Rand Paul: we must militarily destroy the Islamic State of Iraq & Syria

[Blue3]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, Rand Paul wants to go to war now.

Nice flip-flop, only took a week too!

People who like Rand Paul are always going to be disappointed by him. He's only going to become more Republican and less libertarian.

[DrScholl]

He's not a Libertarian or a Republican, he's an opportunist.

[Bull Moose Base]

Interesting comment from Rand Paul

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-warns-dems-what-will-happen-if-they-nominate-war-hawk-hillary-clinton/

Paul will be transformed into the kind of mainstream Republican who can win the nomination and Hillary will be transformed into someone who regrets her vote to authorize the Iraq War. Disagree it'll be a transformation like we've never seen.

LOL, they aren't going to suddenly switch positions on foreign policy.

not suddenly but in 10 days

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

This guy is a clown. Destroying his credibility day by day. I wonder what he'll do once the Alex Jones fanboys are alienated?

[Deus Naturae]

Well, this is disappointing, but how is it a flip flop?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

At least ole Ronnie was consistent

[Maxwell]

Ugh. Paul is trying to lose me.

[Cobbler]

How is this a flip flop? He was against intervention in the Syrian civil war, he is for action against ISIS. While ISIS did spawn from the Syrian events, they aren't the same issue. He is not an isolationist like Ron, he's much more of a realist.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Very disappointing, regardless of what his original position was

[IceSpear]

WARMONGER! NEOCON! CHENEYITE! WAR CRIMINAL!

Oh wait nevermind, it's Rand Paul. Clearly this is the correct decision and he's just being a realist...

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

WARMONGER! NEOCON! CHENEYITE! WAR CRIMINAL!

Oh wait nevermind, it's Rand Paul. Clearly this is the correct decision and he's just being a realist...

Kinda. At least he asking for a Congressional declaration!

Plus he knows that the GOP House will most likely vote it down unless the threat becomes more credible. Republicans don't need a third Iraq on their hands. Basically, he is having his cake and eating it too-good strategy. Takes the heat off him from the internationalists who will think he is pro-ISIS if he doesn't do anything short of complete military action.

[retromike22]

RINO!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Interesting comment from Rand Paul

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-warns-dems-what-will-happen-if-they-nominate-war-hawk-hillary-clinton/

Paul will be transformed into the kind of mainstream Republican who can win the nomination and Hillary will be transformed into someone who regrets her vote to authorize the Iraq War. Disagree it'll be a transformation like we've never seen.

LOL, they aren't going to suddenly switch positions on foreign policy.

not suddenly but in 10 days

Despite Paul's flip flop, he's still less of a warmonger than Hillary.

[IceSpear]

WARMONGER! NEOCON! CHENEYITE! WAR CRIMINAL!

Oh wait nevermind, it's Rand Paul. Clearly this is the correct decision and he's just being a realist...

Kinda. At least he asking for a Congressional declaration!

Plus he knows that the GOP House will most likely vote it down unless the threat becomes more credible. Republicans don't need a third Iraq on their hands. Basically, he is having his cake and eating it too-good strategy. Takes the heat off him from the internationalists who will think he is pro-ISIS if he doesn't do anything short of complete military action.

You know, people here talk a lot about Hillary hacks, but the reality is that most of the forum (including many "leftists") will twist themselves into any logical contortions to justify anything Ron or Rand say or do.

[Deus Naturae]

WARMONGER! NEOCON! CHENEYITE! WAR CRIMINAL!

Oh wait nevermind, it's Rand Paul. Clearly this is the correct decision and he's just being a realist...

Kinda. At least he asking for a Congressional declaration!

Plus he knows that the GOP House will most likely vote it down unless the threat becomes more credible. Republicans don't need a third Iraq on their hands. Basically, he is having his cake and eating it too-good strategy. Takes the heat off him from the internationalists who will think he is pro-ISIS if he doesn't do anything short of complete military action.

You know, people here talk a lot about Hillary hacks, but the reality is that most of the forum (including many "leftists") will twist themselves into any logical contortions to justify anything Ron or Rand say or do.

Yeah, that just isn't true at all. A majority of this forum doesn't even support either of them.

[CapoteMonster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, Rand Paul wants to go to war now.

Nice flip-flop, only took a week too!

People who like Rand Paul are always going to be disappointed by him. He's only going to become more Republican and less libertarian.

This shouldn't suprise anyone, Paul's been doing this type of stuff since his senate campaign. He's a opportunist like Invisible Obama said.

[Blue3]

Rand:
"I look at the world, and consider war."
"All options are on the table [regarding Iran]."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/will-the-real-rand-paul-please-stand-up-110650.html#.VAqhGth0zIU


I'm having flashbacks to Romney's "I'm severely conservative."

[Mister Mets]

Is there anyone who thinks there's another solution to ISIS?

[New_Conservative]

Is there anyone who thinks there's another solution to ISIS?

Exactly.

[pbrower2a]

Well, this is disappointing, but how is it a flip flop?

It is taking pot shots at a likely opponent and a current President despite having no justification based on ideology. ISIS is in no way conservative or libertarian.

[GOON]

Well, this is disappointing, but how is it a flip flop?

It is taking pot shots at a likely opponent and a current President despite having no justification based on ideology. ISIS is in no way conservative or libertarian.

Well, it's not like his "pot shots" aren't justified towards Barack and Hillary.  Had we followed their will and invaded Syria, the current situation with ISIS would be much more worse than it already is, considering that they would have had control of an actual country (Syria) by then.

[Deus Naturae]

Well, this is disappointing, but how is it a flip flop?

It is taking pot shots at a likely opponent and a current President despite having no justification based on ideology.

What "pot shots" are you referring to? Rand criticizing Obama and Hillary for wanting to invade Syria? He still doesn't support, so I don't that contradicts his ideology or whatever tortured thought you're attempting to communicate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks for the info.

Seriously, what's your point? Are you trying to say that Rand Paul is somehow supporting ISIS?

[windjammer]

Ugh. Paul is trying to lose me.

When I told you that Paul was going to fool all of you. (the libertarians)

Seriously, President Rand Paul won't be really different from President Bush.

[Blue3]

Well, this is disappointing, but how is it a flip flop?

It is taking pot shots at a likely opponent and a current President despite having no justification based on ideology. ISIS is in no way conservative or libertarian.

Well, it's not like his "pot shots" aren't justified towards Barack and Hillary.  Had we followed their will and invaded Syria, the current situation with ISIS would be much more worse than it already is, considering that they would have had control of an actual country (Syria) by then.

Obama did not want war, and that's why it didn't happen. Also, there's a chance the IS would never have risen this far if we significantly helped the FSA take power.

[GOON]

Well, this is disappointing, but how is it a flip flop?

It is taking pot shots at a likely opponent and a current President despite having no justification based on ideology. ISIS is in no way conservative or libertarian.

Well, it's not like his "pot shots" aren't justified towards Barack and Hillary.  Had we followed their will and invaded Syria, the current situation with ISIS would be much more worse than it already is, considering that they would have had control of an actual country (Syria) by then.

Obama did not want war, and that's why it didn't happen. Also, there's a chance the IS would never have risen this far if we significantly belied the FSA take power.

He didn't want war, yet he and John Kerry were all over the talk-shows trying to convince the American public that Assad and Syria were serious threats.  In Obama's case, he even went on national television and delivered a speech in a last-ditch effort to drum up support.  When all of that failed--along with David Cameron being humiliated by parliament voting against intervention in Syria--Obama finally backed off.  If he didn't want war, he sure as hell fooled me.

Removing Assad would have created the same vacuum of power in Syria that Bush created in Iraq post-Saddam.  ISIS took advantage of that vacuum, and would have done the same had it existed in Syria.  Even if moderates did seize power Post-Assad, do you really think ISIS would just pack-up their things and go home?  We'd end up right back in Syria because of the ISIS insurgents, much like how we're about to go back to Iraq now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's absurd.  In the op-ed, Rand wasn't calling for boots on the ground, nor was he saying that we should have intervened in Syria.  He was calling for airstrikes to eliminate a group that beheaded two Americans, but even then he included the caveat of requiring congressional approval.  Even if it did come up for a vote, Rand wouldn't vote for airstrikes unless the Obama Administration could provide a legitimate long-term strategy, which is something that Bush obviously failed to think through.

On foreign policy, Rand and Bush are miles apart.