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

[supermario21]

Because ISIS isn't really a state, attacking them is potentially more problematic. I wish Rand just stuck to his original guns. ISIS is not a "threat" to us in any form. Just because it's likely not safe to travel to Syria or Iraq and wander off in the desert as a journalist doesn't mean that they can threaten us...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

He's the only member of Congress that I know of who said he would vote against authorization for the air strikes.

See Jimmy Duncan statement above.

Rand needs to take a note from Jimmy Duncan. Be more like Jimmy, Rand. Stop trying to be too clever and disingenuous. You're going to trip all over yourself and your cleverness.

When you tell one lie, it leads to another,
So you tell two lies to cover each other,
Then you tell three lies, and: oh brother!
You're in trouble up to your ears.

You can't remember how many lies you've told,
Half the things you say aren't true,
Some time you'll slip up, you'll trip up, and then,
Whatever will become of you?

So you lie and lie, so Fox won't suspect you,
Then you lie so neo-cons won't reject you,
Juggling all these lies, now, you collect:
A life full of worries and fears.

 

[Acala]

How could it be worse? We're talking about targeted air strikes this time and not sending in ground troops, and we have the permission of the Iraqi government to launch the air strikes against ISIS. They asked for our help and asked us to launch the air strikes. I don't see how you can say that it's even remotely the same situation as the original Iraq invasion in 2003, and I certainly don't see how you can say that it's actually worse.

The ONLY threat to the USA is the threat of terrorists sneaking into the country and doing some evil deed. Mind you that is NOT a threat to national security, it does not endanger the Republic or our liberty, it is just a criminal act. But it is a threat of sorts.

And that threat of terrorism is EXACTLY the threat you make WORSE by your airstrikes. Everyone you kill has a brother, a father, a son who now has a reason to kill Americans. The idea that you can somehow bomb everyone out of existence that hates the USA is just stupid. Stop killing people and come home. They will quickly be distracted by killing each other.

 

[jllundqu]

I've been trolling some lefty sites and they are eating this up. They are trying to lay the "flip-flopper" label around Rand's neck. They are using these for comparison:

Rand Paul: I am NOT an Isolationist (Time, Sept. 2014)
http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am-not-an-isolationist/

Right alongside this:

Rand Paul: No Good Case for U.S. Military Intervention (Wall Street Journal, June 2014)
http://online.wsj.com/articles/sen-rand-paul-america-shouldnt-choose-sides-in-iraqs-civil-war-1403219558

To the left, this is a gift... they can play the flip flopper card all day now.

It's already making the rounds:

SHOCKER: Rand Paul Flip Flops on Intervention in the Middle East!

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/09/shocker-rand-paul-flip-flops-now-supports-u-s-military-intervention-middle-east/

 

[CaptUSA]

Stop killing people and come home. They will quickly be distracted by killing each other.

If only it were that easy. By leaving the arena entirely, we would still get blamed by the brothers, fathers, and sons of the people that ISIS kills. No matter what, terrorism as a result of our past interventions is here for a while. Blowback if we do, blowback if we don't.

But I'd much rather accept the blowback if we don't. First, it's a lot cheaper. Second, it has an expiration date. If we continue this, it will NEVER expire.

 

[jllundqu]

It's already making the rounds:

SHOCKER: Rand Paul Flip Flops on Intervention in the Middle East!

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/09/shocker-rand-paul-flip-flops-now-supports-u-s-military-intervention-middle-east/

And here's another "Flip Flop" piece from SALON:

Rand Paul’s flip-flop nightmare: “Non-interventionist” now backs war in the Middle East
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/rand_pauls_flip_flop_nightmare_non_interventionist_now_backs_war_in_the_middle_east/

 

[cajuncocoa]

If only it were that easy. By leaving the arena entirely, we would still get blamed by the brothers, fathers, and sons of the people that ISIS kills. No matter what, terrorism as a result of our past interventions is here for a while. Blowback if we do, blowback if we don't.

But I'd much rather accept the blowback if we don't. First, it's a lot cheaper. Second, it has an expiration date. If we continue this, it will NEVER expire.

Your two statements appear to contradict each other, but maybe I just didn't get enough sleep last night, so I'm only going to address the first.

The people in that region won't stop killing those they see as "infidels" no matter what we do. We could stay there another 100 years (as John McCain wanted) and there would be thousands more brothers, fathers, and sons getting killed that they will be able to blame on us just because we are there.

Or, we could leave immediately and accept the blame/blowback/fallout for our involvement in the past but cut our losses for future killings.

 

[Acala]

If only it were that easy. By leaving the arena entirely, we would still get blamed by the brothers, fathers, and sons of the people that ISIS kills. No matter what, terrorism as a result of our past interventions is here for a while. Blowback if we do, blowback if we don't.

But I'd much rather accept the blowback if we don't. First, it's a lot cheaper. Second, it has an expiration date. If we continue this, it will NEVER expire.

I agree that we aren't going to have instant peace by minding our own business. Indeed, those who profit from war are likely to arrange things that will severely test our committment to non-intervention at first. But if we stick to our position, the time will come when we are seen as neutral and not a player in the world violence game. And the sooner we start the sooner the world will forget about America the Bully.

 

[kylejack]

Interesting piece where various libertarian figures weigh in on Rand's flip-flop. http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/05/what-do-libertarians-think-about-rand-pa

Justin Raimundo's explanation of Rand playing three dimensional chess is interesting, but not convincing. I think Rand does want to attack ISIS.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Justin Raimundo's explanation of Rand playing three dimensional chess is interesting, but not convincing.

No, no, Natural Citizen can tell you: it's four-dimensional chess.

