Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 230

Thread: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

  1. #171
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,916

    Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

    Quote Originally Posted by DifferentDrummr View Post
    Do you know of any other way to destroy an enemy militarily without committing troops to finish the job?
    By the term "committing troops" are you talking about invasions? Or are you talking about special ops going in to take out targeted leaders?
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  2. #172
    Why so un**great?
    DifferentDrummr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Facepalm Beach
    Last Seen
    06-04-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,818
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    By the term "committing troops" are you talking about invasions? Or are you talking about special ops going in to take out targeted leaders?
    Taking out targeted leaders doesn't "militarily destroy" an enemy - so I suppose that leaves invasions.
    I fight against the ignorant, irresponsible, and/or closed-minded.
    This group is the worst enemy of America and its freedoms. It includes, but is not limited to, all Trump supporters.

  3. #173
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    By the term "committing troops" are you talking about invasions? Or are you talking about special ops going in to take out targeted leaders?
    Like small invasion, verses big invasion.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #174
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,916

    Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

    Quote Originally Posted by DifferentDrummr View Post
    Taking out targeted leaders doesn't "militarily destroy" an enemy - so I suppose that leaves invasions.
    Invasions also don't "militarily destroy" terrorist groups, as we have learned. Until he says otherwise or you prove otherwise, I assume the senator was talking about small operations.
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  5. #175
    Why so un**great?
    DifferentDrummr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Facepalm Beach
    Last Seen
    06-04-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,818
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    Invasions also don't "militarily destroy" terrorist groups, as we have learned. Until he says otherwise or you prove otherwise, I assume the senator was talking about small operations.
    Small operations don't "militarily destroy" terrorist groups either. In fact, the military is not an appropriate means to combat terrorist groups.

    Either the senator doesn't know this, which makes him unfit to serve, or he is using IS as an excuse to drum up more wasteful defense spending.
    I fight against the ignorant, irresponsible, and/or closed-minded.
    This group is the worst enemy of America and its freedoms. It includes, but is not limited to, all Trump supporters.

  6. #176
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

    Quote Originally Posted by DifferentDrummr View Post
    Small operations don't "militarily destroy" terrorist groups either. In fact, the military is not an appropriate means to combat terrorist groups.

    Either the senator doesn't know this, which makes him unfit to serve, or he is using IS as an excuse to drum up more wasteful defense spending.
    Well certainly the proof in your assertion would be the decade long war in Iraq that took 4,500 US soldiers lives and cost 1-1/2 trillion dollars, which left al Qaeda alive and well, and expanding (note the new branch in the Indian sub continent) unless we're going to categorise the Iraq war as a "small operation"!!!!
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #177
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

    It's not always necessary to invade an enemy to defeat it. One obvious example is Japan in World War II. And in the 1991 war, Iraqi forces had been weakened so badly by weeks of air attacks that the invasion, when it came, was a lopsided rout that was over within a few days. Today's aerial weapons are so accurate and destructive that an enemy that has no way to counter a powerful air force is just so many targets to be destroyed.

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 09:18 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,018

    Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

    Quote Originally Posted by DifferentDrummr
    Small operations don't "militarily destroy" terrorist groups either. In fact, the military is not an appropriate means to combat terrorist groups.

    Either the senator doesn't know this, which makes him unfit to serve, or he is using IS as an excuse to drum up more wasteful defense spending..
    This is exactly right. And it's particularly galling to hear such ridiculous loose talk by Paul (who is notorious for loose talk) on such an important foreign policy issue. It's obviously intended merely to undermine the president and to make Rand look tough among his troglodyte constituents.

    It's even worse that Paul is a budget hawk and isn't even pretending to explain how he would pay for such an expensive military action (as all military actions are expensive). I guess if he were willing to do what Bush wasn't -- propose tax increases on the rich to pay for his military adventure -- I might respect him. But I'm not holding my breath.
    Last edited by FaceofBachmann; 09-05-14 at 06:35 PM.

  9. #179
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,767

    Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Absolute nonsense.

    My criticisms of Obama's foreign policy is primarily that it doesn't exist. It's been a disaster and it's not just this simple Canadian who's been pointing it out - the vast majority of your country's citizens believe he's doing a lousy job dealing with world issues. It's plain to anyone with half a brain that Obama's disengagement from world affairs has led to a number of hot spots developing. Maybe you don't like it, but you are and have been a superpower and for the past 3 decades the world's only superpower. If Obama didn't want that responsibility he never should have run for the office of President. But he did, he got elected, and he should do the job.

    Secondly, point out any post on this site where I've called for American boots on the ground in Iraq - you can't because I haven't. I have criticized Obama for not being able to maintain forces in Iraq in 2010/2011 and I blame it on wrong-headed policy and more concern with keeping an ill advised campaign promise than doing what was right for America and the situation created in Iraq. Neither this Canadian nor my government pushed for the invasion of Iraq - that was your government, if not you personally - as such, your country has a large responsibility in helping them get recovery right.

