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

[Brett85]

TC I have agreed with a lot of your comments the few years I have been here although I haven t agreed with quite a few as well which is why I am boggled now at your position on this. If you had a clear, logical reason for wanting to go to war, I'm sure many would agree with you but you have now resorted to spreading lies and fear mongering which is what the warmongers have historically done. Do you not see that? If you have a legit reason, why resort to lying and fear mongering? How does that make you different from John McCain or Bill O'Reilly or Baghdad Bob?

Doesn't the fact that people like myself who are normally pretty anti war and anti interventionist support the air strikes against ISIS make you stop and think that maybe this isn't really similar to the other interventions we've been involved in over the years? The simple fact is that it's not, because usually we're overthrowing some foreign dictator that we don't like and trying to institute regime change, but that's not the case here. This is a case where you have a group of people who have stated their intention is to attack the United States, and it's a very rare situation where military action is actually justified. It's why Rand supports military action in this instance but has opposed almost all military interventions in the past. Even Walter Jones supports at least some military action in Iraq. He's probably the most anti war member of the house.

"We all share concerns about the Islamic State’s (IS) brutal tactics and further destabilization of the region. And as became clear during our conversations last month, we also all support the specific and limited mission to prevent potential genocide and protect U.S. military personnel."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/08/28/4103771/jones-wants-congress-to-vote-expanding.html

 

[MaxHen]

Doesn't the fact that people like myself who are normally pretty anti war and anti interventionist support the air strikes against ISIS make you stop and think that maybe this isn't really similar to the other interventions we've been involved in over the years? The simple fact is that it's not, because usually we're overthrowing some foreign dictator that we don't like and trying to institute regime change, but that's not the case here. This is a case where you have a group of people who have stated their intention is to attack the United States, and it's a very rare situation where military action is actually justified. It's why Rand supports military action in this instance but has opposed almost all military interventions in the past.

The fact that they have stated their intention to attack us doesn't make them a national security threat. Many other groups have stated similar intentions. In order to prove that ISIS is a national security threat, you need to explain a) what kind of attack you think they will launch against us, and b) how airstrikes will prevent them from launching such an attack.

Even Walter Jones supports at least some military action in Iraq. He's probably the most anti war member of the house.

I'm pretty sure Massie has stated he is opposed to the airstrikes.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The fact that they have stated their intention to attack us doesn't make them a national security threat. Many other groups have stated similar intentions. In order to prove that ISIS is a national security threat, we need to explain a) what kind of attack you think they will launch against us, and b) how airstrikes will prevent them from launching such an attack.


I'm pretty sure Massie has stated he is opposed to the airstrikes.

Yes. Massie is awesome.

 

[Brett85]

I'm pretty sure Massie has stated he is opposed to the airstrikes.

He's the only member of Congress that I know of who said he would vote against authorization for the air strikes. But even he said that he would just vote against the air strikes because President Obama hadn't articulated a long term strategy. He didn't say that it's immoral to kill members of ISIS. And the events have changed since that time, so it's hard to know for sure whether or not that's still his position. I was opposed to the air strikes at first as well but then changed my mind after the events that unfolded.

 

[presence]

I was opposed to the air strikes at first as well but then changed my mind after the events that unfolded.

Which event?

The ethnic cleansing of the 100,000 err 50,000 err 20,000 err supposed attempted clensing of less than 2000 woman beating yazitis?

The confidence in government boosting humanitarian airdrop mission where we dropped tons of food without parachutes that exploded on impact?

The CGI studio FX beheadings of two journalists that have probably been dead for 2 years on sketchy shouldn't have been in bad place at bad time circumstances?

Or our needs to evacuate embassy staff we have like a cat in a cage to catch coyotes in a country that obviously can't provide embassy security?

Just to destroy all the shit that we gave to "Iraq" but is not in the hands of IS.

Was it Malikis sectarian "victory speech" last week in Amerli when he congradulated the "shia" militias for destroying the "sunni" infidels.

Obama's 200th round of golf?

 

[fr33]

Not even remotely close to the same situation. Those countries never threatened us, never killed our people, and weren't expanding across the world and committing mass genocide.

Those countries have threatened the US.

US citizens have been killed abroad in many countries. It has never been used as a justification of war.

Russia didn't expand across the world? If ISIS is your definition of genocide, then, wow, what about Russian and Chinese democide?

The fact is you have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to military action. You've probably been brainwashed by the media. Policing the world is what you expect from your government. And what you get from that is a country known as the USA who is expanding and attacking worldwide, has killed more than ISIS probably ever will, and has threatened many many other nations.

 

[fr33]

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?

A bunch of zealots who's entire education is reading the Qur'an are going to pilot fighter jets? And even better, they are going to be able to transport fuel to those jets in order to reach the US? Give me a break.

 

[Southron]

As far as I'm concerned, he hasn't made the case that ISIS is a threat. The closest he came to making the case was in defending the embassy. But if Iraq is so unstable that the embassy in danger, then we need to evacuate those people immediately.

 

[twomp]

Doesn't the fact that people like myself who are normally pretty anti war and anti interventionist support the air strikes against ISIS make you stop and think that maybe this isn't really similar to the other interventions we've been involved in over the years? The simple fact is that it's not, because usually we're overthrowing some foreign dictator that we don't like and trying to institute regime change, but that's not the case here. This is a case where you have a group of people who have stated their intention is to attack the United States, and it's a very rare situation where military action is actually justified. It's why Rand supports military action in this instance but has opposed almost all military interventions in the past. Even Walter Jones supports at least some military action in Iraq. He's probably the most anti war member of the house.

"We all share concerns about the Islamic State’s (IS) brutal tactics and further destabilization of the region. And as became clear during our conversations last month, we also all support the specific and limited mission to prevent potential genocide and protect U.S. military personnel."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/08/28/4103771/jones-wants-congress-to-vote-expanding.html

Normally it would but the fact that you have to resort to lying and fear mongering to sell your point makes you disingenuous. Why do you have to lie about it? Do you like it when your family members lie to you to get their way? IF what you are saying was serious, you wouldn't need to lie.

 

[JohnGalt23g]

In fairness, Rand opposed intervention in Syria, so at least he doesn't want to support BOTH sides of this screwed up conflict.

I still think Rand Paul is better than Ted Cruz. But is he good enough? I guess that remains to be seen.

Good enough??? Good enough for what, exactly? Are you under some sort of impression that someone... anyone ... half as committed to Liberty as Rand Paul is going to get within spitting distance of the Oval Office?

Please... give us a name...

 

[JohnGalt23g]

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.

Nobody here is talking about making the world safe for democracy. Hell, a big part of Rand's arguments through this is sometimes it might be better for US interests to have dictators.

Right now, it's closer to making the world safe for civilization...

 

[Champ]

Surprised?

This is the standard part of the pattern Rand has been doing for the last 2 years where he upsets most libertarians, the other part being when he makes us happy. Rand recently had been standing up to Obama and the thought of escalation from the neoconservatives and democratic war hawks, something all libertarians were happy to see, ok great.

Now he comes out with this piece which is not even close to being compatible with libertarianism, and all the ground he gained with us is lost again. 2 steps forward, 2 steps back, again and again. He's not moving anywhere with us as far as I can tell, treading water, and trying to make up ground with the American public. Politics?

I guess I was mad the first 3 or 4 times he did the ol switcharoo with his libertarian vs statist philosophies, but the pattern is so obvious at this point, it's not a surprise to see an op-ed like this that destroys all the progress he had made in the last month.

 

[twomp]

If you're going to be consistent, you should say that Rand should burn in hell for taking this position.

You really have no right to talk to anyone about consistency. You have been all over these forums spreading lies and fear mongering to try to convince people that America should once again go back into Iraq. 5+ years and 100k troops couldn't get the job done but this time air strikes will take care of the problem. Mission accomplished folks! We are back in Iraq!

 

[cajuncocoa]

Surprised?

This is the standard part of the pattern Rand has been doing for the last 2 years where he upsets most libertarians, the other part being when he makes us happy. Rand recently had been standing up to Obama and the thought of escalation from the neoconservatives and democratic war hawks, something all libertarians were happy to see, ok great.

Now he comes out with this piece which is not even close to being compatible with libertarianism, and all the ground he gained with us is lost again. 2 steps forward, 2 steps back, again and again. He's not moving anywhere with us as far as I can tell, treading water, and trying to make up ground with the American public. Politics?

I guess I was mad the first 3 or 4 times he did the ol switcharoo with his libertarian vs statist philosophies, but the pattern is so obvious at this point, it's not a surprise to see an op-ed like this that destroys all the progress he had made in the last month.

The problem with this for Rand is, while he's losing many of us, he's not gaining with people who want to stop every water balloon fight anywhere in the world. They still see him as an isolationist.

