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

[Blue3]

And I'd rather be fighting the IS with Assad already gone, and a FSA government in place.

[GOON]

And I'd rather be fighting the IS with Assad already gone, and a FSA government in place.

You're assuming that ISIS wouldn't have already taken control of the Syrian government had Assad be deposed, which is something that I could definitely see happening.

Also, who is to say that a FSA government stays in power if it gained it in the first place?  Those ISIS militants aren't just going to go home.  There was a reason why they were fighting Assad, and I highly doubt it was because they supported the alleged "moderate" opposition forces.

Deposing murderous dictators sounds like a good plan until you consider the long-term ramifications of those actions.  It was over a decade later, but we're now fully seeing the effects that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq had on the region.

[Blue3]

We broke Iraq. Syria broke itself. We have no responsibility to rebuild Syria, but we could/should have helped the right side win, by coordinating air strikes with them and sharing intelligence, maybe some special forces. It would have been better than where we are now.

[Deus Naturae]

Starwatcher, what makes you think we would've been able to ensure that all of our arms shipments went to the FSA? We already tried to send them supplies and it was incredibly difficult to determine where they were going. It was very easy for these weapons to end up in the hands of jihadists due to the disorganization and inability to audit where the weapons were going.

Also, there were reports of the FSA slaughtering Christians and at this point many FSA fighters have defected to ISIS. That doesn't reflect well on the idea that we could've turned Syria into some sort of stable, secular paradise by arming the FSA.

[GOON]

We broke Iraq. Syria broke itself. We have no responsibility to rebuild Syria, but we could/should have helped the right side win, by coordinating air strikes with them and sharing intelligence, maybe some special forces. It would have been better than where we are now.

See, there is no "right side" in the Syrian Civil War.  The United States doesn't have an obligation to remove dictators just because they're dictators.  Assad is a dictator, and the extremists in the FSA were going to be the ones to seize power once Assad was gone.  We should have let Syria be Russia's problem, but Obama couldn't help himself. 

[Blue3]

Starwatcher, what makes you think we would've been able to ensure that all of our arms shipments went to the FSA? We already tried to send them supplies and it was incredibly difficult to determine where they were going. It was very easy for these weapons to end up in the hands of jihadists due to the disorganization and inability to audit where the weapons were going.

Also, there were reports of the FSA slaughtering Christians and at this point many FSA fighters have defected to ISIS. That doesn't reflect well on the idea that we could've turned Syria into some sort of stable, secular paradise by arming ISIS.

I didn't say it would be paradise. I also would really limit giving them our weapons. Information sharing and coordinated air strikes are better. And sometimes you just have to do the right thing.

EDIT: this phone has awful autocorrect

[GOON]

Starwatcher, what makes you think we would've been able to ensure that all of our arms shipments went to the FSA? We already tried to send them supplies and it was incredibly difficult to determine where they were going. It was very easy for these weapons to end up in the hands of jihadists due to the disorganization and inability to audit where the weapons were going.

Also, there were reports of the FSA slaughtering Christians and at this point many FSA fighters have defected to ISIS. That doesn't reflect well on the idea that we could've turned Syria into some sort of stable, secular paradise by arming ISIS.

And sometimes you just have to do the right thing.

Applying that train of thought to international relations is just begging for disaster. 

[Deus Naturae]

Starwatcher, what makes you think we would've been able to ensure that all of our arms shipments went to the FSA? We already tried to send them supplies and it was incredibly difficult to determine where they were going. It was very easy for these weapons to end up in the hands of jihadists due to the disorganization and inability to audit where the weapons were going.

Also, there were reports of the FSA slaughtering Christians and at this point many FSA fighters have defected to ISIS. That doesn't reflect well on the idea that we could've turned Syria into some sort of stable, secular paradise by arming ISIS.

i didn't say it would be paradise. I also would really limit giving then our weapons. Information sharing and coordinated air strikes are better.

So, we bomb Syrian government targets, and then the FSA automatically takes control? Or would you have us simultaneously bomb jihadist groups as they're trying to take over cities we already bombed to get rid of the government? It just would've been extremely difficult for us to defeat Assad and drive out all of the jihadist groups by bombing. If we were ever successful, it would take tons of time, money, and blood to accomplish that. We would probably end up occupying Syria to make sure the FSA stayed in control. The amount of bombing necessary would also result in tons of civilian deaths and chaos. Plus, we now know that plenty of FSA fighters have no problem fighting alongside ISIS. FSA members themselves would likely have engaged in the slaughter of religious minorities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I think we should do the wrong thing.

I mean, really, what kind of argument is that? Of course we should do what's right. The question is what that is. Sometimes, the "right" (or at least the least wrong) thing you can do is to not get involved.

[7,052,770]

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

Yes. They will collapse on their own because millions of people aren't going to accept living in a super-hardline fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. A lot of ISIS's current support has more to do with politics and nationalism, and the lack of viable alternatives, rather than widespread Islamist support.

[GOON]

Starwatcher, what makes you think we would've been able to ensure that all of our arms shipments went to the FSA? We already tried to send them supplies and it was incredibly difficult to determine where they were going. It was very easy for these weapons to end up in the hands of jihadists due to the disorganization and inability to audit where the weapons were going.

Also, there were reports of the FSA slaughtering Christians and at this point many FSA fighters have defected to ISIS. That doesn't reflect well on the idea that we could've turned Syria into some sort of stable, secular paradise by arming ISIS.

i didn't say it would be paradise. I also would really limit giving then our weapons. Information sharing and coordinated air strikes are better.

So, we bomb Syrian government targets, and then the FSA automatically takes control? Or would you have us simultaneously bomb jihadist groups as they're trying to take over cities we already bombed to get rid of the government? It just would've been extremely difficult for us to defeat Assad and drive out all of the jihadist groups by bombing. If we were ever successful, it would take tons of time, money, and blood to accomplish that. We would probably end up occupying Syria to make sure the FSA stayed in control. The amount of bombing necessary would also result in tons of civilian deaths and chaos. Plus, we now know that plenty of FSA fighters have no problem fighting alongside ISIS. FSA members themselves would likely have engaged in the slaughter of religious minorities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I think we should do the wrong thing.

I mean, really, what kind of argument is that? Of course we should do what's right. The question is what that is. Sometimes, the "right" (or at least the least wrong) thing you can do is to not get involved.

Morally, the right thing would have been to overthrow Assad.  However, you can't have a foreign policy based upon doing what's morally right and running around the world overthrowing dictators because it's the "right" thing to do.  Those who argue in-support of such a warped policy need to reevaluate their views on international relations.

[Cobbler]

And I'd rather be fighting the IS with Assad already gone, and a FSA government in place.

Were you in favor of going into Iraq to get rid of Saddam?

[Blue3]

And I'd rather be fighting the IS with Assad already gone, and a FSA government in place.

Were you in favor of going into Iraq to get rid of Saddam?

No, because Iraq wasn't in the middle of a bloody civil war at the time. Taking out Hussein wasn't the worst thing we've done, by far, but we did handle it very stupidly. I already clarified the distinction between Iraq and Syria in earlier posts here.

[GOON]

And I'd rather be fighting the IS with Assad already gone, and a FSA government in place.

Were you in favor of going into Iraq to get rid of Saddam?

Taking out Hussein wasn't the worst thing we've done

Yes it was.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I geniuely feel America should participate in defeating the ISIS and ISIL.

America created a mess in Iraq that helped them to surface, now America should at least help cleaning a mess. 

[GOON]

I geniuely feel America should participate in defeating the ISIS and ISIL.

America created a mess in Iraq that helped them to surface, now America should at least help cleaning a mess.  

That's p. much how I feel about it.  Had we not intervened in Iraq, overthrew Saddam, thus creating the environment that's allowing ISIS to thrive, and ISIS still invaded, then we could just sit back and watch from a distance as to what is going on.

However, it's quite possible that Saddam--or whoever would have taken his place--would have crushed an invading ISIS, if not allow them to invade at all.  The weak Iraqi government that replaced Saddam stands no chance against a militant group that is willing to die to create their Islamic State.  The United States should destroy the monster that they helped create, both indirectly and directly (via arming them in Syria).

[Likely Voter]

Some data from new CNN Poll:

76% favor additional airstrikes against ISIS, 23% oppose
62% favor military aid to forces fighting ISIS, 37% oppose
38% favor Placing U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Syria to combat ISIS,  61% oppose

Don't see the cross-tabs yet, but you can bet that a good chunk of the 38% who want US troops on the ground are Republicans. It may be a majority of Republicans. Somebody in the GOP field is eventually going to pander to them, wrap himself in the flag and start calling for D-Day in Damascus.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, his statements don't contradict what he said about Clinton last week, because he was talking about her desired course of action in Syria, which is completely different from ISIS.

I don't see any indication that he's flip-flopped or changed his position.  I've never heard Rand Paul say that we should never take military action.

That being said, I'm not convinced that military action against ISIS is the right move for the U.S. to make.

[GMantis]

There goes one of the few Republicans I almost liked.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Come on Rand, stop pandering, the hardcore warmongers won't support you anyway.

[King]

Very disappointing, I was hoping he was an arrogant ideologue incapable of processing new information.

[Mr. Morden]

Reading this, it sounds like Paul is all over the place on ISIS:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/17/rand-paul-eats-up-those-long-debunked-mccain-isis-rumors.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.