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

[Brett85]

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.

Hardcore hawks and neoconservatives won't like Rand until he supports war with every country and probably a mass genocide of all the world's Muslims. These people are truly insane, monstrous people.

 

[Brett85]

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.

So we should use military action when thousands of Americans are killed, but not two? What exactly is the magic number of Americans that have to be killed before we can respond with military force?

 

[twomp]

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.

Again more remarks from you with no actual basis. Here let me help you again with this but I doubt it will do much. It is just like trying to convince those "conservatives" about how the Iraq war was a bad idea. No matter how many facts you throw at them. They just keep on clinging to what the tv tells them. This time it's you doing it. Logic and reasoning no longer apply to you.

BAGHDAD — By 1 p.m. on Friday almost every Christian in Mosul had heard the Sunni militants’ message — they had until noon Saturday to leave the city.

Men, women and children piled into neighbors’ cars, some begged for rides to the city limits and hoped to get taxis to the nearest Christian villages. They took nothing more than the clothes on their backs, according to several who were reached late Friday.

See that they were given an opportunity to leave. They were not murdered. They are not committing genocide to non-muslims. Email Sean Hannity and ask him how you should reply to this.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/w...last-iraqi-christians-to-flee-mosul.html?_r=0

 

[twomp]

So we should use military action when thousands of Americans are killed, but not two? What exactly is the magic number of Americans that have to be killed before we can respond with military force?

If we kill them first, we should expect them to retaliate. Have you heard of blowback? Why aren't you calling for the bombing of Chechnya? They bombed us on OUR soil. That would make much more sense. Oh wait, you are waiting for the television to tell you that we should bomb Chechnya right? Please prove me wrong and provide me with a post of yours claiming we should bomb Chechnya. Show me you are consistent on this and not just listening to the television.

 

[Brett85]

Yeah, isn't that nice of them. They gave them the choice of either leaving their homes, their belongings, and everything they had, or else get brutally murdered. Such nice people.

 

[Brett85]

If we kill them first, we should expect them to retaliate. Have you heard of blowback? Why aren't you calling for the bombing of Chechnya? They bombed us on OUR soil. That would make much more sense. Oh wait, you are waiting for the television to tell you that we should bomb Chechnya right? Please prove me wrong and provide me with a post of yours claiming we should bomb Chechnya. Show me you are consistent on this and not just listening to the television.

The Boston bombing was a home grown terrorist attack. There wasn't anything we could do in response militarily since we weren't attacked by a foreign terrorist group. As far as I know Chechnya didn't have anything to do with the attack in Boston.

 

[twomp]

Yeah, isn't that nice of them. They gave them the choice of either leaving their homes, their belongings, and everything they had, or else get brutally murdered. Such nice people.

I don't think they are nice people. I just don't think people like you should be spreading lies about genocide to get our nation into another war.

 

[twomp]

The Boston bombing was a home grown terrorist attack. There wasn't anything we could do in response militarily since we weren't attacked by a foreign terrorist group. As far as I know Chechnya didn't have anything to do with the attack in Boston.

They were trained in Chechnya. We were warned by Russian intelligence that they were. Do you even know what homegrown means? If those "homegrown" terrorist were trained by ISIS, you would be calling for nuclear war right now.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, isn't that nice of them. They gave them the choice of either leaving their homes, their belongings, and everything they had, or else get brutally murdered. Such nice people.

I don't think anyone is saying that they are nice people. But, I would think that "leave or die" is still somewhat better than just "die". Don't you?

Ultimately it doesn't matter though. ISIS is full of monsters. Intervention is still wrong.

 

[phill4paul]

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

Cripes!

Foley, 40, was working in Syria for the Boston-based news Web site Global*Post when he disappeared on Thanksgiving in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...e83970-27e6-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

and...

An American college graduate from Boston, who has been on the run from the FBI for years, is suspected of joining ISIS and leveraging his computer skills to spread the Iraqi terror group’s propaganda on social media, a senior law enforcement official told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...erican-may-be-key-in-isis-social-media-blitz/

 

[Brett85]

I don't think they are nice people. I just don't think people like you should be spreading lies about genocide to get our nation into another war.