 

[CaptUSA]

The problem with this for Rand is, while he's losing many of us, he's not gaining with people who want to stop every water balloon fight anywhere in the world. They still see him as an isolationist.

I hope that isn't really true. I can see most of us not liking this latest position, and I can see some of us being truly disappointed that he would go there, but I hope that the overwhelming majority of us would realize that even with this position, he is still the closest thing we will ever have in our lifetimes to a friend of liberty being in the White House.

As far as not winning over the GOP... I don't think he'll ever win over the hardcore one-world government intervention types, but those who want a strong military capable of destroying our enemies seem to be taking his words pretty well.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I hope that isn't really true. I can see most of us not liking this latest position, and I can see some of us being truly disappointed that he would go there, but I hope that the overwhelming majority of us would realize that even with this position, he is still the closest thing we will ever have in our lifetimes to a friend of liberty being in the White House.

As far as not winning over the GOP... I don't think he'll ever win over the hardcore one-world government intervention types, but those who want a strong military capable of destroying our enemies seem to be taking his words pretty well.

Would you still feel this way if he came out in favor of a "woman's right to choose"?

 

[CaptUSA]

Would you still feel this way if he came out in favor of a "woman's right to choose"?

Not really one of my main concerns, but I understand your point. At some point there will be a line where he becomes no better or worse than the rest of the potential candidates. I think he has a long way to go before he crosses that line, but every one will draw that line in their own place. With the issue at hand, even though I disagree with the sentiments in his Op-Ed, the fact that he calls for taking it to Congress and the American people is still better than any other potential candidate.

I guess the question we all have to ask ourselves is whether we want a Senator that stays true to our principles but has very little legislative impact, or if we want a President who holds our principles but is, at least, willing to pay lip-service to the establishment, and at worst, willing to bend to the establishment in certain circumstances in order to curry their favor for political gain.

The first option will probably give us more to cheer about, but the second option will probably have more long-term effect in our lives. I wouldn't presume to answer that question for anyone else. We'll all have to make our own choices here. But I think we need to understand what we're really talking about.

 

[Brett85]

The fact is you have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to military action.

Lol, not at all. Only compared to you and a few other hardcore anti government people on this forum. Compared to the average American I'm probably a pacifist isolationist. I've opposed every war and every intervention from the original Iraq war, the war in Libya, the proposed war in Syria to take out Assad, etc. Believe it or not, you can be somewhere in between someone who never wants to use military action and someone who always wants to use military action. I only support military action when there's an imminent threat to U.S national security. This fits that criteria. I'm opposed to practically all interventions in general.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Would you still feel this way if he came out in favor of a "woman's right to choose"?

That would probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me, in his particular case. Then again, I've felt that way plenty of times before. And I kind of feel that way again, but it doesn't matter. If he wins the GOP primary I will probably vote for him over the Dem no matter what he does*, and I will probably not join the GOP to vote in the primaries no matter what he does.


*Within some semblance of reason... Note that the fact that I live in a swing state now means that I would pretty much have to see no meaningful difference between Rand and the other candidate in order to not vote for him.

Lol, not at all. Only compared to you and a few other hardcore anti government people on this forum. Compared to the average American I'm probably a pacifist isolationist. I've opposed every war and every intervention from the original Iraq war, the war in Libya, the proposed war in Syria to take out Assad, etc. Believe it or not, you can be somewhere in between someone who never wants to use military action and someone who always wants to use military action. I only support military action when there's an imminent threat to U.S national security. This fits that criteria. I'm opposed to practically all interventions in general.

This doesn't fit the criteria, which would be the issue we disagree on.

He's the only member of Congress that I know of who said he would vote against authorization for the air strikes. But even he said that he would just vote against the air strikes because President Obama hadn't articulated a long term strategy. He didn't say that it's immoral to kill members of ISIS. And the events have changed since that time, so it's hard to know for sure whether or not that's still his position. I was opposed to the air strikes at first as well but then changed my mind after the events that unfolded.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Not really one of my main concerns, but I understand your point. At some point there will be a line where he becomes no better or worse than the rest of the potential candidates. I think he has a long way to go before he crosses that line,

Non-interventionist foreign policy IS that line for me. So many other important issues are tied to it. Getting involved in every schoolyard fight all over the world will continue to wreck an already-weakened economy and encourage those who wish to further erode our civil liberties.