• 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]

ISIS will be destroyed, but Rand Paul will never see the inside of the White House, except as a visitor.

Don't take my word for this, wait and see.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

To which...



...nothing.

Not belittling Canada, not really. I'm just wondering why you're so quick to call for U.S. military intervention using combat forces to deal with a terrorist threat you firmly believe needs to be dealt with, yet your country has never sent a single soldier to Iraq and likely won't do so now to deal with ISIS. But you expect an American President to do so and have the balls to condemn him when he doesn't.



DITTO!

I see the issue rather clearly, however. Unless it's a NATO-led initiative, Canada seems very content with remaining in a support role while it's southern neighbor leads from the front.

Blame Canada, indeed...for being passive. But digress...

There are reasons why Pres. Obama bent to the pressure to send U.S. combat troops back into Iraq. This article from HuffingtonPost.com outlines some of them.

Just to be clear, I simply indicated in my first comment on this thread that Paul's position is reasonable yet likely politically motivated since foreign policy is likely to be a deciding factor in the upcoming Presidential primaries and general election. I did not call for "US military intervention using combat forces" - neither did Paul. He said the military should be used to destroy ISIS - that does not necessarily require combat forces nor are combat forces necessarily required. It is you and others who are extending Paul's position further than he did.

As for Canada's role, I really find it remarkable that many in the US who bemoan the US getting involved where they feel the US has no business now want Canada to assume that role. Canada has traditionally been in a support or peacekeeping role because we've never started or precipitated wars but we've always been there to help our friends and allies. ISIS isn't threatening Canada, that I know of. ISIS isn't beheading Canadian journalists, that I know of. But Canada and Canadians are appalled by such actions and prepared to assist our friends both in the region and to the south in facing that challenge.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Im not a fan of Rand and I dont agree with his views but he is actually doing it the proper way- he is seeking Congressional authorization before launching an attack- unlike Dubya or Obama, he is actually following the Constitution.

The precedent has been set in which Congress has allowed the President to use limited force, then confer with Congress for further actions.

Rand Paul is a "perfect world" theorician.
 
Funny movie. But I don't see your point. If we are to define every politician who wants to take out the terrorists as a 'neocon' then the term has lost all meaning.

That's what happened after a while. Any measure of hawkishness, irrespective of context, became defined as "neocon." Under that logic, Barry Goldwater, for his fiery rhetoric would have been the champion of neoconservatism.

What Rand Paul is is a fusionist; probably a fusionist more outwardly influenced by libertarianism than those a fusionist targets. While he has changed his views for political calculation, like most politicians ambitious enough for greater things, he has also been subtly attempting to build a big-tent coalition. Fusionism conceded that conservative success hinged on bringing various conservative factions together toward a negotiated platform. In the mid to later parts of the 20th century, this represented calling up social and religious conservatives to battle the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s, it also meant stressing libertarian critiques of the welfare state, embracing various degrees of corporatism, and taking a selectively hawkish foreign policy (mostly in regard to the Soviet Union and its proxy interventions) that will still be able to allow people to see it as realism. For the 21st century this will necessarily take on a different meaning, but the concept is still intact. This...perhaps neo-fusionism is something to be reckoned with.

Neoconservatives (of the foreign policy variety) are wary of Rand Paul, because often he has openly clashed with them. When Rand offers them goodies, they are skeptical. At best they figure they can evolve him. He won't be one of them, there is no love loss from them, but perhaps he can become more tolerable.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Well I do not agree that ISIS is a threat to USA at this point. It has great neighbors to worry about far before it could reach Europe, much less USA. This Decepticonic "destroy all ISIS" speech seems to invite a macho attitude associated more with men rather than women like Clinton (proposed for president in 2016). This I think just works against her.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

If you don't want to deal with comments from non-Americans, don't post threads on topics that affect people other than Americans and/or join a site that doesn't allow non-American members.

Otherwise, I'll comment whenever I like on whatever I like and you can suck your thumb and whine all you want.

You have every right to post in any forum you want, and I hope you continue to do so.

Having been told repeatedly by various effete Europeans that Americans (who are clumsy oafs politically because they are American) have no business commenting on European affairs, I tend to bristle whenever somebody tries to pull the same stunt with somebody else.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

You have every right to post in any forum you want, and I hope you continue to do so.

Having been told repeatedly by various effete Europeans that Americans (who are clumsy oafs politically because they are American) have no business commenting on European affairs, I tend to bristle whenever somebody tries to pull the same stunt with somebody else.

