Ted Cruz: We ought to bomb ISIS back to the stone age

[Anti-Neocon]

This thread makes me smh. People still believe the beheading video is real? Sorry but if you honestly think that video is legit then you are a sheep and a moron.

I lack knowledge about this incident. What leads you to believe it is fake?

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's a mighty bold claim. Please cite your source where Rand has advocated anything remotely similar to "bombing ISIS back to the stone age". This I gotta see.

This thread makes me smh. People still believe the beheading video is real? Sorry but if you honestly think that video is legit then you are a sheep and a moron.

Rand is still implying that airstrikes are justified, but he is being a little more subtle about it.

I do think it matters.

If one guy very reluctantly advocates a bombing that will inevitably lead to "collateral damage" because he doesn't see another option, and another guy seems almost itching to go in guns blazing, I'd say the second guy is worse than the first guy.

The problem is that they're still both bad. Rand Paul is continuing to play with fire... I just hope he doesn't burn himself (or anyone else.)

Ted Cruz, well, he basically already lit himself AND the rest of us on fire.

 

[devil21]

I lack knowledge about this incident. What leads you to believe it is fake?

All of it.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

All of it.

Can you name specific attributes of it which make it look fishy/conspiratorial? You're the first person I've heard say that and I'm just genuinely interested.

 

[devil21]

Can you name specific attributes of it which make it look fishy/conspiratorial? You're the first person I've heard say that and I'm just genuinely interested.

Easier to direct you to the plethora of vids already examining it.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=foley+beheading+fake
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=foley+beheading+hoax

 

[presence]

I lack knowledge about this incident. What leads you to believe it is fake?

Watch it. There is no beheading.

 

[Brett85]

*facepalm*

You said you weren't losing your anti-war positions, but it seems like you are. Don't fall for the propaganda. Don't support any involvement.

I don't see how supporting one intervention makes one pro war. I mean, if I oppose 99 out of 100 interventions, but support one limited intervention with air strikes, that somehow makes me some warmongering neocon? I'm opposed to intervening for humanitarian reasons, but I support defending our country and responding to national security threats, and I think it's getting to the point where ISIS poses a direct and present threat to U.S national security.

 

[Brett85]

This thread makes me smh. People still believe the beheading video is real? Sorry but if you honestly think that video is legit then you are a sheep and a moron.

The video itself was fake, but I read that it was still confirmed that Foley was killed off camera.

 

[Brett85]

That's a mighty bold claim. Please cite your source where Rand has advocated anything remotely similar to "bombing ISIS back to the stone age". This I gotta see.

He didn't use the kind of rhetoric that Cruz used, but he said that he supports the air strikes against ISIS.

Regarding ISIS, the Islamic State terrorist organization that has grown a foothold in Syria and Iraq, Paul said he supports airstrikes. But if he were the president in this situation, unlike Obama, he would have called Congress back from recess to sell both chambers on action—and seek authorization before using America’s armed forces there.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ing-To-Benghazi-Terrorist-Attack-Rise-Of-ISIS

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't see how supporting one intervention makes one pro war. I mean, if I oppose 99 out of 100 interventions, but support one limited intervention with air strikes, that somehow makes me some warmongering neocon? I'm opposed to intervening for humanitarian reasons, but I support defending our country and responding to national security threats, and I think it's getting to the point where ISIS poses a direct and present threat to U.S national security.

I didn't call you a "warmongering neocon." I think you're falling for some of the hype and starting to compromise to some degree. You're still more anti-war than the average American, not even close. But I don't think you're a strict noninterventionist anymore (if you ever were.)

 

[Brett85]

I didn't call you a "warmongering neocon." I think you're falling for some of the hype and starting to compromise to some degree. You're still more anti-war than the average American, not even close. But I don't think you're a strict noninterventionist anymore (if you ever were.)

I've come to the conclusion that it may be best to have a foreign policy where we start from the stand point of non intervention, where we start from the perspective that we shouldn't intervene overseas, and then only support intervention in rare circumstances, when we really have no other options. I'm just not convinced at this point that a strict non interventionist foreign policy is realistic. For instance, what if Iran were to close down the straight of Hormuz? If that happened, the price of gas would probably go to $20 a gallon. That would directly affect U.S national security. No one could afford to travel. It would destroy our economy. I think that non intervention is the way to go 98% of the time, but we still have to examine each individual situation and see whether or not it's realistic to do nothing. The vast majority of the time it's realistic to do nothing, and the vast majority of the time doing nothing is the best option. But it may not always be. But in the rare situations where we have to intervene overseas, I think Congress should have to approve it, there should be a clear objective and goals, we should go all out and complete the objective, and then get out and bring all of our troops back home. We should never indefinitely occupy a country and use our military for the purpose of nation building.

 

[twomp]

I've come to the conclusion that it may be best to have a foreign policy where we start from the stand point of non intervention, where we start from the perspective that we shouldn't intervene overseas, and then only support intervention in rare circumstances, when we really have no other options. I'm just not convinced at this point that a strict non interventionist foreign policy is realistic. For instance, what if Iran were to close down the straight of Hormuz? If that happened, the price of gas would probably go to $20 a gallon. That would directly affect U.S national security. No one could afford to travel. It would destroy our economy. I think that non intervention is the way to go 98% of the time, but we still have to examine each individual situation and see whether or not it's realistic to do nothing. The vast majority of the time it's realistic to do nothing, and the vast majority of the time doing nothing is the best option. But it may not always be. But in the rare situations where we have to intervene overseas, I think Congress should have to approve it, there should be a clear objective and goals, we should go all out and complete the objective, and then get out and bring all of our troops back home. We should never indefinitely occupy a country and use our military for the purpose of nation building.

Do you really think that all we need is airstrikes to take out ISIS? Do you really think there won't be "boots on the ground?" We shall revisit this in a month and see how well this whole "take out ISIS before they take us out" strategy works.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you really think that all we need is airstrikes to take out ISIS? Do you really think there won't be "boots on the ground?" We shall revisit this in a month and see how well this whole "take out ISIS before they take us out" strategy works.

Yes, but when that happens, the whole argument of "well, we shouldn't have intervened but we don't have a choice now because they're attacking us" is going to be thrown out. And people will fall for it. Traditional Conservative will fall for it... heck, I bet every minarchist falls for it. Why wouldn't they? After all, they think the State is legitimate, and the State was attacked, the fact that they provoked the attack be damned. Its Pearl Harbor and 9/11 all over again.

 

[Brett85]

Do you really think that all we need is airstrikes to take out ISIS? Do you really think there won't be "boots on the ground?" We shall revisit this in a month and see how well this whole "take out ISIS before they take us out" strategy works.

I don't think that Obama will send combat troops back into Iraq. What he's done his entire Presidency is launch air strikes but not send in ground troops like Bush and Cheney did. I don't see any evidence that combat troops are going to be sent back into Iraq, and I don't see how airstrikes are going to make it any more likely that combat troops will be sent there. Any AUMF that is passed, if there is one, will specifically exclude combat troops. Otherwise it won't pass.

 

[presence]

I don't think that Obama will send combat troops back into Iraq. What he's done his entire Presidency is launch air strikes but not send in ground troops like Bush and Cheney did. I don't see any evidence that combat troops are going to be sent back into Iraq, and I don't see how airstrikes are going to make it any more likely that combat troops will be sent there. Any AUMF that is passed, if there is one, will specifically exclude combat troops. Otherwise it won't pass.

Yes... we'll just conveniently keep 1500 or so "non boots on the ground that are actually on the ground" in harms way so we have a perpetual reason to bomb to "protect them"

 

[Brett85]

Yes... we'll just conveniently keep 1500 or so "non boots on the ground that are actually on the ground" in harms way so we have a perpetual reason to bomb to "protect them"

That's a good point. I don't really understand why we need troops on the ground for the purpose of gathering intelligence regarding where to bomb. I would think that our CIA could do that.

 

[Vanguard101]

Meh.

 

[Brett85]

I would still point out that any military action taken against ISIS needs to be approved by Congress. The President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just bomb whoever he wants to whenever he wants to.

 

[twomp]

I don't think that Obama will send combat troops back into Iraq. What he's done his entire Presidency is launch air strikes but not send in ground troops like Bush and Cheney did. I don't see any evidence that combat troops are going to be sent back into Iraq, and I don't see how airstrikes are going to make it any more likely that combat troops will be sent there. Any AUMF that is passed, if there is one, will specifically exclude combat troops. Otherwise it won't pass.

Because air strikes alone won't do anything to ISIS. For every member of ISIS killed by an airstrike more are recruited because we will inevitably kill innocent civilians. So without troops on the ground, air strikes will only achieve one thing and that is make more money for the bomb makers.

 

[Brett85]

Because air strikes alone won't do anything to ISIS. For every member of ISIS killed by an airstrike more are recruited because we will inevitably kill innocent civilians. So without troops on the ground, air strikes will only achieve one thing and that is make more money for the bomb makers.

Ok. But what happens if we do nothing and they just take over Iraq and Syria? What would happen if they just took over the entire Middle East and refused to sell oil to us? The price of gas would be too expensive for anyone to drive. There are all kinds of terrible things that can happen if ISIS is able to take over these countries and actually establish their own government in these countries. If nothing we can do can actually solve the problem, then we may be in big trouble, because the entire Middle East will be controlled by a terrorist group that hates us and will try to collapse our economy by not selling oil to us.