITH congressional approval of course....

The difference is that Ted Cruz supported the Syrian intervention, while Rand opposed it. Yes, they're both supporting this intervention, but Rand opposed the other one, Cruz didn't. So Rand is sometimes opposed to intervention, but not always. Ted Cruz seems to pretty much always support the interventions.

Mind you, I'm not saying Rand is "good" here, heck I'm disappointed myself, but at least Rand did oppose intervention in Syria.

I'm still not exactly happy. Admittedly, I do think ISIS is somewhat worse than secular Assad.

how about this...we get Rand elected, and then see how he does?...

got a better idea?...

I'm still supportive of Rand, but why exactly WOULDN'T you take things he says seriously?

 

[kylejack]

You can make the argument that there's an imminent attack likely in this situation. If this situation doesn't qualify as an imminent threat, I'm not sure what would.

Eh, carrier groups moving into our territorial waters, troops massing at our borders? 2 Americans killed is not cause for war.

 

[ctiger2]

I pray that Rand is just telling everyone what he thinks they want to hear.

However, If history is our guide, if elected, Rand will become a destroyer of liberty.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

You realize that ISIS is lopping American heads off, right? Going to congress and presenting a case for war or marque against them, is entirely justified.

Is lopping off American heads an act of war? Is it a justification for war? What if an American is executed in France? Time for war with France?

Is ISIS a nation? Do we know that it was actually ISIS that made that video and cut off off the American heads? That would need to be verified.

Do you know why they were lopping American heads? They did it AFTER Obama's air strikes. The keyword being AFTER. You see, we kill them, they kill us. Tough to understand, I know. After the first journalist died, they said stop the air strikes and they won't kill the second guy but you and your fellow part time non-interventionists kept clamoring for more air strikes for justice and peace. So they killed the second guy and so now you use that as an excuse to go to war. If you want them to stop lopping American heads? Stop bombing them, come home and watch our borders. It isn't that difficult.

Thread winner.

Rand inferred that the justification for war would have something to do with those beheadings:

As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens...

IMHO, that is the weakest part of Rand's argument. Obama started the war by bombing ISIS. He did not go to Congress for approval. The horse is out of the barn now. Obama needed to have this national conversation before starting to bomb.

Using acts of war by the other side as justification to declare war after we already have started a war with them is one huge logical and moral fail.

ISIS was at war with Syria. We encouraged that. It became a problem (for Obama) when they went to war against Iraq. That was the point to have a national and international conversation. And who knows what would come out of that. Hopefully solutions other than just some reckless interventionism and bombing.

But Imperial President Obama doesn't ask for permission from Congress, or attempt to build international consensus. Caesar answers to no one!

Immediately allowing Iraq to break into three Republics would have been one option. That way, the Sunnis of Northern Iraq would fight ISIS as invaders, instead of welcoming them as liberators from the oppression of the central Shiite government. Perhaps an international coalition would help stop ISIS in some way, from diplomatic efforts to aid to possible coalition military efforts. Instead, Obama and friends did the exact opposite, and vainly attempted to hold Iraq together, which made ISIS more strong, and weakened the people who would fight ISIS.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It's worse. We have to fight a war to preserve artificial boundary lines the British set up nearly a century ago.

And that has contributed greatly to the current situation in Iraq.

 

[JK/SEA]

The difference is that Ted Cruz supported the Syrian intervention, while Rand opposed it. Yes, they're both supporting this intervention, but Rand opposed the other one, Cruz didn't. So Rand is sometimes opposed to intervention, but not always. Ted Cruz seems to pretty much always support the interventions.

Mind you, I'm not saying Rand is "good" here, heck I'm disappointed myself, but at least Rand did oppose intervention in Syria.

I'm still not exactly happy. Admittedly, I do think ISIS is somewhat worse than secular Assad.


I'm still supportive of Rand, but why exactly WOULDN'T you take things he says seriously?

i'm to the point in my life where i'm getting to comparing Candidates...especially the ones who have been Presidents, and those that want to. Ideogically, it would be my position to have Ron Paul as Prez...but...what do we have to compare that with?....Huck?...Jeb...?...Romney?...yeah, thats it..ol' Mitt...or Cruz...fun times..

 

[Christian Liberty]

If you start a war, I don't see how you can morally do anything except give up. I mean, can we really "defend ourselves" in a war we started? What the heck is the moral thing to do there?

The only ways I could think of to even conceivably give "us" any moral legitimacy to do anything even in response to any future ISIS "attacks" would be far too radical for even the average person on RPFs to be OK with, let alone the average American.

 

[Christian Liberty]

i'm to the point in my life where i'm getting to comparing Candidates...especially the ones who have been Presidents, and those that want to. Ideogically, it would be my position to have Ron Paul as Prez...but...what do we have to compare that with?....Huck?...Jeb...?...Romney?...yeah, thats it..ol' Mitt...or Cruz...fun times..

I understand that Rand is better than the alternatives. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticized when he says stupid things, which pretty much that entire article was full of.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Am I the only one who thinks Rand is walking a tightrope here?

Strict non-interventionists are pissed because he's sounding very much like the opposite of that.

And non-isolationists still think he's not advocating enough intervention.

 

[JK/SEA]

However, If history is our guide, if elected, Rand will become a destroyer of liberty.

You think Ron's going to help with that?...i mean, it his son, and legacy...family name and all that...

not gonna happen.

 

[bunklocoempire]

 

[bunklocoempire]

I CANNOT fathom why Theye have not come out with "new intelligence" linking the Boston bombings to ISIS. Somebody dropped the ball.

Because it might lead to a discussion of a clear motive?

 

[phill4paul]

Am I the only one who thinks Rand is walking a tightrope here?

Strict non-interventionists are pissed because he's sounding very much like the opposite of that.

And non-isolationists still think he's not advocating enough intervention.

He does walk a thin line. And he is becoming adept at it. Whether or not I can rectify his binary opposition in my own mind and heart is something to consider.

 

[mad cow]

Sorry Rand,I totally disagree with your position here.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Am I the only one who thinks Rand is walking a tightrope here?

Strict non-interventionists are pissed because he's sounding very much like the opposite of that.

And non-isolationists still think he's not advocating enough intervention.

I think in THIS PARTICULAR CASE he's just flat out not advocating intervention. He's far better than the neocons in his positions on Syria and the original Iraq War, and intervention in general, but in THIS PARTICULAR CASE I think he just flat out agrees with the interventionists rather than with Ron Paul (Or at least he's pretending to.) There's no real nuance, he's giving them what they want.

 

[jurgs01]

I think Rand is wrong here. He is obviously trying to throw bones to the more hawkish types while still holding toeing the line to his old opinions. It most likely is being pushed by his staff and all of the private meetings he is having with donors.

Rand was doing just fine holding to his philosophy and ideals, but he obviously thinks this is the path to the presidency. He might be right. The problem I have is that these pressures are going to become more intense if he is elected. What will he do then?

To me, this seems like a reason to continue fighting locally to get more liberty candidates elected. When Rand supports liberty, support him. When he doesn't, voice your opinion. When it comes time to support him for president, do what you think you should to further liberty (vote or don't, support him or don't).

 

[kylejack]

Rand may be better than some other candidates, but I'm still not giving him my support when he's endorsing interventionism. He doesn't deserve it. The risk here is that watering down non-interventionism risks losing the strong moral message: That messing around in the affairs of other nations is wrong.

 

[Brian4Liberty]