Rand Paul: 'Diplomacy is dead now in the Middle East with Iran' after Soleimani killing

[libertybele]

I expected as much from Rand who I think is a good Senator domestically, but foreign policy wise, not so much.

Rand Paul: 'Diplomacy is dead now in the Middle East with Iran' after Soleimani killing

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., called into "Your World with Neil Cavuto" Friday to discuss the deadly airstrike that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, saying he fears an "escalation" between the U.S. and Iran.

"I think without a declaration of war, without Congress and the American people behind it, what you get is a messy mission. You get a mission of escalating intermittent violence," Paul told Cavuto. "The president said he didn't want perpetual war in the Middle East. But he's adding more and more troops. If you don't want perpetual war, you don't keep sending more targets over there."

Paul believes it is more likely that "Iran, their militias and their proxies will attack the U.S." following the death of Soleimani.

President Trump accused the Iranian general of planning “imminent and sinister attacks” Friday in his first televised remarks since the airstrike that killed the general at Baghdad's international airport.

"We took action last night to stop a war,” Trump said during brief remarks at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. “We did not take action to start a war.”..........

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sen-paul-says-diplomacy-is-dead-now-in-the-middle-east-with-iran-fears-escalation

[truth_seeker]

He is no better than a delusional 60s Peacenick

People like Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan knew that Peae is obtained by taking very firm, hard stands.

Sometimes that means making the enemhy die, as Patton opined.

[Cyber Liberty]

You're just now figuring that out, Rand?  While I've been happy with you as a Senator, sometimes you sound as clueless as your old man, who was also on the Twit last night exposing his brilliance.

[PeteS in CA]

Diplomacy with Iran was killed in 1979. What Obama did wasn't diplomacy, it was funding terrorism.

[EdinVA]

[Victoria33]

"I think without a declaration of war, without Congress and the American people behind it, what you get is a messy mission. You get a mission of escalating intermittent violence," Paul told Cavuto. "The president said he didn't want perpetual war in the Middle East. But he's adding more and more troops. If you don't want perpetual war, you don't keep sending more targets over there."

Paul believes it is more likely that "Iran, their militias and their proxies will attack the U.S." following the death of Soleimani.

The above is exactly what I think.  An attack will happen in the United States.
Killing this general would not stop an already planned attack on our people over there.  I do not think there was any planned attack, but saying it, gave Trump what he wanted to kill another bad guy.  He wants to kill individuals so he can take credit as the big guy who kills other big guys, making him the biggest guy who gets applause for killing guys.  Malignant Narcissism.

[mountaineer]

Well, duh. They're going to attack us no matter what. We could leave them alone for 20 years, give them a ton of money (e.g., Obama), kiss their sandy rear ends and they'd still attack us. They're nuts and they're just bad people.

[bigheadfred]

"I think without a declaration of war, without Congress and the American people behind it, what you get is a messy mission. You get a mission of escalating intermittent violence," Paul told Cavuto. "The president said he didn't want perpetual war in the Middle East. But he's adding more and more troops. If you don't want perpetual war, you don't keep sending more targets over there."

Paul believes it is more likely that "Iran, their militias and their proxies will attack the U.S." following the death of Soleimani.

The above is exactly what I think.  An attack will happen in the United States.
Killing this general would not stop an already planned attack on our people over there.  I do not think there was any planned attack, but saying it, gave Trump what he wanted to kill another bad guy.  He wants to kill individuals so he can take credit as the big guy who kills other big guys, making him the biggest guy who gets applause for killing guys.  Malignant Narcissism.

 Malignant Narcissism.

uh huh

1. A Malignant Narcissist takes out another Malignant Narcissist. Tit for tat and leave it at that.

2. Nice shot, man.

[bigheadfred]

 

 

[Fishrrman]

Rand Paul:
'Diplomacy is dead now in the Middle East with Iran' after Soleimani killing

Fishrrman to Rand Paul:
There never WAS any "diplomacy" to be had with Iran.
Except, perhaps, coming in on the warhead end of a cruise missile.

[sneakypete]

There was diplomacy before?

I was under the impression they were constantly throwing threats our way,and we were begging them not to.

What did I miss?

[sneakypete]

Malignant Narcissism.

uh huh

1. A Malignant Narcissist takes out another Malignant Narcissist. Tit for tat and leave it at that.

2. Nice shot, man.

@bigheadfred

So,killing that insane murderous booger was a BAD thing?

[Cyber Liberty]

There was diplomacy before?

I was under the impression they were constantly throwing threats our way,and we were begging them not to.

What did I miss?

@sneakypete

You missed nothing.  That is what passes for "diplomacy" under O'Bastard, when Hillarious and Skerry were calling the shots.  Iran just learned there's new management that they'll likely have to deal with for another 5 years.

[Cyber Liberty]

@bigheadfred

So,killing that insane murderous booger was a BAD thing?

I know Freddy, and I don't think that's what he meant....

[bigheadfred]

@bigheadfred

So,killing that insane murderous booger was a BAD thing?

Well yeah sorta kinda. Bad things happen to bad people.

But not bad, not bad at all.

[Jazzhead]

"I think without a declaration of war, without Congress and the American people behind it, what you get is a messy mission. You get a mission of escalating intermittent violence," Paul told Cavuto. "The president said he didn't want perpetual war in the Middle East. But he's adding more and more troops. If you don't want perpetual war, you don't keep sending more targets over there."

Paul believes it is more likely that "Iran, their militias and their proxies will attack the U.S." following the death of Soleimani.

The above is exactly what I think.  An attack will happen in the United States.
Killing this general would not stop an already planned attack on our people over there.  I do not think there was any planned attack, but saying it, gave Trump what he wanted to kill another bad guy.  He wants to kill individuals so he can take credit as the big guy who kills other big guys, making him the biggest guy who gets applause for killing guys.  Malignant Narcissism.

I disagree with you, although I agree there's a likelihood there will be an attack in the U.S.   This was a targeted and measured response,  against a shadowy operator who has sown chaos in the area for years,  apparently orchestrated the attack on the U.S. embassy and (last year) bombed Saudi oil installations in an attempt to rupture the world economy.   This was a message sent to the Iranian government, without affecting the lives of the Iranian people,  unlike what a strike on Iranian oil facilities would do as advocated by some including Lindsay Graham.   

This can and should be interpreted as tit for tat and a spur to serious negotiations.   If it does not turn out that way,  that will be the Iranians' choice.  This was an astonishing feat of American intelligence and military skill.   I have to believe that the Iranian understand the seriousness of our intent, and the tools at our disposal.       

[sneakypete]

  I have to believe that the Iranian understand the seriousness of our intent, and the tools at our disposal.     

@Jazzhead

Not to  mention the fact that there is a new sheriff in town.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead

Not to  mention the fact that there is a new sheriff in town.

Until now, bad actors all over the world have been waiting for the Impeachment the Rats promised them. 

[Chosen Daughter]

I like that!

Sadly it is true that we are not finished in the ME.  I want our troops home just as much as anyone but I was critical of Trump on Syria.  Now I applaud him for this action taking out the Iranian terrorist.  Obama was wrong to bring home the troops too early and it is evident in Iran's hold in Iraq now.

But this thing with Rand Paul is no surprise.  He is anti war.  Well, so am I but believe that it is necessary.  This was necessary.

[Chosen Daughter]

Until now, bad actors all over the world have been waiting for the Impeachment the Rats promised them.

I don't think that is fair.  In October Trump was the antiwar lets get out of Syria guy.  Then he sends more in.  I remember that conversation here.  Many were saying that Trump promised to bring home our troops.  They were giving Paul praise for his antiwar stance also.

I have not changed.  I support war and military strikes to defend our allies and protect our interests in the ME. 

And speaking of bad actors:

https://www.nordicmonitor.com/2019/10/top-erdogans-aides-probed-for-irgc-quds-force-links-in-a-hushed-up-probe/

And honestly I can't remember what your stance was on the Syria pull out that gave Erdogan green light.  But a whole lot of bad actors liked that also.

[Chosen Daughter]

"I think without a declaration of war, without Congress and the American people behind it, what you get is a messy mission. You get a mission of escalating intermittent violence," Paul told Cavuto. "The president said he didn't want perpetual war in the Middle East. But he's adding more and more troops. If you don't want perpetual war, you don't keep sending more targets over there."

Paul believes it is more likely that "Iran, their militias and their proxies will attack the U.S." following the death of Soleimani.

The above is exactly what I think.  An attack will happen in the United States.
Killing this general would not stop an already planned attack on our people over there.  I do not think there was any planned attack, but saying it, gave Trump what he wanted to kill another bad guy.  He wants to kill individuals so he can take credit as the big guy who kills other big guys, making him the biggest guy who gets applause for killing guys.  Malignant Narcissism.

I personally don't care what Trumps motive is.  It could be wag the dog and I wouldn't care.  This sends a message to Iran that they needed to hear.  Trump saying he was going to bring everyone home is about as great as Obama doing it. 

Our men and women sacrificed for this country in Iraq.  Not so that Iran could become more powerful in the ME and make another country into their very own terrorist U.S. hating country.  At the expense of good American men and women who fought for a better Iraq than Saddam. 

[Smokin Joe]

I like that!

Sadly it is true that we are not finished in the ME.  I want our troops home just as much as anyone but I was critical of Trump on Syria.  Now I applaud him for this action taking out the Iranian terrorist.  Obama was wrong to bring home the troops too early and it is evident in Iran's hold in Iraq now.

But this thing with Rand Paul is no surprise.  He is anti war.  Well, so am I but believe that it is necessary.  This was necessary.

His actions in Syria led to the chaos that was exploited to get Al-Baghdadi, lest we forget.

[Chosen Daughter]

His actions in Syria led to the chaos that was exploited to get Al-Baghdadi, lest we forget.

Nope, not forgetting.  That Al-Baghdadi was in a Turkey protection zone for all that time.

Breitbart:

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/10/28/kurds-al-baghdadi-operation-a-month-late-due-to-turkish-aggression/

[DB]

"I think without a declaration of war, without Congress and the American people behind it, what you get is a messy mission. You get a mission of escalating intermittent violence," Paul told Cavuto. "The president said he didn't want perpetual war in the Middle East. But he's adding more and more troops. If you don't want perpetual war, you don't keep sending more targets over there."

Paul believes it is more likely that "Iran, their militias and their proxies will attack the U.S." following the death of Soleimani.

The above is exactly what I think.  An attack will happen in the United States.
Killing this general would not stop an already planned attack on our people over there.  I do not think there was any planned attack, but saying it, gave Trump what he wanted to kill another bad guy.  He wants to kill individuals so he can take credit as the big guy who kills other big guys, making him the biggest guy who gets applause for killing guys.  Malignant Narcissism.

If Iran kills on US soil Iran will be finished for good. Iran has gotten away with far too much for far too long. No nation building this time. Just annihilation of its military and government.

[DB]

Rand Paul:
'Diplomacy is dead now in the Middle East with Iran' after Soleimani killing

Fishrrman to Rand Paul:
There never WAS any "diplomacy" to be had with Iran.
Except, perhaps, coming in on the warhead end of a cruise missile.

Diplomacy through other means...