• 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]

"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

So much for non-interventionalism. Anyone like Rand Paul who takes that doctrine seriously such that, yes, there are times during which it is appropriate for the US to become engaged in foreign doings, specifically in defense of the country, is going to be hung out to dry by more libertarian than thou types for whom nothing but absolute de facto isolationism will do.
 
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.



Both Russia and China have problems with Muslim populations and I just read that ISIS is talking about making problems for Russia because it has helped Assad in Syria.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

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.

For the time being this is ISIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yky4QtRX_DI
 
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.

tumblr_ktla7fHi0v1qzs08do1_250.gif

Just a typically partisan hack comment that adds absolutely nothing to the debate, other than another meaningless shot at the President and Democrats. Fail.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

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.

I'm not even that concerned about what's upsetting them. In general, the less involved America is in the ME and other parts of the world, the better.
 
It shouldn't be too hard for you to show all of us what a liar I am then. Do back up your statement of my lies and misconceptions with no discussion of the actual thread .

You stated he is/was an isolationist and a pacifist. You either do not know the meanings of those terms or you are intentionally misleading.


Meanwhile, Paul has spent his entire 6-week vacation trashing Hillary Clinton for being a warhawk.



How does this bellicose rhetoric not make him the ultimate warhawk,

Depends on your definition of 'warhawk.' Just about every libertarian I've met has expressed a willingness to strike militarily at those who attack us. Does that make one a 'warhawk?' I don't think so. For me, the warhawks are those who tend to balk at the idea of diplomacy with one's enemies and who's only answers are ground invasions
 
He has already articulated that US intervention/interference in Syria has emboldened and strengthened IS, he should stick with that message. Prevention is cheaper, and more credible then continual cause and effect diplomacy.

Our ME interventionism certainly is at the root of this. But that does not mean we don't seek and kill the terrorists who attack us. Do you think we shouldn't have gone after Al Qaeda after 9/11, too? There has to be a balance.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

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.

Do you have information that the government entities that replaced these murdering tyrants support ISIS and/or other radical Islamists?

Seems to me, in the first three cases, the governments that followed have been fighting against radical Islamists with varying degrees of success while in the last case, Assad, he's still very much in power and running the show.

I don't buy for a minute that the only thing keeping radical Islamists from succeeding is/are murderous megalomaniacs.
 
Our ME interventionism certainly is at the root of this. But that does not mean we don't seek and kill the terrorists who attack us. Do you think we shouldn't have gone after Al Qaeda after 9/11, too? There has to be a balance.

There's also a general question of whether or not one can "put the genie back in the bottle".

Let's assume the notion is correct; that the overwhelming primary reason that Islamists despise America is our actions within the region.

If we suddenly stopped supporting Israel in any fashion, would that suddenly or over a decades time significantly impact the Islamist views of the US? Conversely, how does the blowback from Israel and other allies due to our abandonment of a long standing ally end up affecting us now and over the next decade? How do these two things weigh on each other?

If we simply remove all military from the region and refrain from engaging in any foreign actions in the region at all, be it enforcing blockaids for the UN of Iran or dropping aid on Yazidis in Iraq, is that likely to cause a significant impact on Islamist views of the US now or over a decade? How does the UN or NATO feel if they choose to take action within the middle east and we simply refuse to be any part of it what so ever? What blowback does that cause? How do we handle our allies borderline. For example, should we also cut any and all foreign ties with India because they are directly involved at times with Pakistan? Is Egypt and Turkey part of “the region” or not, so we know whether to cut off all foreign policy interaction with them around.

What impacts does our complete removal from the middle east do in terms of world markets regarding trade of commodities, especially oil. What blowback does that potentially cause?

And with all this, even if we cease doing anything remotely involving the middle east and completely and utterly withdraw, is the hatred currently held for America by many Islamists something that will likely go away in the current individuals life times or is this likely a grudge that has long been built and likely to be passed down regardless of our “changed ways”…similar to how a lover scorned may view someone even after they’ve tried to make amends, or how someone whose friend betrayed them is unable to ever trust them again.

These are serious and important questions when people continue on and on about blowback, because it’s quite easy to lecture with 20/20 hindsight about the past but much harder to actually deal with the present. If at this point the genie is not going back in the bottle then bitching about “blowback” is rather irrelevant when it comes to how to deal with the realities of TODAY. Unless one has good reason to think that complete isolation from the Middle East will substantively change the situation for the better in the immediate or moderate term future then it’s really just an empty exercise of a person trying to make themselves sound like the smart kid in class. Unless a time machine is created sometime soon the reality is the actions of the past 40+ years that supposedly caused this “blowback” have happened…and unless the thought is simply stopping is going to make it all better we have to deal with that reality.
 
It seems to me that our containing Russia from interfering with strategic regions for oil/gas is kind of hypocritical, since that was our primary interest, regardless of this "removal of brutal dictators" or "protect US against WMD" theories. ISIS was a natural progression of sectarian differences that had been held in check by the strong arms of tough leaders. The Arab Spring has been a disaster, purported by our politicians originally as wins for democracy. Every place a long term leader/dictator has been replaced has collapsed into chaos Libya, Egypt, Iraq and almost Syria.
 
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.

That's probably reflective of an obsession I may or may not have. ;)

I was going to say, you (the Senator) know you're not going to be a favorite of the "Neo-Reaganite" school of Neoconservatives when your promoted reading list contains ample selections from those like Andrew Bacevich or Michael Scheuer.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

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.

Well indeed that's no doubt the case, and the "some" in my post was in reference to libertarians. Libertarians disgruntled by other movements of his.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

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

I wouldn't attempt to speak to their intelligence. I'm just pointing out the nice little map drawn out for them by the Examiner. And making another point that was glossed over.
 
Our ME interventionism certainly is at the root of this. But that does not mean we don't seek and kill the terrorists who attack us. Do you think we shouldn't have gone after Al Qaeda after 9/11, too? There has to be a balance.

Well certainly after the fact. But I'm sick of "after the fact" diplomacy, aren't you. You acknowledged that US policy in the region is at the root of this. It's been going on for decades, there's pages of reading of statements by officials that the US engages in terrorism and supports militant Islamic groups. A decade of support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, gave rise to the Taliban we had to fight latter. The MEK was removed from the terrorist list by Bush so that he could train them in Nevada for another mission. As a result many congressmen on both sides of the isle received monies from them. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, he used al Qaeda in Libya to help overthrow Gaddafi, and covertly supported the rebels fighting Assad in Syria. ALL of which has been beneficial to militant Islamists! How about a little focus on prevention, so that we don't have to stay focused on cure? Besides the obvious benefits that it gives to the defense contractors in America, what do we average Americans have to gain, cheap gas? After removing Gaddafi, oil output has dropped from 1.3 million BPD to 300k. And more importantly, look what the citizens of the region have lost due to US intervention/interference.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Do you have information that the government entities that replaced these murdering tyrants support ISIS and/or other radical Islamists?

Seems to me, in the first three cases, the governments that followed have been fighting against radical Islamists with varying degrees of success while in the last case, Assad, he's still very much in power and running the show.

I don't buy for a minute that the only thing keeping radical Islamists from succeeding is/are murderous megalomaniacs.

The point CJ is that Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad GAVE NO QUARTER to these extremists!! Now they have it. So.............whether these "new" governments are unable, unwilling or just incompetent, is besides the point. They have flourished in the power vacuums that we have created. Period. China and Russia both warned that we would get what we've got for doing so, and people like you continue to support a continuance of the same! This is nuts!!
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

The point CJ is that Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad GAVE NO QUARTER to these extremists!! Now they have it. So.............whether these "new" governments are unable, unwilling or just incompetent, is besides the point. They have flourished in the power vacuums that we have created. Period. China and Russia both warned that we would get what we've got for doing so, and people like you continue to support a continuance of the same! This is nuts!!

You forget that they gave no quarter to their own people.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

What impacts does our complete removal from the middle east do in terms of world markets regarding trade of commodities, especially oil. What blowback does that potentially cause?

I don't usually believe in drastic sudden moves when it comes to government. A reduction in our military presence should be gradual. We should put the pressure on terrorist groups, but military action is only a short term solution (and can often lead to longterm problems as history teachers us). To 'defeat' terrorism we need a prevention program. Not repeating the mistakes from the past is a start. We should rethink our support of oppressive dictators. We should promote diplomacy and trade even to places like Palestine.

I think few people here or anywhere actually promote complete withdrawal from ME or Asia when it comes to trade.
 
Not to anywhere close to the same extent as Paul.

Really now, he supported the Muslim Brotherhood and the overthrow of Mubarak. He overthrew the government of Libya, supported the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, is trying his best to overthrow president Assad! Jesus Christ people, they're all ****ing hawks. There's a dimes thickness in difference in the end between the two parties.
 
Well certainly after the fact. But I'm sick of "after the fact" diplomacy, aren't you. You acknowledged that US policy in the region is at the root of this. It's been going on for decades, there's pages of reading of statements by officials that the US engages in terrorism and supports militant Islamic groups. A decade of support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, gave rise to the Taliban we had to fight latter. The MEK was removed from the terrorist list by Bush so that he could train them in Nevada for another mission. As a result many congressmen on both sides of the isle received monies from them. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, he used al Qaeda in Libya to help overthrow Gaddafi, and covertly supported the rebels fighting Assad in Syria. ALL of which has been beneficial to militant Islamists! How about a little focus on prevention, so that we don't have to stay focused on cure? Besides the obvious benefits that gives to the defense contractors in America, what do we average Americans have to gain, cheap gas? After removing Gaddafi, oil output has dropped from 1.3 million BPD to 300k. And more importantly, look what the citizens of the region have lost due to US intervention/interference.

I agree. There needs to be a focus on prevention.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

You forget that they gave no quarter to their own people.

Except that simply isn't true. Unless the 26 million Iraqis living in Iraq at the time the US toppled Saddam escaped you.
 
Back
Top Bottom