It's just the truth. They've slaughtered thousands of people. I'm also not saying that we should go to war solely for humanitarian reasons. I'm opposed to humanitarian wars. I'm only advocating military action now because I believe that a group of people that have declared war against the U.S are a threat to our security. I just mentioned the genocide to point out that there's absolutely nothing immoral about killing these people, because they commit brutal acts of aggression against others.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So we should use military action when thousands of Americans are killed, but not two? What exactly is the magic number of Americans that have to be killed before we can respond with military force?

I think the real issue is "on our soil." Not how many. The US Military should not make it its goal to protect its citizens from foreign governments where those citizens choose to be under the authority (even temporarily) of those foreign governments.

9/11 happened on our soil, so we had a right to do something about it. I don't think invading Afghanistan was the right answer though.

 

[Brett85]

I think the real issue is "on our soil." Not how many. The US Military should not make it its goal to protect its citizens from foreign governments where those citizens choose to be under the authority (even temporarily) of those foreign governments.

I'm not really saying that killing Americans overseas is enough in itself to justify military action. I'm just saying that when you combine that with everything else that's happened, ISIS represents a direct threat to U.S national security, and this is a rare instance where I support authorizing military action. (Just air strikes, no ground troops)

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not really saying that killing Americans overseas is enough in itself to justify military action. I'm just saying that when you combine that with everything else that's happened, ISIS represents a direct threat to U.S national security, and this is a rare instance where I support authorizing military action. (Just air strikes, no ground troops)

Why your question about "how many" then?

ISIS isn't a threat. I don't see how they could be, when they can't even take over all of Iraq.

 

[Brett85]

Why your question about "how many" then?

ISIS isn't a threat. I don't see how they could be, when they can't even take over all of Iraq.

I don't know. I guess you answered my question with your answer about the attack needing to be on America itself. Don't you think that part of the reason they haven't yet taken over Iraq is that President Obama decided to launch air strikes? (I'm not saying I agree with him doing that unilaterally. I think he should've gone to Congress and gotten authorization)

 

[presence]

I think the real issue is "on our soil." Not how many. The US Military should not make it its goal to protect its citizens from foreign governments where those citizens choose to be under the authority (even temporarily) of those foreign governments.

Bingo. If it didn't happen on our soil, territorial waters, airspace, or internally in our embassies abroad. NONE OF OUR MILITARY'S BUSINESS. Solve it diplomatically. If it cannot be solved diplomatically, drop names and issue marque.

THAT is defence. Chasing demons for retribution in lands far away is offense.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Why your question about "how many" then?

ISIS isn't a threat. I don't see how they could be, when they can't even take over all of Iraq.

They have taken over a significant part of both Iraq and Syria. They have 100k fighters or so, they have finances. I don't see why they would have to take over all of Iraq before they could be a threat. They are not a small organization anymore. The lucky thing that 'we' have going is that nobody seems to like them. Which in my opinion is a good way to at least get countries that don't have very good diplomatic relations just a tiny bit closer together. (just for clarification, I am of course in favor of voting on these matters)

 

[Libertea Party]

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%

The public is usually against intervention and Congress more or less follows suit. What drives the debate is the President and the case that is made for intervening. I'd rather have Rand Paul and his appointees at the CIA, DOD etc analyzing the situation than the hacks that Clinton/Bush will have as "expert" witnesses.

Does anyone here really believe Rand Paul will doctor up evidence like they would? And that he'd really make a forceful case to Congress in a situation without merit? Yeah it relies somewhat on trust but I'd rather take this one chance with someone who was immersed in our worldview and can deal with world from that perspective.

It's worth a shot.... just this once. If it doesn't work out after four years then... hey we tried and the political approach didn't work. We can put that time and effort into something that will make us happier with a clear conscience. Decades from now people will look at this the way some people look at political history and ask "What if Robert Taft won?" or "What if Goldwater had won?". I am not going to be the one that has to say "I didn't help Taft win b/c he "promised "100% support for the Chinese National government on Formosa [Taiwan]," and "wanted to station up to six divisions in Europe". What a lost opportunity!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

From, the Tom Woods Show, some interesting commentary regarding and advice for Rand Paul:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=66419

25:44 and especially 28:18

Just stick it in, Rand!!

How can we get Tom Woods onboard as an advisor to Rand?

 

[kylejack]

So we should use military action when thousands of Americans are killed, but not two? What exactly is the magic number of Americans that have to be killed before we can respond with military force?

Well I don't know, but there's probably been 2 American tourists killed by thugs in dozens of countries lately.