Listen to Tom Woods' comments on the clip I posted. Tom thinks Rand really is sound and libertarian. But he's playing the political game, and sometimes he's being dishonest.

I agree. I think that Rand really is a non-interventionist. Or at least he was, before he ran for Senate. That is: for his entire life, until 2009. He was not just putting on an act for 40 years. He really and truly was a true-blue libertarian. But this is a dangerous game he's playing. He's playing with fire. Dishonesty is corrupting. Will he become what he's pretending to be? That's a real risk.

He needs to bring Tom Woods into his inner circle. He needs a voice of conscience. That doesn't mean he can't be very eloquent and careful in what he says. But he needs to surround himself with people of character, like Tom Woods, and be a person of character himself. He needs to ditch the John Tates and Jesse Bentons of this world. Just cut ties. Let them go. He doesn't need them, they need him.

 

[Shane Harris]

I can't believe how many people here now completely disregard everything Ron Paul has ever said on Foreign Policy.

 

[Brett85]

But that predictable occurance obviously doesn't mean that there's actually any way on this green Earth that the US government should be getting into another war. Just mind our own business. Just come home.

Remember that?

Some of us still agree with it.

Just Come Home.

I still agree with bringing home our entire army from overseas. I would bring our troops home from Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and everywhere else. I would bring our entire army home and put them along our borders. I'm only in favor of air strikes against ISIS, not ground troops. I'm not even in favor of having the 1,500 troops that we have in Iraq now for intelligence gathering purposes. I think that we should use our CIA for the purpose of gathering intelligence in Iraq and Syria regarding where to bomb.

 

[kylejack]

Your strikes would have collateral damage, and family of those innocent people will take up arms against you. Americans that travel in Iraq without heavily armed protection are endangering their own lives. They're not worth engaging in war, frankly.

 

[The Gold Standard]

So this move is for what, to try to sway Republicans that would never vote for him in a primary anyway? But by shitting on the people who would vote for him? Looks like Rand is going to have to cozy up to the bankers too if he wants enough money to run a presidential campaign.

 

[Brett85]

Your strikes would have collateral damage, and family of those innocent people will take up arms against you. Americans that travel in Iraq without heavily armed protection are endangering their own lives. They're not worth engaging in war, frankly.

ISIS was slaughtering people by the tens of thousands, and there would've been a full scale massacre had we not intervened with air strikes. Our air strikes will kill some innocent people, but not nearly as many as ISIS would kill if we just left the situation alone. The air strikes are saving lives overall, so opposing the air strikes because of the possibility of collateral damage doesn't make sense.

 

[fr33]

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.

Why would you have not supported the Iraq invasion? So far on this thread your justifications are identical to Bush's except for WMDs (but your claim that ISIS will cross the oceans using military aircraft and naval vessels is even more outlandish than WMDs)

Saddam killed more than ISIS has.
Saddam made verbal threats against the US like ISIS.

 

[kylejack]

ISIS was slaughtering people by the tens of thousands, and there would've been a full scale massacre had we not intervened with air strikes. Our air strikes will kill some innocent people, but not nearly as many as ISIS would kill if we just left the situation alone. The air strikes are saving lives overall, so opposing the air strikes because of the possibility of collateral damage doesn't make sense.

You sound like Cheney right now talking about the horrors of the Saddam Hussein regime. Gassed his own people, slaughtered innocent civilians, yada yada yada. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of humanitarian war and making new enemies.

 

[Brett85]

Why would you have not supported the Iraq invasion? So far on this thread your justifications are identical to Bush's except for WMDs (but your claim that ISIS will cross the oceans using military aircraft and naval vessels is even more outlandish than WMDs)

Saddam killed more than ISIS has.
Saddam made verbal threats against the US like ISIS.

Saddam was contained to his own country. He wasn't expanding across the world committing mass genocide and trying to take over the entire Middle East or the world. I don't believe that we should use military action when a country is contained, like Iraq was. This is a situation where you have a 100,000 member army of an extremely dangerous terrorist group that's taken over large areas of Iraq and Syria, have millions of dollars to work with, and have the goal of expanding across the Middle East and taking it over. If you can't see the difference between the two situations, I can't really help you. I'm opposed to the vast majority of U.S military interventions but support an exception in this situation.

 

[kylejack]

Saddam was contained to his own country. He wasn't expanding across the world committing mass genocide and trying to take over the entire Middle East or the world. I don't believe that we should use military action when a country is contained, like Iraq was. This is a situation where you have a 100,000 member army of an extremely dangerous terrorist group that's taken over large areas of Iraq and Syria, have millions of dollars to work with, and have the goal of expanding across the Middle East and taking it over. If you can't see the difference between the two situations, I can't really help you. I'm opposed to the vast majority of U.S military interventions but support an exception in this situation.

So then I guess you also think we should go get involved in the Congo, where militias are taking territory and killing a lot of innocent people. Sorry, but I don't want the US to be the world's policeman. We have enough troubles of our own.

You know who is not contained in their own country? The US military. Maybe they should go back to protecting our country.

 

[Brett85]

You sound like Cheney right now talking about the horrors of the Saddam Hussein regime. Gassed his own people, slaughtered innocent civilians, yada yada yada. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of humanitarian war and making new enemies.

I'm not saying that war is justified for humanitarian reasons only, just that your concern about civilian casualties isn't valid when ISIS was already slaughtering civilians by the thousands. If you want to oppose the air strikes because you think they won't work or because you don't think ISIS is actually a threat to our security, that's a valid argument and valid debate to have. But the collateral damage argument doesn't hold up when ISIS is already indiscriminately killing innocent people.