• 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]

To my knowledge he hasn't pushed for committing troops anywhere that they weren't already deployed when he took office.

Can you point me to a quote where he said he wished to "commit the troops" somewhere?
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

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.

Totally agreed. We should be all up into the ME regarding trade. And truly helping the region and the people's, rather then exploiting them. I like the rethinking our policy part of your post the best. Unfortunately, I don't think that will come from the typical democrat or republican candidate. And previous candidates that have espoused such have been marginalised by the media who themselves have their fingers deep within the defense industry. And, third world dictators can be propped up, for latter removal, as you somewhat mentioned.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

You forget that ghadafi was killing his own people.

No, I didn't forget any such thing. But clearly you forgot that Obama abused the UN resolution for use of force which was issued to protect those civilians that were being killed, to overthrow the government of Libya. Which was immediately pointed out by Russia and China, and is the very reason the two of them blocked all attempts by the US to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria. Because the US has shown they can't be trusted. So............not only has US policy in the region helped ISIS, it is driving Russia and China closer together. You may fancy that, but that could also bite us latter. But go right ahead and continue your support of the status quo, and the ME will remain inflamed and our military and defense contractors will have job security, which is as much what this is all about as anything else.
 
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!!

Sad but true. Remember how the Cheney/Bush propaganda machine tried desperately to link Saddam with al Qaeda. Even they didn't believe it. But the conservatives floated it and the American people (or some of them) did.

Of course conservatives never apologized or took responsibility when the truth came out:

Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Sad but true. Remember how the Cheney/Bush propaganda machine tried desperately to link Saddam with al Qaeda. Even they didn't believe it. But the conservatives floated it and the American people (or some of them) did.

Of course conservatives never apologized or took responsibility when the truth came out:

Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com

That's because you believed CNN's BS.

Saddam's Dangerous Friends | The Weekly Standard

The ABC's of Iraq and al Qaeda | The Weekly Standard
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Yes, it was all a CNN conspiracy. Thank God Bush Cheney and Fox News weren't proposing such nonsense. But wait!

So let me guess, your entire purpose is to complain about Fox news and Republicans. Amirite?
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

So let me guess, your entire purpose is to complain about Fox news and Republicans. Amirite?

My post wasn't directed at you, but since you feel the urge to butt in, read Montecresto's very fine post and report back in. Then you'll understand my purpose.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

My post wasn't directed at you, but since you feel the urge to butt in, read Montecristo's post and report back in. Then you'll understand my purpose.

You're posting on a public forum, get used to it. I'm not really that interested to go looking actually..... :yawn:
 
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!!

People have to move forward and not look back - the problems of years past are irrelevant - it is the issues at hand today that matter. I've said, previously, that if I had a choice I'd want to see support given to Ukraine rather than Iraq until such time as Malachy was removed - Malachy has or is being removed and I now believe that the people of Iraq should be supported if we can. There's a huge difference between letting a wasteland like Afghanistan go back to the middle ages - it's entirely different to let advanced societies like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, perhaps Jordan, etc. be taken over and destroyed. Somebody, likely Iran, is supplying ISIS with weapons and supports. Do we really want such an enormous change in the power structure in the ME to develop? And let's not forget Colin Powell's Pottery Barn philosophy - if you break it, you own it. For better or worse, America owns Iraq at this point in history.
 
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.

Yep. Does that mean now we have to defend IS sense they have threatened Putin?
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

People have to move forward and not look back - the problems of years past are irrelevant - it is the issues at hand today that matter. I've said, previously, that if I had a choice I'd want to see support given to Ukraine rather than Iraq until such time as Malachy was removed - Malachy has or is being removed and I now believe that the people of Iraq should be supported if we can. There's a huge difference between letting a wasteland like Afghanistan go back to the middle ages - it's entirely different to let advanced societies like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, perhaps Jordan, etc. be taken over and destroyed. Somebody, likely Iran, is supplying ISIS with weapons and supports. Do we really want such an enormous change in the power structure in the ME to develop? And let's not forget Colin Powell's Pottery Barn philosophy - if you break it, you own it. For better or worse, America owns Iraq at this point in history.

Well I can just categorically disagree with you that we can't look back. This is why our policy repeats itself. I'm hoping for relief from this bat **** crazy policy that has enabled militant Islamists. Furthermore, we don't need to look back very far. In fact our recent interference in Syria has left IS as beneficiary. Didn't Canada participate and support George Bush's folly in Iraq, and as such, don't they own that disaster as well?
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Didn't Canada participate and support George Bush's folly in Iraq, and as such, don't they own that disaster as well?

Officially, no, Canada was not a member of the coalition of the willing regarding Iraq. Unofficially, Canadian resources in the Persian Gulf were offered to and used by the US and the other coalition members, but Canada was not part of the invasion force.

As a responsible nation in the world, one that tries to assist those in trouble when and where we can, I do believe that Canada has some ownership in the disaster in the ME and I would and do support our government's involvement.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Officially, no, Canada was not a member of the coalition of the willing regarding Iraq. Unofficially, Canadian resources in the Persian Gulf were offered to and used by the US and the other coalition members, but Canada was not part of the invasion force.

As a responsible nation in the world, one that tries to assist those in trouble when and where we can, I do believe that Canada has some ownership in the disaster in the ME and I would and do support our government's involvement.

I have no problem with that. I hope whatever they offer up, if anything, it is of genuine help, and doesn't further exacerbate the trouble.
 
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

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.

Wait I minute now...

You may not have called for "U.S. military intervention using combat forces" in Iraq/Syria to defeat ISIS/ISIL, but you've been very quick to condemn Pres. Obama for not being more aggressive in the military actions he has authorized against them (i.e., air strikes) to date. As such, if you and Rand Paul interpret "U.S. military intervention" as anything other than "combat forces/boots on the ground", then you're both talking out the side of your neck considering that the "military force" currently authorized has been a combination of air strikes and Special Operations and both have been very effective even in their limited capacities.

As to why American posters here seem to be coming down on you over this topic, I'd say it's very obvious: You talk a good talk, but your country doesn't seem to walk the walk. As you've rightly stated, "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." It's as I said previously, "You rest on your laurels while enjoying the very protections America provides".

So, if you're not going to get into the fight and risk taking a bullet in defense against tyranny, again I say, "Get your finger off my nuke button!" You're certainly free to express your opinion concerning the situation is northern Iraq/southern Syria or how ISIS and other Jihadist forces need to be destroyed, but I don't think it's right or fair for you to condemn the actions of another country's leader when your own country has done nothing to push back against ISIS militarily. In short, you don't have a dog in the fight; you really don't get to talk smack about how the fighting is done.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rand Paul: As president I would 'destroy ISIS militarily

Wait I minute now...

You may not have called for "U.S. military intervention using combat forces" in Iraq/Syria to defeat ISIS/ISIL, but you've been very quick to condemn Pres. Obama for not being more aggressive in the military actions he has authorized against them (i.e., air strikes) to date. As such, if you and Rand Paul interpret "U.S. military intervention" as anything other than "combat forces/boots on the ground", then you're both talking out the side of your neck considering that the "military force" currently authorized has been a combination of air strikes and Special Operations and both have been very effective even in their limited capacities.

As to why American posters here seem to be coming down on you over this topic, I'd say it's very obvious: You talk a good talk, but your country doesn't seem to walk the walk. As you've rightly stated, "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." It's as I said previously, "You rest on your laurels while enjoying the very protections America provides".

So, if you're not going to get into the fight and risk taking a bullet in defense against tyranny, again I say, "Get your finger off my nuke button!" You're certainly free to express your opinion concerning the situation is northern Iraq/southern Syria or how ISIS and other Jihadist forces need to be destroyed, but I don't think it's right or fair for you to condemn the actions of another country's leader when your own country has done nothing to push back against ISIS militarily. In short, you don't have a dog in the fight; you really don't get to talk smack about how the fighting is done.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom