WHAT?! Krauthammer agreeing with Rand Paul ON A FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE?!

[Jan2017]

The vote on the Ernst (R-IA) amendment to emergency arm the Kurds was 54-45 . . .
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00210
Rubio DIDN'T vote and 6 GOP Senators sided with Democrats' no votes, so it may have been passable (60 votes ?), if that is what was desired -
it would have been pretty big news I'd think if it HAD passed though.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Government doesn't produce or own anything. The only things it has comes from force and theft, taken from the productive effort of others. The government buying oil and selling weapons would be intervention.

How about the government actively preventing arms form being sold to a particular customer? Which is what we have now.

 

[TomtheTinker]

I don't understand why some has a problem with Rand's position here. The fact is this issue isn't going away on it's own and as long as it's there the republicans are going to have a uhh.. measuring contest on who can deal with Isis the best. Rand is taking the most logical non interventionist position for the American people as possible. Simply saying I don't have a plan on how to deal with Isis is not going to win the primary. His position is similar to marquis and reprisal. He's not saying hey lets send our own troops over there he's simply saying hey werewolf already arming Iraq, but they won't and can't do shit so lets give the same arms to the kurds who can whip some ass. It's a win win, we don't get involved and the problem..gets taken care of.

+1

 

[Rudeman]

The problem that Rand has is he's not consistent. On the one hand he's saying that by intervening into middle east affairs we cause the rise of radical groups, then on the other hand he's saying that more intervention is needed. Why not just say what Ron has said for decades now? Our intervention always causes unintended results. We need to stop intervention.

One of my favorite lines from Ron is when someone asked him how he described himself. He said I am a non-interventionist, in everything. That was perfect.

I don't think he is that inconsistent (if at all) because he has said by overthrowing secular dictators/rulers/leaders/governments, while they might be bad people, it creates a vacuum for radicals to take over. Plenty of examples of this. By arming the Kurds he isn't advocating an overthrow or anything like that, he's basically saying I support helping this group defend themselves from another group that is actively encroaching their territory. It isn't non-intervention but then again he hasn't claimed to be 100% non-interventionist.

 

[69360]

Government doesn't produce or own anything. The only things it has comes from force and theft, taken from the productive effort of others. The government buying oil and selling weapons would be intervention.

That's the biggest pile of theoretical crap I have heard lately. You could use that to justify just about anything.

Welcome to reality where our government does indeed own weapons and also actively blocks the Kurds from selling oil.

That needs to change.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

How about the government actively preventing arms form being sold to a particular customer? Which is what we have now.

Lifting sanctions or government monopolies in a market is not the same as the government using taxpayer money to create and send arms to someone(s) or something. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

That's the biggest pile of theoretical crap I have heard lately. You could use that to justify just about anything.

Welcome to reality where our government does indeed own weapons and also actively blocks the Kurds from selling oil.

That needs to change.

No, actually, that load of theoretical crap justifies almost nothing the government does or will ever do. It's even the opposite - it's justification for opposition to everything government does.

 

[Jan2017]

The vote on the Ernst (R-IA) amendment to emergency arm the Kurds was 54-45 . . .
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00210

Would the Nay votes be considered weak on the terror war against ISIL ? Well, by Fox or Hannity standards anyway.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Is a Krauthammer what is used to pulverize pickled cabbage?

 

[juleswin]

I can understand why people would have a problem with Rand's position, but to state that Trump's plan is somehow less interventionist is just absurd.

Ask the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq which plan they would prefer. It would overwhelmingly be Rand's plan, at the very least in Rand's plan they get to keep a key natural resource and aren't left to rot.

Not if the armed and protected Kurds claim part of the major oil fields ask part of their new homeland.

I am sure if you asked the Sunni and Shia now fighting foreign mercs, they would reject Rand's plan. They want an end to foreign intervention in their country not more of it,

 

[Rudeman]

Not if the armed and protected Kurds claim part of the major oil fields ask part of their new homeland.

