[Video] Rand Paul on Fox News discusses ISIS 9/5/14
- Thread starter tsai3904
- Start date
I agree with everything Rand said in the interview. We have to defend ourselves against people who want to kill us, but we shouldn't invade foreign countries and topple dictators and use our military for nation building. Invading foreign countries and over throwing dictators is what caused the rise of ISIS, as Rand correctly pointed out in the interview.
CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
ISIS are pretty much saying they are a threat.
tommyrp12
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,467
Them saying that they are a threatening group ,does not make them actual threats. Its just self promotion and bravado.
So bombing Al Qaeda in Yemen is cool with you. Bombing Al-Shabab in Somalia is cool with you too? Those meet your criteria for bombing right? No dictator toppling and just killing the boogie men over there because they threatened us right? As long as we don't topple a government. It's bombs away? No civilian deaths too right?
There has to be a realistic limit to U.S foreign policy. We can't just bomb every country that has a terrorist in it. I've advocated military force in Iraq and Syria against ISIS because you actually have a group of terrorists with a 100,000 member army who are trying to take over these countries. That's different from the situation in Yemen and some of these other countries. There are times when we have to kill terrorists, but I think it's also unrealistic to think that we can just use military force in every single country where there's a terrorist.
That is very true, saying you are a threat does not make you a threat. But nobody who posts on this forum is in any position to know whether they are actual threats or not. Any information about existing attack plans and how willing and able they actually are to attack us would be classified intelligence.
Can't say I disagree with much of what you said there with the exception of going back to Iraq YET again based on only the hype generated by the media.
tommyrp12
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,467
I agree. All I know is they have not yet attacked the US directly and no actionable intelligence has been brought forward. So its a no go for that reason alone. I do agree with Rand, that if ever we should end up having to attack an enemy we should have a plan and a exit strategy and it should be done with a declaration from congress. Even then a good outcome isn't guaranteed. So we should mind our business as much as possible.
Last edited:
Bombing ISIS may solve a symptom, but not the cause.
Why aren't we talking about the cause, and just addressing the symptom? Is it because addressing the cause, would be mentioning a domestic enemy of the Constitution?
It is great to hear from the host that Rand was against the libyan and Syrian intervention, because he was clearly in the correct side of the discussion.
Rand's overall argument -as I understand it - is actually very clear and clever, Saudi Arabia should prevent that its citizens collaborate with fundamentalism. I think that this is a remarkable fact.
About the case for intervention, another interesting fact is that both Syrian and Iraqi governments are enemies of IS.
If those governments ask for the US help -at some point- it would add legitimacy to the aid.
In my view all kind of interventions are preferable with the authorization of both Congress and UN and by the request of the local government.
Rand's overall argument -as I understand it - is actually very clear and clever, Saudi Arabia should prevent that its citizens collaborate with fundamentalism. I think that this is a remarkable fact.
About the case for intervention, another interesting fact is that both Syrian and Iraqi governments are enemies of IS.
If those governments ask for the US help -at some point- it would add legitimacy to the aid.
In my view all kind of interventions are preferable with the authorization of both Congress and UN and by the request of the local government.
satchelmcqueen
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 7,381
i agree with everything rand said here. isis has issued a threat to us and we must defend against that. however i agree again when he says that the islamic world will have to be the ones to change this from the inside and root out the bad part of their people. only THEY can change that.
if someone walks up to me and says theyre gong to punch me, im going to hit them right then to wart off what they said is coming my way. i wont wait for them to throw the first punch. this is totally different than me punching first just because i THINK they might hit me. if they SAY IT, then i must be on guard and start hitting them then...or else i lay in wait for an ass kicking. thats the difference for me.
if thats hard to understand, then substitute "me" for "my 2yr old daughter". youre damn right ill strike at you for the said threat of attack.
thats 2 different situations as i described. for me at least...
if someone walks up to me and says theyre gong to punch me, im going to hit them right then to wart off what they said is coming my way. i wont wait for them to throw the first punch. this is totally different than me punching first just because i THINK they might hit me. if they SAY IT, then i must be on guard and start hitting them then...or else i lay in wait for an ass kicking. thats the difference for me.
if thats hard to understand, then substitute "me" for "my 2yr old daughter". youre damn right ill strike at you for the said threat of attack.
thats 2 different situations as i described. for me at least...
Last edited:
DevilsAdvocate
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,608
"These are questions I don't have answers for, because I don't have the intelligence"
Best quote.
But seriously Rand is really good. It's amazing.
Best quote.
But seriously Rand is really good. It's amazing.
Last edited:
What if the person is a quadruple amputee in a wheelchair?
You still gonna hit em first when they 'threaten' you?
What if I told you, they didn't make threats until the air strikes began? What if i told you they didn't execute those americans until AFTER the air strikes began? What if I told you that they would not have killed the second american if the air strikes stopped? What would you do then?
By the way, North Korea regularly threatens us. Have you called your congressman asking him to attack North Korea yet?
Best of luck in Iraq. I assume now that they have threatened us, you will back up your words and head over there to fight?
Last edited:
ProIndividual
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,775
I'm assuming you meant the lawless chaos of a failed or toppled state. Obviously a free society with a purely free market economy (what anarchists here refer to as ANARCHY) is not the chaos of a failed or toppled state. Anarchy, in the philosophical sense, not the colloquial meaning, has laws, roads, trade, defense, etc. We can point to historical examples via anthropology that were anything but chaos and yet stateless and had all those good things you think of as "ORDER". Spontaneous order is still order. Free market economies are not "CHAOS" in the sense state commies were taught to think it is.
I smoked your "booyah"...now go read an anthropology book and a few philosophers who advocate(d) for REAL anarchy (not some bullshit term statists, even minimalist statists, throw around for fun to smear us).
PS. If the comment was meant as sarcasm, I apologize...but sarcasm doesn't come across well in print unless you know the person well enough to get it (or it is painfully obvious).
Similar threads