    You have every right to belittle Canada's contributions to waging war - that's not what we've traditionally been about. I wish, personally, that my government did more and spent more, but the majority of Canadians don't agree. But there isn't an American government that doesn't contact Canada whenever they want assistance and cooperation in some world issue and there isn't a Canadian government that doesn't reach out to America to offer what resources and personnel we can.

    As for not having a dog in the fight so I don't get to comment - blow it out your ass.
    I didn't say you don't get to comment. I said, "you really don't get to talk smack about how the fighting is done". BIG difference. So, to that you can .

    As to the rest, I think those who criticize Pres. Obama's foreign policy by claiming he "negotiates with global instigators" on the one hand and isn't forceful enough in the use of U.S. power projection on the other are hypocrites. Such people are quick to claim that relenting to a nation's sovereignty and upholding the right of said nation to instill a representative government through a democratic elections is just, but are just as quick to insist that the U.S. should intervene and project its military muscle whenever the hits the fan.

    You've essentially said repeatedly throughout this thread that "America tends to stick its nose where it doesn't belong" yet in the very next breath condemn him in siding with Rand Paul's take on "destroying ISIS" and claiming he hasn't been forceful enough in using said power. You've said that Pres. Obama needs to "re-engage America" in foreign policy issues, yet your own country tends to take a back seat to forward power projection. You can't have it both ways, CJ.

    Clearly, your idea of foreign policy is a show of military strength. Anything less doesn't seem to fit the equation. Still, you completely ignore how the Middle-East began to unravel long before Pres. Obama was first elected President. What yourself and others seem to be pissed at him about concerning foreign policy is he has respected the sovereignty of nations, thus, staying true to American values all the while using military might sparingly and, if possible, as a last resort. Granted, the only country that has dared to test America's resolve has been Russia, and yet not even they have crossed that line of demarcation that would call for NATO involvement in Ukraine. Why not? Because of U.S. influence as lead by the very Pres. you condemn.

    ISIS...a flea on the back of a dirty dog...but a pest nonetheless that needs to be dealt with. But just as you view America as an "instigator" at times, I, too, think we should mind our own business in some instances and let these other countries deal with their own problems until they show they can't handle it. Such was the case in Iraq post-U.S. troop withdrawal. IMHO, it was the right thing to do just as it is the right thing for America to get involved with defeating ISIS only after the sovereign, newly elected government of Iraq asked for your assistance.

    So, it's like I said, "if you don't have a dog in this fight, you don't get to complain when, where, how or if the fighting is done."
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-05-14 at 07:03 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  10. #180
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily[W:20]

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    I won't be disagreeing with you on the very real trouble that "these guys" pose. It frustrates me though that Rand Paul was accusing the Obama administration of essentially supporting ISIS in Syria not long ago, and is now suddenly on board with extending US military action in the ME. But more frustrating then that, is the fact that the powers in the ME kept these guys at bay, and they were denied opportunity to grow, flourish, unite, recruit, expand and arm themselves, UNTIL that is, the US removed these powers and enabled them to do so. Russia and China accurately warned of this, and has pushed back against the US in various ways, China has criticised US intrigue in Ukraine, and Russia and China, fed up with US "globe trotting" are forging alliances that look clear that they will be pushing back economically and there are clues that they are even prepared to push back militarily.
    Agree wholeheartedly on everything you say. However, looking in the past at our mistakes and wishing we'd done it different isn't the answer. I'm sure you know that. I think Paul realizes that as well. We screwed the pooch on this one. BIG time. Removing Assad was absolutely stupid. Removing Saddam was stupid. Removing most of these guys is stupid. As someone who has been to that portion of the world more times than I'd like to remember, I can say unequivocally that power and strength speak more to people of the ME than anything else. They don't care if someone is kind or compassionate. That is weak to them. Power and strength represent leadership to them. A gov't whose troops can't even combat a threat that doesn't have air, indirect, or armor capabilities is ridiculous. I know for a fact that the Iraqi Army is capable of defeating ISIS. I have fought beside them many times. The issue is that they don't want to fight their current gov't. They'd rather give up and live another day than fight their country. There is no national pride, no system that will take care of their families if they're injured/killed, no VA (as bad as ours sucks) that will process disability for them, etc, etc. They have nothing to fight for other than a paycheck, which they have to be alive to collect.
    Our gov't has basically sent us down a rabbit hole that we can't remove ourselves from. Every time we've interfered in the ME in the past 35-40 years, it's stoked the flame that is currently burning. Now, we're at the point where we can't walk away from the fire because it will spread here if we do. Clinton attempted to pull away from over there more than anyone and it led to Sept 11. People of the ME have long memories. They don't have Twitter and Facebook and all of these other distractions (for the most part). They still spread their info via word of mouth, books, and during their religious gatherings. As a result, we are the demon and always will be. No matter what we do, we will stay that way.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •