Author Topic: Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing  (Read 1070 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 383,123
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
« on: April 19, 2015, 12:22:00 am »
http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=639369


Newsmax
Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
Saturday, April 18, 2015 06:43 PM

By: By STEVE PEOPLES

Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field.

Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over," Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state.

"There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more," Paul said.

Foreign policy looms large in the presidential race as the U.S. struggles to resolve diplomatic and military conflicts across the globe.

The GOP presidential class regularly rails against President Barack Obama's leadership on the world stage, yet some would-be contenders have yet to articulate their own positions, while others offered sharply different visions.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother, President George W. Bush, authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, declined to say whether he would have done anything different then. Yet Jeb Bush acknowledged a shift in his party against new military action abroad.

"Our enemies need to fear us, a little bit, just enough for them to deter the actions that create insecurity," Bush said earlier in the conference. He said restoring alliances "that will create less likelihood of America's boots on the ground has to be the priority, the first priority of the next president."

The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and several lesser-known White House prospects.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham addressed the question of putting U.S. troops directly in the battle against the Islamic State group militants by saying there is only one way to defeat the militants: "You go over there and you fight them so they don't come here."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz suggested an aggressive approach as well. "The way to defeat ISIS is a simple and clear military objective," he said. "We will destroy them."

New York Rep. Peter King said: "If America becomes isolationist, if America sits back from its responsibilities, that gap is going to be filled by enemies."

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina offered a similar outlook. "The world is a more dangerous and more tragic place when America is not leading. And America has not led for quite some time," she said.

There were few specifics offered in the conference, which came as several presidential candidates accelerate their political operations. Clinton began her campaign last week, and the emphasis on foreign affairs suggests her time as secretary of state will play prominently in the contest.

Paul didn't totally reject the use of military force, noting that he recently introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State group. But in an interview with The Associated Press, he emphasized the importance of diplomacy.

He singled out Russia and China, which have complicated relationships with the U.S., as countries that could contribute to U.S. foreign policy interests.

"I think the Russians and the Chinese have great potential to help make the world a better place," he said. "I don't say that naively that they're going to, but they have the potential to."

Paul suggested the Russians could help by getting Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power.

"Maybe he goes to Russia," Paul said.

Despite tensions with the U.S., Russia and China negotiated alongside Washington in nuclear talks with Iran. Paul has said he is keeping an open mind about the nuclear negotiations.

"The people who already are very skeptical, very doubtful, may not like the president for partisan reasons," he said, and "just may want war instead of negotiations."


Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Re: Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2015, 12:37:59 am »
Quote
"The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over,"

The very reason Ron Paul is down a ways on my list.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2015, 12:41:23 am »
If Rand Paul had been President on 9-11-2001, would we have retaliated at all? How? How much?

Going forward, how would Rand Paul be different than Obama? Would we get one year into a Paul Presidency, only to find ourselves questioning if he had muslim sympathies, like Obama?

OTOH until Pearl Harbor the US majority favored staying out of WWII. But that ended isolationism, and I doubt we could stuff that toothpaste back into the tube period.

The world is simply a smaller place, and it is nearly impossible to be not involved.
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,572
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2015, 02:11:08 am »
truth seeker wrote above:
[[ If Rand Paul had been President on 9-11-2001, would we have retaliated at all? How? How much?
...The world is simply a smaller place, and it is nearly impossible to be not involved. ]]


I can't disagree that it was proper to "retaliate" after the World Trade Center attacks.

Nevertheless, consider all the blood and treasure we spent in the Mideast since 2001.
And consider the condition of the Mideast TODAY.

I'll ask you (and all the other members of the forum):
- What have we accomplished?
- What have we changed?
- Is islam a less-dominant, or more-dominant force in the world since then?
- Has the islamic threat to Western Civilization declined, or increased?
- What say you all?

I don't blame G.W. Bush for doing what he did in the wake of the attacks. He responded as any rational commander-in-chief would have done. At the time, it seemed like the proper response, the right course of action.

But again -- what "victory" did we win?

The fault was not that we had decent leaders acting in the "historical perspective".
Rather, where G.W. Bush (and ALL of our other civilian and military leadership) failed was in believing that "the enemy" could be quantified in governments or national boundaries, or even in groups of terrorists.

The problem is that with every other war in modern history, "victory" was accomplished by destroying a standing army and a nation's infrastructure with which to wage war.

But this time around, it's literally another dimension we're up against.

I've posted this quote from Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey, several times before, but it's worth a repost (along with some re-thinking):
"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers."

We cannot fight "a war" against nations or the leaders of such nations, when they themselves are not in reality "the leader" of the struggle in which the entire Western World is engaged.

We tried that in Afghanistan.
We tried that in Iraq.
Where has that brought us?

We cannot kill "the leader" of this "enemy".
He's been dead for 1400 years.

Yet his "soldiers" (in Tayyip's words) march on...
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 02:12:58 am by Fishrrman »

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2015, 07:06:22 am »
If we knew what the future held, we'd never dare to do anything.

GWB made the right call at the time, to hit the Taliban. Simple as that and there can be no argument. When you have wasps you destroy the nest, not the individuals.

