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

[kylejack]

It's not just that Rand is hedging his words more or something; he's flatly more hawkish than Ron, and it isn't good to see.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

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

Yup. 99% of the Wests problems in the middle east stem from WW I and the partitioning of land by the Brits.

 

[Warlord]

It's not just that Rand is hedging his words more or something; he's flatly more hawkish than Ron, and it isn't good to see.

Ron supported an intervention after 9/11 when he voted for the AUMF against terrorists

 

[kylejack]

Ron supported an intervention after 9/11 when he voted for the AUMF against terrorists

Yes, he wanted to go after the people who had killed thousands of Americans in an attack on our soil, not two Americans in Iraq/Syria.

 

[newbitech]

It's not just that Rand is hedging his words more or something; he's flatly more hawkish than Ron, and it isn't good to see.

Rand is not going to do anything without a Constitutional Declaration of War. He's giving his opinion on the matter yes. Quite frankly, I would not sit idly by and watch a bunch of thugs beat the snot out of an old lady on the street corner. That is what ISIS is doing.

So I agree, go kick their asses. But if you want to use the US Military to do it, do it like Rand is saying to do it. Get Constitution authorization. I see nothing wrong with that.

Obviously the USA is responsible for stirring the shit up over there. So the best solution would be to stop stirring the shit up. At least if there is going to be another war of aggression for whatever reason, go through the motions.

This is what I believe Rand's stance is. He has an opinion that if he were in power, he'd want to clobber those thugs known as ISIS. I agree. But he also says we need to have a national debate on the idea of using the military and understand the reasons why things are so FUBAR in the ME. That inevitably leads to the point of understanding that things are so FUBAR because of constantly wanting to clobber those thugs.

So he's just taking the long path to the same action that his dad always advocated. Ron Paul went from point A point B in his foreign policy. It was easy to know that Ron Paul was right if your idea of freedom and liberty was based on common sense. Ron Paul also missed picking up a lot of support because while taking the shortest path from point A to point B is the most efficient route, it also the most difficult route that leaves a lot of people alienated, since most people lack common sense.

Rand Paul is also going from point A to point B in his foreign policy, but he is taking a much longer route. It's more like Rand is going from point A to point C to point D to point X to point F etc... He is picking up support and followers on his way to point B. No, it's not the most efficient route, it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense, but at the end of the day, he is going to the same place and he is carrying much more support with him so that when he arrives, his point is more than just a fancy way to win an argument, but a true foreign policy that the country stands behind spanning from both extremes of the political spectrum.

It makes sense to me what Rand is doing. It is consistent in so far as consider the audience. He doesn't need to convince you or me that the most principled and efficient path to a non-interventionist foreign policy is to stop stirring shit up and withdraw from illegal occupations and shut down unaffordable military housing over seas.

None of that ever happens if the only support Rand has is support from people with common sense. Common sense should tell you that Rand has to be president of people without common sense in order to make ANY point become an official US policy. So good job Rand in expressing an opinion and explaining that your opinion really doesn't matter when it comes to official US foreign policy.

 

[kylejack]

Rand is not going to do anything without a Constitutional Declaration of War. He's giving his opinion on the matter yes. Quite frankly, I would not sit idly by and watch a bunch of thugs beat the snot out of an old lady on the street corner. That is what ISIS is doing.

Ah, the old Woodrow Wilson interventionist canard, "The world must be made safe for democracy." SMH

Like every other war America gets involved in it would expand via mission creep and a lot of innocent civilians would be killed, creating even more enemies of the United States...exactly the kind of thing Ron Paul preaches against.

 

[phill4paul]

Yes, he wanted to go after the people who had killed thousands of Americans in an attack on our soil, not two Americans in Iraq/Syria.

I wonder if there were state department warnings for the areas in which the journalists were seized. Seems, to me, if there were than there is no cause for government intervention. If citizens do not heed warnings then perhaps they don't require government intervention. Speculation on my part. I don't know where they were seized or whether there were warnings.

 

[kylejack]

I'm sure there were severe travel warnings for both countries, but not sure if they were specific to ISIS.

 

[mac_hine]

I think TC's computer has been hijacked by Lindsey Graham honestly. Being logical about this no longer matters. The only thing that matters now is that we drop bombs.

I disagree. The only thing that matters is to blindly support Rand Paul. He's liberty's greatest hope, ya know?

 

[idiom]

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.

Lets support a candidate whose principles only get support from 10% of the electorate!

Seriously people. If you want strict non-interventionist candidates, you need strict non-interventionist electorates. Not the other way around.

After 8 years we have at least moved the populace to be skeptical of bombing everything.

This is how democracy works.

 

[idiom]

I disagree. The only thing that matters is to blindly support Rand Paul. He's liberty's greatest hope, ya know?

Blind support isn't required. The closer we get to the election the more we will find out if the populace is ready for non-intervention or not.

 

[newbitech]

Ah, the old Woodrow Wilson interventionist canard, "The world must be made safe for democracy." SMH

Like every other war America gets involved in it would expand via mission creep and a lot of innocent civilians would be killed, creating even more enemies of the United States...exactly the kind of thing Ron Paul preaches against.

Way to put words in my mouth and probably Rand's too. I am sure most people think that what is going on in the ME is brutal and nasty. That doesn't mean that it's the United States government job to police that. If I had the power to go over into that area of the world and bring all of the killers and rapers to justice, I would not hesitate.

I get that a lot of people are trying to make intervention a dirty word like isolation. It's just a bunch of BS propaganda labels, these words. So what. The truth is obviously somewhere in between.

The fact of the matter is, if the American people want to go to war for ANY reason, they can elect leaders who will give them that war. It just so happens that the law of the land has a procedure for that.

If the president and congress follow that procedure, and in particular follow Rand Paul's idea on how to wage war, I'd find no fault in that from the legal perspective. Doesn't mean I'd support it, doesn't mean I'd like it, but I sure as hell would be proud to be a part of a country that followed it's own laws.

I am fairly certain that the only way any of our opinion matters in the debate of whether or not to continue intervention in the ME is if the law is followed. Chances are, the law won't be followed and it's all moot anyways.

Rand says, here is my opinion, "those people are nasty, I want to crush them, but we need to follow the law." I agree 100%

 

[kylejack]

Way to put words in my mouth and probably Rand's too.

"Quite frankly, I would not sit idly by and watch a bunch of thugs beat the snot out of an old lady on the street corner. That is what ISIS is doing. So I agree, go kick their asses."

Yeeee-haw, Team America: World Police! No thanks.

 

[69360]

I'm fine with this. This is his pragmatic reaction to the current situation. He did not and would not have created the situation we are in now. A lot of you miss that point.

I know RPF like to deal more in political philosophy than practical reality and that's fine. I almost always agree with the philosophies. But the facts here are that the intervention is already underway and in response we have IS killing and threatening Americans. Rand has articulated his response to this current, not his doing, situation.

I hope that if the US does decide to take out IS it is with overwhelming military force and for a short duration. In and out in a month or less. Air power and spec ops should be able to handle this, there is no need for conventional forces. No need for nation building either, we tried that there, it didn't and doesn't work.

 

[newbitech]

"Quite frankly, I would not sit idly by and watch a bunch of thugs beat the snot out of an old lady on the street corner. That is what ISIS is doing. So I agree, go kick their asses."

Yeeee-haw, Team America: World Police! No thanks.

Do people ever take you seriously and listen to your ideas? Just curious, did you read anything else I said or did you just find the color that you wanted to paint with in my words and go nuts with it?

But if you want to use the US Military to do it, do it like Rand is saying to do it. Get Constitution authorization.

 

[69360]

double post

 

[alucard13mm]

I think rand is willing to bomb isis because Obama started it. Because Obama bombed isis, it stirred up the hornet nest. If rand took over now, he would probably keep bombing them (with permission). It's not like isis will ignore us again once rand take office and stop bombing isis.

Rand tailors his response on what he would do based on the current situation, which is what a good leader should do.

 

[kylejack]

Do people ever take you seriously and listen to your ideas? Just curious, did you read anything else I said or did you just find the color that you wanted to paint with in my words and go nuts with it?

I'm not talking about Constitutional authorization. It's good that Rand says he will make war Constitutionally. That doesn't mean every Constitutional war is a good war. This one doesn't measure up to the Just War Theory that Ron Paul and I subscribe to.

 

[Brett85]

This is ridiculous. Exactly how are they going to expand across the world? On foot?

By your criteria, if somebody murders a US citizen in a foreign country, and someone else in the vicinity says something threatening about the USA, this constitutes an imminent attack and we are justified in attacking the region and killing anyone we don't like? Even though the hostile individuals are on the other side of the planet? Your theory does not hold water.

If they took over Iraq and set up their own government, you realize they would get a hold of air planes, correct? Would you even be in favor of military action if ISIS got a hold of a jet airplane and flew across the ocean towards the United States? Or would that be intervention and something we shouldn't do since we have to wait until we're attacked first?

 

[Brett85]

Can you also tell me who they are committing mass genocide to? The Yazidi? You mean the 40,000 that were stuck on a mountain top in Iraq? That actually turned out to be 20,000, that actually turned out to be 10,000 that actually turned out to be 2,000 most of whom were already living there and didn't want to leave?

They're murdering every non Muslim in Iraq, and even some moderate Muslims. They're basically people who just kill indiscriminately. They're truly evil people.