• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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"!!!!
 
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.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
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:
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 :kissass.

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 :hitsfan: 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:
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.
 
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.

Well said brother. I think what I read between the lines perhaps a little, is that citizens of the Middle East do better under an authoritarian type structure. Perhaps they could evolve into democracies someday. But evolution is a long slow process. Removing such figures, installing a puppet government, holding an election and then leaving, declaring a new democracy and success, is silly.
 
Where's the right complaining about Rand Paul drawing a "red line" by saying if he was president he would destroy ISIS militarily? Last I checked Rand Paul still would have to get congressional approval for the scale he is talking about.
 
Where's the right complaining about Rand Paul drawing a "red line" by saying if he was president he would destroy ISIS militarily? Last I checked Rand Paul still would have to get congressional approval for the scale he is talking about.


Drawing Red Lines isn't the issue.

Allowing the exposure of your empty rhetoric by allowing those Red lines to be crossed is the issue.

Its what Obama was criticized for.
 
citizens of the Middle East do better under an authoritarian type structure. Perhaps they could evolve into democracies someday. But evolution is a long slow process.

That's racist.
 
"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily. [AP]"

Rand paul the Neocon. That didn't take long. Well at least he didn't give a bribe like his dad.

Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily' - The Week

You mean interfere in the national politics of other countries by bombing them? He would not need congressional authority he would need international cooperation and approval from the UN/Syria.
 
Where's the right complaining about Rand Paul drawing a "red line" by saying if he was president he would destroy ISIS militarily? Last I checked Rand Paul still would have to get congressional approval for the scale he is talking about.

I'll complain for you. Yeah, he was not too long ago complaining that US policies in Syria were beneficial to IS. Then he makes this declaration. Oh, and if you saw the whole piece, he specifically said he would make his clear case to and secure congressional approval to do so.
 
No, its not. What's racist is the US killing Muslims and your support of it.

Muslims nor ISIS are a race. You called Arabs subhuman, that's racist.
 
Muslims nor ISIS are a race. You called Arabs subhuman, that's racist.

The US is killing plenty of Arab Muslims with your support. Doesn't make you pretty.
 
The US is killing plenty of Arab Muslims with your support. Doesn't make you pretty.

I don't care what perverted crap you come up with about my positions on geopolitics.

The fact remains: you called Arabs subhuman and that is racist.
 
I don't care what perverted crap you come up with about my positions on geopolitics.

The fact remains: you called Arabs subhuman and that is racist.

In which case, I don't care what you come up with.
 
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.
Wait, what? How did we manage to remove Assad? He's still - nominally - in power.
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.
So we need to let them have whatever government they're willing to put together and put up with. It's none of America's business, nor should it be.
Our gov't has basically sent us down a rabbit hole that we can't remove ourselves from.
The rabbit hole has been there ever since the discovery of oil, my friend. Both Bush administrations just dug it deeper.

And the rabbit hole won't close up until after the oil is gone.
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.
They don't have enough people or enough money. Besides, they're fighting one another at least half the time.
Clinton attempted to pull away from over there more than anyone and it led to Sept 11.
Complete and utter bull****. He'd been out of office for 9 months by then, which was more than enough time for the government to get its act together - if it hadn't become so corrupt.
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.
All the more reason not to waste time and lives in some disenfranchised sand pit on the other side of the planet.
 
Wait, what? How did we manage to remove Assad? He's still - nominally - in power.

So we need to let them have whatever government they're willing to put together and put up with. It's none of America's business, nor should it be.

The rabbit hole has been there ever since the discovery of oil, my friend. Both Bush administrations just dug it deeper.

And the rabbit hole won't close up until after the oil is gone.

They don't have enough people or enough money. Besides, they're fighting one another at least half the time.

Complete and utter bull****. He'd been out of office for 9 months by then, which was more than enough time for the government to get its act together - if it hadn't become so corrupt.

All the more reason not to waste time and lives in some disenfranchised sand pit on the other side of the planet.

It's quite a joke to presume that Assad has any power left, he's near mortally wounded. Due to opposition support from Qatar, Saudi and US, at least.

He probably agrees with your second point, I know I do. On 3,4&6 as well.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

You're all over the map with your bitching about Rand Paul aren't you? So we can assume you won't be voting for him, and maybe hunting down the nearest Democrat that's available; hoping we'll sit around twiddling our thumbs while ISIS brings their cells in through Mexico. With Obama in charge they'll probably even qualify for food stamps and welfare checks.

Of course, there's no evidence that ISIS actually is bringing in cells through Mexico, but hey, what's a little hysterical fear-mongering, amirite?

LOL! At this rate we'll be living under Sharia by 2016

LOL indeed, since such a scenario is preposterous. Take your deranged hyperbole someplace else.
 
Drawing Red Lines isn't the issue.

Allowing the exposure of your empty rhetoric by allowing those Red lines to be crossed is the issue.

Its what Obama was criticized for.

And Rand Paul CANNOT guarantee he would have the ability thus allowing the red line to be crossed.
 
And Rand Paul CANNOT guarantee he would have the ability thus allowing the red line to be crossed.

True enough. A lot of people have claimed that as president, they would do such and such. And then they become president!
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

He's been a neocon, where have you been?

In your small world who ISNT a neocon?

What an overused catchphrase
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

[...] the vast majority of your country's citizens believe he's doing a lousy job dealing with world issues.
The vast majority of our country's citizens people believe what they see on TV, so their opinion is typically going to be misinformed and wrong. A significant portion believe what they hear in the right wing echo chamber, which makes them quite simply dangerous.

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.
If I remove half my brain perhaps I would agree with that. Don't hold your breath ;)

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.
A superpower has no particular responsibility to bail the rest of the world out, other than considering that their meddling caused or exacerbated the problem to start with. Consider yourself lucky that we don't conquer and enslave all of you :2razz:
 
Muslims nor ISIS are a race. You called Arabs subhuman, that's racist.

No he didn't. Try to post in at least some semblance of reality :roll:

And brush up on the concept of racism, you've got that wrong as well (religion can form the basis for racism).
 
Back
Top Bottom