I am sure if you asked the Sunni and Shia now fighting foreign mercs, they would reject Rand's plan. They want an end to foreign intervention in their country not more of it,

There's a lot of oil where the Shia are:

 

[juleswin]

There's a lot of oil where the Shia are:

But there is more in the northern area where an embolden Kurdish people could claim as their territory. They could easily shaft the rest of the country if they annex a significant area in the North.

Which is why the Shia and Sunni will fight tooth and nail against such a plan. I think the person I was replying to said something about Sunnis and Shias will support Rand's plan.

They would be foolish to go along with the nonsense plan Rand is proposing. But who knows, the founders were able to get France to sell Louisiana to the U.S.

 

[Rudeman]

But there is more in the northern area where an embolden Kurdish people could claim as their territory. They could easily shaft the rest of the country if they annex a significant area in the North.

Which is why the Shia and Sunni will fight tooth and nail against such a plan. I think the person I was replying to said something about Sunnis and Shias will support Rand's plan.

They would be foolish to go along with the nonsense plan Rand is proposing. But who knows, the founders were able to get France to sell Louisiana to the U.S.

That person was me and I said they would support Rand's plan over Trump's. Trump's plan is to pillage all of Iraq's oil. So yes they would prefer Rand's plan if those were the 2 options.

Really Iraq should probably be broken into 3 provinces/states/territories (North, West and SE) with one central government that equally represents all 3, either that or they should just split into 3 separate countries. Iraq is a fractured country you either let them fully fracture until they break apart (3 separate countries) or you try to keep them together.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Lifting sanctions or government monopolies in a market is not the same as the government using taxpayer money to create and send arms to someone(s) or something. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

So we could all agree that the US government telling US arms producers that there are no longer bans or restrictions on selling arms to Iraqi Kurdistan is an acceptable option?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

So we could all agree that the US government telling US arms producers that there are no longer bans or restrictions on selling arms to Iraqi Kurdistan is an acceptable option?

Sure, but that's not the same thing as arming the Kurds.

 

[surf]

this feels bad. i'd much rather support a candidate with a more humble foreign policy, and supporting a candidate that shares foreign policy positions with this fascist just feels bad.

ps - took a stupid "which candidate" quiz and came up 86% rand, though on foreign policy it listed hillary as my closest match. I answered all qs as very limited government and as a staunch non-interventionist.

edit - arms for oil has an eerily familiar sound to it

 

[Rudeman]

this feels bad. i'd much rather support a candidate with a more humble foreign policy, and supporting a candidate that shares foreign policy positions with this fascist just feels bad.

ps - took a stupid "which candidate" quiz and came up 86% rand, though on foreign policy it listed hillary as my closest match. I answered all qs as very limited government and as a staunch non-interventionist.

edit - arms for oil has an eerily familiar sound to it

Rand is the least interventionist candidate. So unless Ron decides to run I don't see that changing. BTW I took a similar quiz got 90% Rand and Rick Santorum was 2nd, someone I would never vote for, so yea.

 

[RJB]

I feel like this is the calm before the storm, and there is a hell of a storm on the way if 2008 and 2012 are any indicators.

 

[jj-]

Rand is the least interventionist candidate.

Except Trump. Rand supports redrawing the map of the middle east to give the Kurds a homeland. Trump doesn't propose redrawing the map, just taking the oil to cut their finances.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Except Trump. Rand supports redrawing the map of the middle east to give the Kurds a homeland. Trump doesn't propose redrawing the map, just taking the oil to cut their finances.

How does he propose to steal their oil? You think they are just going to let us take it? Or does that require an extended military presence?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

this feels bad. i'd much rather support a candidate with a more humble foreign policy, and supporting a candidate that shares foreign policy positions with this fascist just feels bad.

ps - took a stupid "which candidate" quiz and came up 86% rand, though on foreign policy it listed hillary as my closest match. I answered all qs as very limited government and as a staunch non-interventionist.

edit - arms for oil has an eerily familiar sound to it

That's because those surveys don't take into account that Democrats like Obama and Hillary do the exact opposite of what they say they will do. Peace is war. Populism is elitism. Justice is favoritism and oppression.