Thank you sir - I'm not one to be easily cowed into compliance, particularly by those who have zero power over what I do or don't do.

Personally, I would think that many Americans might appreciate hearing views from those who are on the outside looking in - I know Canada doesn't get the same type of attention, but I always enjoy hearing what outsiders have to say about us and countering it, if it's wrong. I'd think if my views on some American issues are ill founded, people would be able to argue against the substance of those views rather than the nationality of the poster opining.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Im not a fan of Rand and I dont agree with his views but he is actually doing it the proper way- he is seeking Congressional authorization before launching an attack- unlike Dubya or Obama, he is actually following the Constitution.

Not to mention this is a rather ignorant interpritation of what a "Neo-con" is. One can not define a "Neocon" simply on their desire to combat ISIS. The reasons for such a combat, their intentions for after the battle, their goals in such a conflict, etc are all necessary factors to know in order to truly and realistically attempt to label someone as such based singularly on their treatment of ISIS and even then that's a bit questionable.
 
That's what happened after a while. Any measure of hawkishness, irrespective of context, became defined as "neocon." Under that logic, Barry Goldwater, for his fiery rhetoric would have been the champion of neoconservatism.

It's funny, but you were the first person I thought of IMMEDIETELY when I read the first posts in this thread. I just wanted to slap my head and was anxious to read your thoughts on it.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

You know, for once in my life I would like to experience a thread involving Islamists where people can actually focus on what they believe in, what they represent, how they are a danger to western culture, and do so without a bunch of inane finger pointing, stupid framing according to whether a lefty should say this and a righty should say that, which president is somehow responsible and just agree that they are bad news.

The Islamists win when we are so divided by our idiotic partisan crap that we would rather fight against each other than fight against them. They truly represent that boot that would stamp on a human face forever that Orwell warned about and it is high time people started taking the threat seriously and stop all this divisive crap that fails to address the threat.

It's not aboutt Republicans and democrats. It's not about lefties and righties. It's not about neocons and isolationists and paleo this or rino/dino that. It's about people who hate our very culture and wish to destroy it. Can't we just focus on that for a change?
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Not to mention this is a rather ignorant interpritation of what a "Neo-con" is.

"Neo-con" = bogeyman to the extremely dogmatic portion of the hard left just like "liberal" = "bogeyman" to the same portion of the right.

I see little deifference in the amount of intelligence applied.
 
It's well known on this site that I am extremely anti globe trotting. However, Rand Paul is correct on this one. Do some research on these guy, look up their origins. They aren't a group of upstarts like Al Qaeda. Their roots go back to the 1800's. They have deep ties to the Saudis, however, they are seen as following a more stringent version of Wahhabism. These guys aren't your typical joke like these other dirt bag groups that pop up in the ME. Not trying to talk down to you. It just sounds like you aren't fully read in on who these guys are.

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.
 
ISIS will be destroyed, but Rand Paul will never see the inside of the White House, except as a visitor.

Don't take my word for this, wait and see.

I think the "ISIS will be destroyed" part too, is a wait and see. The Rand Paul only visiting the White house is accurate.
 
I think the "ISIS will be destroyed" part too, is a wait and see.
The Rand Paul only visiting the White house is accurate.



You're absolutely right, it will take time even if the USA and its allies commit a lot of forces.

First we have to find them, then we have to terminate them with extreme prejudice.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily


I suppose if they weren't thinking of it, they are now. And they even have its vulnerabilities mapped out for them. Lets see what else we can do to invite an attack that will round up the gullible in support of round three in the ME. Let the fear mongering begin, and the people will be rattling like aspen leaves in a summer wind.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

You know, for once in my life I would like to experience a thread involving Islamists where people can actually focus on what they believe in, what they represent, how they are a danger to western culture, and do so without a bunch of inane finger pointing, stupid framing according to whether a lefty should say this and a righty should say that, which president is somehow responsible and just agree that they are bad news.

The Islamists win when we are so divided by our idiotic partisan crap that we would rather fight against each other than fight against them. They truly represent that boot that would stamp on a human face forever that Orwell warned about and it is high time people started taking the threat seriously and stop all this divisive crap that fails to address the threat.

It's not aboutt Republicans and democrats. It's not about lefties and righties. It's not about neocons and isolationists and paleo this or rino/dino that. It's about people who hate our very culture and wish to destroy it. Can't we just focus on that for a change?

As far as I'm concerned, people in other countries are welcome to hate American culture to their hearts' content.

The only action I expect from America is to prevent them from doing any damage in U.S. territory. Most other Americans who say they want more are simply using IS to hide some other agenda.
 
