Rand Paul: I’m the Only GOP Candidate Who Doesn’t Want to ‘Blow Up the World’

[ABX]

As the first GOP presidential debate approaches, Republican Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul just launched a bomb against the crowded field, attempting to differentiate himself from the other candidates.

Senator Paul told the leftist Washington Post in Iowa over the weekend that he’s the only GOP candidate who doesn’t want to “blow up the world” and that is a significant difference between him and the rest of the GOP field, and that he plans to make that case at the first debate on Thursday.

According to the Post, Paul said that the debate will pit him against the other GOP candidates who want to “send half a million of your sons and daughters back” to Iraq and that he will ask the other GOP candidates whether they “want to always intervene in every civil war around the world.”...

http://politistick.com/rand-paul-im-the-only-gop-candidate-who-doesnt-want-to-blow-up-the-world/

[Right_in_Virginia]

I do love Paul for this. 

[Bigun]

I do love Paul for this.

I don't!  He will get you DEAD!

[Right_in_Virginia]

I don't!  He will get you DEAD!

Hyperbole much?   

[EdinVA]

I do love Paul for this.

If you want to see Paul's foreign policy in action, just look at Obama's "ignore it and it will go away" policy.

[Right_in_Virginia]

If you want to see Paul's foreign policy in action, just look at Obama's "ignore it and it will go away" policy.

I simply do not want to see another war in the Middle East with American boots on the ground or planes in the air.  Period.

We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land.

[EdinVA]

I simply do not want to see another war in the Middle East with American boots on the ground or planes in the air.  Period.

We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land.

I absolutely agree. But I would modify your statement a tad.

"We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land and accomplished nothing because of cowardly leadership in DC and treated our vets and active duty like second class citizens."

[Right_in_Virginia]

I absolutely agree. But I would modify your statement a tad.

"We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land and accomplished nothing because of cowardly leadership in DC and treated our vets and active duty like second class citizens." 

Agree with the cowardly leadership in DC (starting with GWB).   But  it's now moot.   No more American soldiers should be sent to die in the Middle East.

(And, yes, the treatment of our Vets is a national disgrace.)

[DCPatriot]

I do love Paul for this.

Uh....the world needs blowing up if you're going to excise this Middle Eastern tumor. 

Of course, the only way it will happen with the support of the American People is for a catalyst event to take place on American soil.

And Obama's actions seem to insure that's going to happen at some point.

[bkepley]

Full of himself as usual.  His personality will keep him from ever becoming much more than an ankle-biter.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Uh....the world needs blowing up if you're going to excise this Middle Eastern tumor. 

I'm still all for arming them all with the best weapons our money can buy.  And then turning around and locking the door so no one gets out.

There is no reason why American men and women have to fight again and again in the Middle East.   It's enough.  I'm not sending my kids, their friends, relatives or total American strangers on one more Army charter to that hellhole.

[truth_seeker]

I'm still all for arming them all with the best weapons our money can buy.  And then turning around and locking the door so no one gets out.

There is no reason why American men and women have to fight again and again in the Middle East.   It's enough.  I'm not sending my kids, their friends, relatives or total American strangers on one more Army charter to that hellhole.

It is obvious that many people with the means, have left the Mideast and continue to do so.

Typically most are reluctant to talk entirely openly, if questioned is it muslim violence or some other thing?

[DCPatriot]

I'm still all for arming them all with the best weapons our money can buy.  And then turning around and locking the door so no one gets out.

There is no reason why American men and women have to fight again and again in the Middle East.   It's enough.  I'm not sending my kids, their friends, relatives or total American strangers on one more Army charter to that hellhole.

I totally agree with you, if we're talking about a drawn-out land war.

But today, battles against a rogue country (vs rogue leadership)...and that's what Iran is, wars can be fought sitting at a computer.   With drones and missiles.

We knocked out Saddam in what?  38 days.   How many Americans died in the initial assault before the statue toppled?

Destroy their complete infrastructure and the ability to feed themselves.  The UN will come suing for 'peace'.

I am sick and damned tired of this horrific religion called Islam.   It's time for Crusades II.   it can be done in less than six month.  With minimum loss of American/Allied life.

They want to live in the Seventh Century?  Let's oblige them.

Going door to door like the pacified Fallujah afterwards should be a cakewalk.

[libertybele]

I simply do not want to see another war in the Middle East with American boots on the ground or planes in the air.  Period.

We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land.

No one likes war and certainly no one wants the killing to continue or the blood and body parts to continue.  Smoking a peace pipe or a handshake with your enemy isn't going to do it.  We were attacked on 9-11 period.  Our current president, against the advice his military advisors, withdrew troops too early.  As a result we are witnessing the destabilization of the Middle East and the strong emergence of ISIS.  We cannot ignore that.  ISIS is in the U.S and Paul's idea of isolationism would leave us extremely vulnerable and would be a disaster for us. Then we have the Obama "nuke deal".  Who do you think is interested in blowing up who?
 