Iraq - no. It wasn't even the right decision at the time and with what they knew. It was a bad call, made for insufficient reasons with thin justification as an emotional reaction. I know when we went over, the general response to the question "Why we here?" was either "Orders" or "bleeped if I know" if the CO was honest.

Not saying the Iraqi PEOPLE weren't grateful - they were. Incredibly so - a lot of the excesses of Saddam's regime never made the news. That slowly changed (started about 2006, if I recall correctly) as the brass decided that our forces were there to make a country sized hug box instead of doing the job of pest removal. A mistake that wasn't repeated in Afghanistan until 2009, when the various forces dealing with the Taliban (principally the UK and Australia) were rather unceremoniously told by the Worm "Thanks for covering here for the last 8 years, we've got it now. Sod off."

Sorry - one of my pet peeves. If you are going to pacify a country, Worm, why not pay attention to the people who have had several hundred years experience in doing just that?

Edit because the auto bleeper seems not to have worked.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 07:07:32 am by EC »
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Rivergirl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,036
Re: Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2015, 07:12:14 am »
Last week rand referred to those who want to put boots back on the ground in Iraq.........as neocons..........now where have we heard that slur before.  Like father, like son

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,790
Re: Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2015, 06:03:14 pm »
Last week rand referred to those who want to put boots back on the ground in Iraq.........as neocons..........now where have we heard that slur before.  Like father, like son 
 

I really don't care what Paul calls them.  Republicans, in the majority, seem to be itching to put American boots back on the quicksand known as the Middle East.

Personally, I say no more.  We have left enough American blood, body parts and treasure in this swamp.

No more.

Offline libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,264
  • Gender: Female
Re: Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2015, 06:25:02 pm »
 

I really don't care what Paul calls them.  Republicans, in the majority, seem to be itching to put American boots back on the quicksand known as the Middle East.

Personally, I say no more.  We have left enough American blood, body parts and treasure in this swamp.

No more.

I agree we have had enough American blood shed in Iraq/Afghanistan and in the Middle East in general.  Perhaps we shouldn't have retaliated after 9/11, perhaps we should have.  Perhaps Clinton should had taken on Bin Laden when he had the chance, perhaps he shouldn't have.  What we do now know is this;  Iran is nearing nuclear capabilities.  Israel is a sitting target.  A caliphate is forming.  Christians are being tortured and slaughtered.  ISIS is along the Mexican border and in all probability placed in neighborhoods throughout the United States. Putin has made great advancements. What we do know is that what is happening IS a result of the FAILED or lack of foreign policy by Obama. I like Rand Paul and like his father even more though in the current day situations, I can't agree with their stance on foreign policy.  As a country we need to regain the respect around the world that we once had.  How would Ayatollah Ali Khamene, Putin or ISIS see isolationism?  Cowardly?  Afraid?  Congenial? Strong? A force to be reckoned with?  Loving? 
Would it send a message of PEACE?  Or would it send a message of weakness?  Are Putin, ISIS and Khamene peace loving or are they driven by the power that they seek?
Romans 12:16-21

Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly, do not claim to be wiser than you are.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.  If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all…do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,790
Re: Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2015, 08:58:51 pm »
I agree we have had enough American blood shed in Iraq/Afghanistan and in the Middle East in general.  Perhaps we shouldn't have retaliated after 9/11, perhaps we should have.  Perhaps Clinton should had taken on Bin Laden when he had the chance, perhaps he shouldn't have.  What we do now know is this;  Iran is nearing nuclear capabilities.  Israel is a sitting target.  A caliphate is forming.  Christians are being tortured and slaughtered.  ISIS is along the Mexican border and in all probability placed in neighborhoods throughout the United States. Putin has made great advancements. What we do know is that what is happening IS a result of the FAILED or lack of foreign policy by Obama. I like Rand Paul and like his father even more though in the current day situations, I can't agree with their stance on foreign policy.  As a country we need to regain the respect around the world that we once had.  How would Ayatollah Ali Khamene, Putin or ISIS see isolationism?  Cowardly?  Afraid?  Congenial? Strong? A force to be reckoned with?  Loving? 

Would it send a message of PEACE?  Or would it send a message of weakness?  Are Putin, ISIS and Khamene peace loving or are they driven by the power that they seek?

This argument that makes my head spin.  We don't need to sacrifice more American men and women to "send a message"-- by that I assume you mean one of strength.

I'm all for aiding those who agree with us with intelligence, strategy and arms to the max.  Then I'm all for getting the hell out of the way.  Other boots and aircraft can do the fighting.


Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: Rand Paul Blasts Republican Hawks in N.H. Swing
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2015, 09:18:36 pm »
This argument that makes my head spin. 
What argument?

Following WWII, the US and our main allies knew that world communism was our enemy. We did NOT charge off on every whim, starting new battles and wars.

We DID stay fairly resolute and consistent. Formed NATO, as an example. NATO was not and is not perfect, but it has remained for over 65 years.

And guess what the result has been? World communism did NOT conquer western Europe.

A similar approach makes sense to me, for combatting world Islamic terror. The GOP candidate who best gives voice to such reasoning will gain my ear.

I would expect to hear such wisdom from somebody with a couple of decades,  over brash one term Senators. We should reflect on Kennedy, Clinton and Obama, for brash Presidents elected while still in their 40s.

"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln