RIP Rand Paul, says GOP created ISIS

[WVdemocrat]

Unfortunately pragmatic relitigation of past Republican foreign policy decisions will kill your chances within the GOP.

[WVdemocrat]

Rand Paul is a joke.

You're free to think that, but you don't think that because of this, do you?

[WVdemocrat]

Rand Paul is a joke.

You're free to think that, but you don't think that because of this, do you?

No, but this is a big part of it. The shark has been jumped. Hillary wouldn't even say this.

But it is an undeniable fact that GOP foreign doctrine under Bush was responsible for destabilizing Iraq and the Middle East at large. I don't understand how it's an outrageous thing to say. We invaded a foreign sovereign nation on phony pretenses. We can't just not have a debate on it. We need to pinpoint, specifically, what went wrong and why it went wrong. Paul acknowledging this is in no way absurd.

[WVdemocrat]

Wish he was a Democrat. He consistently says things on foreign policy that I WISH Democrats said more often.

You can vote outside party lines, you know

I can't speek for publicunofficial, but I disagree with Rand on too many issues. I couldn't, in good conscious, vote for him. He's libertarian-leaning. He supports de-regulation and is opposed to gun control. I have a great deal of admiration for his stance on foreign policy and civil liberties, but he's just not my candidate. Although I will say, it would be refreshing to hear Democrats talk more like this.

[WVdemocrat]

^The above post is on point.

Rand Paul is a joke.

You're free to think that, but you don't think that because of this, do you?

No, but this is a big part of it. The shark has been jumped. Hillary wouldn't even say this.

But it is an undeniable fact that GOP foreign doctrine under Bush was responsible for destabilizing Iraq and the Middle East at large. I don't understand how it's an outrageous thing to say. We invaded a foreign sovereign nation on phony pretenses. We can't just not have a debate on it. We need to pinpoint, specifically, what went wrong and why it went wrong. Paul acknowledging this is in no way absurd.

Obama pulled out of Iraq because he is an ideological radicalist... and ISIS came about. Case closed.

That's overly simplistic. I'll take a middle of the road approach to this.

-Bush invaded Iraq. Bad idea. But, things don't have to get worse.

-Bush decides, once the "mission is accomplished" (<Sarcasm), to disband the Iraqi Army. That's where he really messed up.

-In the agreement Bush negotiated, it had no plans for a residual force. That was mistake number 2.

-Then, Obama comes into office. He tries, but gives up on trying to leave behind a residual force. That was mistake number 2, part B.

Can we all at least agree with my above points? Can we agree on the basic facts which are that we created the political environment which has allowed ISIS to thrive?

[WVdemocrat]

This is fair.  In a way both CCSF and Paul are right, but in different aspects. 

Is that really solid reasoning though?  This blaming of Obama for leaving Iraq just bugs me.  It's true that if we had a large troops presence in Iraq, we may have been able to tamp down ISIS.  But, occupying a country costs lives and billions of dollars.  Not to mention, Iraqis didn't want Americans occupying their country.   

And, if we left in 2014 or 2015, what happens to Iraq in 2017 or 2018?  Does it just unravel whenever we leave?  So, is the answer just to stay in Iraq forever?

That is idiotic, especially when we have a budget deficit and pressing needs at home and elsewhere around the world.  Nation-building in the Middle East is a waste of money.  Staying in Iraq would just be throwing good money after bad. 

It would have been less troops than we have stationed in South Korea. It would be more than worth it to keep Iraq stable as it rebuilds.

Once the first American soldier stepped foot on the ground in 2003, we had a moral obligation to carry the mission out. That includes the fight after the fight. Al-Maliki was willing to allow troops to stay there. It is a myth that he wasn't. I realize there was a dispute regarding immunity for soldiers, but as president, it is his job to overcome that. Somehow.

I'm not blaming Obama. It was Bush's fault for invading Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi Army, and not being able to reach an agreement to leave a residual force there. That was reckless. But, Obama also failed to reach an agreement to leave residual force there.

No one (no one sane at least) is disputing that this is 75% Bush's fault. But, Obama should have found a way to make it work. I wasn't there, when Obama and al-Maliki were discussing the merits of a residual force, so I don't know what he could have said or offered to convince al-Maliki to allow a force to stay there, but as president, he should have been able to make it work. Neither Bush nor Obama were able to.

[WVdemocrat]

Wish he was a Democrat. He consistently says things on foreign policy that I WISH Democrats said more often.

You can vote outside party lines, you know

I can't speek for publicunofficial, but I disagree with Rand on too many issues. I couldn't, in good conscious, vote for him. He's libertarian-leaning. He supports de-regulation and is opposed to gun control. I have a great deal of admiration for his stance on foreign policy and civil liberties, but he's just not my candidate. Although I will say, it would be refreshing to hear Democrats talk more like this.

And what is wrong with loosening up red tape and respecting the Second Amendment?

Loosening up red tape is code for let corporations run wild and unfettered. Citizens have to abide by laws. So should corporations. And using vague language like "loosening up red tape" allows you to skirt the issue. If loosening regulations will be good for the American economy and for American workers, then I'll support it.

And I respect the Second Amendment, but I think background checks and mental health exams are common sense steps to take. Same goes for caps on magazines and an assault weapons ban.

You can't stick to rigid ideology when it comes to issues that affect people's lives. That is reckless and irresponsible. A healthy dose of pragmatism (which does not translate to centrism) is needed to govern. I consider myself pretty open-minded and open to common sense solutions. At the end of the day, that's what this is about, right? Finding solutions? It's not about finding someone to argue with on TV 3 times, and then people vote. Too often, libertarians cling to their rigid ideology and don't budge, even when the solution sometimes goes against their ideology.

[WVdemocrat]

Wish he was a Democrat. He consistently says things on foreign policy that I WISH Democrats said more often.

You can vote outside party lines, you know

I can't speek for publicunofficial, but I disagree with Rand on too many issues. I couldn't, in good conscious, vote for him. He's libertarian-leaning. He supports de-regulation and is opposed to gun control. I have a great deal of admiration for his stance on foreign policy and civil liberties, but he's just not my candidate. Although I will say, it would be refreshing to hear Democrats talk more like this.

And what is wrong with loosening up red tape and respecting the Second Amendment?

Loosening up red tape is code for let corporations run wild and unfettered. Citizens have to abide by laws. So should corporations. And using vague language like "loosening up red tape" allows you to skirt the issue. If loosening regulations will be good for the American economy and for American workers, then I'll support it.

And I respect the Second Amendment, but I think background checks and mental health exams are common sense steps to take. Same goes for caps on magazines and an assault weapons ban.

You can't stick to rigid ideology when it comes to issues that affect people's lives. That is reckless and irresponsible. A healthy dose of pragmatism (which does not translate to centrism) is needed to govern. I consider myself pretty open-minded and open to common sense solutions. At the end of the day, that's what this is about, right? Finding solutions? It's not about finding someone to argue with on TV 3 times, and then people vote. Too often, libertarians cling to their rigid ideology and don't budge, even when the solution sometimes goes against their ideology.

Interesting thoughts. I was more referring to loosening red tape for SMALL businesses to let THOSE thrive. I am all in favor of a good old fashioned trustbuster. Background checks and ammo caps we can have a discussion on, but an assault weapon ban... no. Just no. True assault weapons are already banned and have been so for 80 years. A new ban wouldn't keep people safe and would just arbitrarily ban weapons because of appearance, like pistol grips.

Interesting thoughts as well. Let me say I support loosening regulations on small businesses, it's the big guys who I think don't need a break.

Background checks and ammo caps I think are common sense. It's a little hard for me to see anybody being opposed to them.

Regarding the assault weapons ban, I used to be opposed to it as well, actually until fairly recently. Allow me to explain. I'm not a typical gun-toting WV dixiecrat, I'm a very very liberal Democrat. I've actually never held a gun in my life (unless you count Nerf guns that is, haha), but as a constitutional issue, I used to be on the fence regarding an assault weapons ban. But, as I've thought about it more, the founders really couldn't have anticipated what these weapons would be used for, or the horrors they would cause. And I hate to parrot this slogan, but nobody needs an assault rifle. If someone wants to go hunting, (in the words of Joe Biden) buy a shotgun. We don't need military style weapons in circulation on our streets. That is seriously tempting fate. They serve only to kill people.

And, not to be confrontational, but what would you propose to deal with mass shootings, if not an assault weapons ban? Although, to be clear, I am not saying an assault weapons ban would single-handedly solve the problem, further action would need to be taken.