[bkepley]

No one likes war and certainly no one wants the killing to continue or the blood and body parts to continue.  Smoking a peace pipe or a handshake with your enemy isn't going to do it.  We were attacked on 9-11 period.  Our current president, against the advice his military advisors, withdrew troops too early.  As a result we are witnessing the destabilization of the Middle East and the strong emergence of ISIS.  We cannot ignore that.  ISIS is in the U.S and Paul's idea of isolationism would leave us extremely vulnerable and would be a disaster for us. Then we have the Obama "nuke deal".  Who do you think is interested in blowing up who?
 

I don't know why Paul is attacking the GOP, in his mind Hillary and Obama are war pigs.

[evadR]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9S7yhD5M9A

[NavyCanDo]

For me any indications that Rand was more sane than his dad, just got blown away.

When are the republicans running going to step out of the circular firing squad and start attacking the true enemy?

[massadvj]

Does anyone remember the party of Ike and Reagan?  The GOP was fundamentally a non-interventionist party.  Somewhere along the line we traded "Walk softly and carry a big stick" for "make shady deals with shady characters to such an extent that even the American people don't know what side our government is on."

I am glad Paul is positioning himself as the least trigger-happy of the bunch.  I've had my fill of trigger-happy neocons.  And, no, Paul's foreign policy is not a mirror of OPapaDoc's.  I assume Paul would have had the good sense not to intervene in Libya and Egypt, and not to use the USA's covert assets to enable the formation of ISIS.

[bkepley]

Does anyone remember the party of Ike and Reagan?  The GOP was fundamentally a non-interventionist party.  Somewhere along the line we traded "Walk softly and carry a big stick" for "make shady deals with shady characters to such an extent that even the American people don't know what side our government is on."

I am glad Paul is positioning himself as the least trigger-happy of the bunch.  I've had my fill of trigger-happy neocons.  And, no, Paul's foreign policy is not a mirror of OPapaDoc's.  I assume Paul would have had the good sense not to intervene in Libya and Egypt, and not to use the USA's covert assets to enable the formation of ISIS.

This is a little ridiculous.  Could you imagine Ronald Reagan saying something like this?  His problem is his mouth and attitude.

[Bigun]

Does anyone remember the party of Ike and Reagan?  The GOP was fundamentally a non-interventionist party.  Somewhere along the line we traded "Walk softly and carry a big stick" for "make shady deals with shady characters to such an extent that even the American people don't know what side our government is on."

I am glad Paul is positioning himself as the least trigger-happy of the bunch.  I've had my fill of trigger-happy neocons.  And, no, Paul's foreign policy is not a mirror of OPapaDoc's.  I assume Paul would have had the good sense not to intervene in Libya and Egypt, and not to use the USA's covert assets to enable the formation of ISIS.

I remember them both quite well and have no doubt that if either were in charge today the foreign policy problems we are currently facing would have been dealt with long ago!

[Fishrrman]

Right_in_Virginia wrote above:
[[ I simply do not want to see another war in the Middle East with American boots on the ground or planes in the air.  Period.
We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land. ]]

Based on our past experiences, I have to agree with your logic, but...

...Eventually, we are going to have to deal with islam there again, and it will be a far stronger enemy by then than any we have faced previously.

How would you propose to "deal with them"?

That's posed as a serious and honest question...

[Bigun]

Right_in_Virginia wrote above:
[[ I simply do not want to see another war in the Middle East with American boots on the ground or planes in the air.  Period.
We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land. ]]

Based on our past experiences, I have to agree with your logic, but...

...Eventually, we are going to have to deal with islam there again, and it will be a far stronger enemy by then than any we have faced previously.

How would you propose to "deal with them"?

That's posed as a serious and honest question...

I would change the word Islam to the word Iran in the above and that is my ONLY quibble.  Iran is the key to the entire thing and the longer we wait to deal with them the worse the situation is going to get!  Wait long enough and the vidios fo people being put into cages and drowned enmass won't be taken in Iraq! They will be filmed HERE!

[Dexter]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable strategy for stopping extremism in the Middle East.

[Dexter]

I would change the word Islam to the word Iran in the above and that is my ONLY quibble.  Iran is the key to the entire thing and the longer we wait to deal with them the worse the situation is going to get!  Wait long enough and the vidios fo people being put into cages and drowned enmass won't be taken in Iraq! They will be filmed HERE!

Stopping mullahs in Iran is not going to end extremism in the Middle East. ISIS wouldn't even be a threat if they didn't have USA made weapons and armor.

[Oceander]

If you want to see Paul's foreign policy in action, just look at Obama's "ignore it and it will go away" policy.

Precisely.