You're absolutely right, it will take time even if the USA and its allies commit a lot of forces.

First we have to find them, then we have to terminate them with extreme prejudice.

I suppose if it were to be given an honest and diligent go, perhaps so. Al Qaeda lives, to be used again, ISIS too will live to be used again. Oh to be sure, we're going hot and heavy back into the ME to hit IS, and hit them hard, and drive them back into their holes. But the holes will be intentionally left intact. Yes we'll hear how they are in their last throughs, on the run, reduced to a skeleton, whatever. This replay works nicely for defense contractors, creating crisis', and then taking out our big, hungry stick and beating up on it for a while. But a perhaps unintended consequence (well, there's no doubt more, but I'm just pointing out one) is that both Russia and China have been pushing back on us. At the UN level, more recently economically, with a deal to trade oil and gas with each other, outside of the petro-dollar. And militarily, as noted by an increase of "incidents" with the US of late, and joint military exercises, which always are as political as they are soldier training.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Well I do not agree that ISIS is a threat to USA at this point. It has great neighbors to worry about far before it could reach Europe, much less USA. This Decepticonic "destroy all ISIS" speech seems to invite a macho attitude associated more with men rather than women like Clinton (proposed for president in 2016). This I think just works against her.

Well, of course you're right. But this has to be sold to the gullible at home as a direct threat (millions dead due to attack on the PG) to them, in order to have the necessary support and appearance of legitimacy.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Not to mention this is a rather ignorant interpritation of what a "Neo-con" is. One can not define a "Neocon" simply on their desire to combat ISIS. The reasons for such a combat, their intentions for after the battle, their goals in such a conflict, etc are all necessary factors to know in order to truly and realistically attempt to label someone as such based singularly on their treatment of ISIS and even then that's a bit questionable.

I totally agree with you that this issue does not define Paul as a neo-con. It does however further weaken SOME of his traditional support, who are already weary with his evolving position. But, perhaps he believes he'll make it up, and then some, elsewhere.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

You know, for once in my life I would like to experience a thread involving Islamists where people can actually focus on what they believe in, what they represent, how they are a danger to western culture, and do so without a bunch of inane finger pointing, stupid framing according to whether a lefty should say this and a righty should say that, which president is somehow responsible and just agree that they are bad news.

The Islamists win when we are so divided by our idiotic partisan crap that we would rather fight against each other than fight against them. They truly represent that boot that would stamp on a human face forever that Orwell warned about and it is high time people started taking the threat seriously and stop all this divisive crap that fails to address the threat.

It's not aboutt Republicans and democrats. It's not about lefties and righties. It's not about neocons and isolationists and paleo this or rino/dino that. It's about people who hate our very culture and wish to destroy it. Can't we just focus on that for a change?

The Islamists also win when we remove figures like Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad, none of which gave quarters to them, which gives them opportunity to grow and flourish. But I'll bet you want to keep that out of threads as well.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

As far as I'm concerned, people in other countries are welcome to hate American culture to their hearts' content.

The only action I expect from America is to prevent them from doing any damage in U.S. territory. Most other Americans who say they want more are simply using IS to hide some other agenda.

Except!! They DON'T hate us for our culture as a pretence for attacking us, that was a Bush lie. They do however hate us for our presence and interference. And from OBL's open letter to this latest beheading that was accompanied by a recorded message for the killing, these people have articulated in clear and concise terms, exactly what it is they are disgruntled about. But Americans don't want to hear that. Listen, and read every message that has been sent to America, there is no focus on American culture.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

I totally agree with you that this issue does not define Paul as a neo-con. It does however further weaken SOME of his traditional support, who are already weary with his evolving position. But, perhaps he believes he'll make it up, and then some, elsewhere.

It destroys the support from non-interventionists, which is what his father championed.

Instead, it does indeed nudge him towards the neo-con arena, where America is supposed to exert its military might to form the world in its image.

His appeal, right from his election, has been from the Tea Party crowd -- and these are most definitely definitely nationalistic neo-cons. This recent position will more firmly establish him with them while distancing him from true libertarians. It's a move to the right. Period. Assuming he every really deviated that far from the right in the first place, rather than merely riding on the coattails of his father.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

I suppose if they weren't thinking of it, they are now. And they even have its vulnerabilities mapped out for them. Lets see what else we can do to invite an attack that will round up the gullible in support of round three in the ME. Let the fear mongering begin, and the people will be rattling like aspen leaves in a summer wind.

You don't think they're smart enough to plan this. Some people took down 2 buildings 13 years ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom