I'll ask again: when has Rand Paul ever implied he would be a pacifist when the national security interests of the united states are threatened?

Call it what you like, non-intervention, isolationism, or pacifism - Islamic terrorist groups are a threat to national security and it is naive to believe that American policy is the reason that Islamo-fascists are thriving.

 

Islamo-fascists have not changed their basic philosophy since the this country fought its first war on foreign soil against the Barbary pirates.

 

As long as Rand Paul insists that ISIS is the product of failed American foreign policy and failing to acknowledge and recognize the reals threat that Islamic fundamentalism poses to this nation, regardless of what policies we pursue, then he will not have my support.

We were allied with and arming ISIS in Syria when Obama, McCain, Graham, Kerry and the rest of the interventionist crowd began beating the war drums under the guise of stopping Assad because of the humanitarian crisis.

We were never allied with ISIS. I opposed intervention in Syria and believed that McCain, Graham, and the rest of the interventionists should have learned their lessons in Libya and Egypt. I had no confidence that we could arm pro-American Muslims without having the weapons fall into the hands of the pro-Al Queda groups.

 

However, McCain and the others who advocated providing aid to Syrian rebels always claimed that we could walk that fine line. They never advocated arming every anti-Assad group. I despise McCain, Kerry, Graham, and Obama, but they were never willing, intentional allies of ISIS.

No, not even close. I am an advocate of foresaking the use of expensive bombs and such in our military operations in the ME, since that doesn't seem to faze our enemies at all. We need to out-crazy them by filling up our bombers with junk cars, old rusty refrigerators, bowling balls and pig entrails and carcasses and drop that stuff on them. I'm of the opinion that if there is the threat of a big glob of pig entrails mixed with bowling balls dropping on their heads, they'll choose someone else to mess with. Plus, it helps us clear out landfill space. The "G" stands for "Garbage."

I like the idea, Jim. Smart bombs really do not strike much fear into a group of Islamo-fascists hiding behind their children and women, but the G bomb would be a game changer.

Call it what you like, non-intervention, isolationism, or pacifism - Islamic terrorist groups are a threat to national security and it is naive to believe that American policy is the reason that Islamo-fascists are thriving.

 

Islamo-fascists have not changed their basic philosophy since the this country fought its first war on foreign soil against the Barbary pirates.

 

As long as Rand Paul insists that ISIS is the product of failed American foreign policy and failing to acknowledge and recognize the reals threat that Islamic fundamentalism poses to this nation, regardless of what policies we pursue, then he will not have my support.

 

So you cannot name an instance where the Junior Senator has said he would do nothing as commander in cheif with Islamic terrorists threatening our National Security interests?

We were never allied with ISIS. I opposed intervention in Syria and believed that McCain, Graham, and the rest of the interventionists should have learned their lessons in Libya and Egypt. I had no confidence that we could arm pro-American Muslims without having the weapons fall into the hands of the pro-Al Queda groups.

 

However, McCain and the others who advocated providing aid to Syrian rebels always claimed that we could walk that fine line. They never advocated arming every anti-Assad group. I despise McCain, Kerry, Graham, and Obama, but they were never willing, intentional allies of ISIS.

 

This is the problem with an interventionist foreign policy. No matter if they advocated for the arming ISIS, it will inadvertently happen when we decide to help out "moderate" opposition. It helped give rise to Al-Qaeda.

 

Rand actually wrote a piece in May of last year where he said aiding Syrian rebels may help Islamic extremists. Was he wrong?

So you cannot name an instance where the Junior Senator has said he would do nothing as commander in cheif with Islamic terrorists threatening our National Security interests?

Just because you and I do not agree on what constitutes our "national security interests" does not mean that I have not provided you with examples. The last American war that was fought on American soil was the Civil War. I want a president that will ensure that we do not live to see the next war waged within our borders. If Rand Paul is such a man, then he needs to start making his case.

This is the problem with an interventionist foreign policy. No matter if they advocated for the arming ISIS, it will inadvertently happen when we decide to help out "moderate" opposition. It helped give rise to Al-Qaeda.

 

Rand actually wrote a piece in May of last year where he said aiding Syrian rebels may help Islamic extremists. Was he wrong?

You said that we were allied with and arming ISIS in Syria and that was not an accurate claim.

 

Rand may not have been wrong, but you were, which is why I disagreed with your assertion. I don't disagree with Rank Paul on most issues, but so far he appears to be the same sort of flawed presidential candidate that his father was. Maybe he needs to gain some more experience before he decides to run for president.

You said that we were allied with and arming ISIS in Syria and that was not an accurate claim.

 

Rand may not have been wrong, but you were, which is why I disagreed with your assertion. I don't disagree with Rank Paul on most issues, but so far he appears to be the same sort of flawed presidential candidate that his father was. Maybe he needs to gain some more experience before he decides to run for president.

 

We armed ISIS like we armed the cartel in Fast and Furious. Was it intentional? No. Did it happen? Yes.

 

And yes, maybe he can get some foreign policy experience from Presidents John McCain (who's photographed -allegedly- with ISIS members), or Mitt Romney.

We armed ISIS like we armed the cartel in Fast and Furious. Was it intentional? No. Did it happen? Yes.

 

And yes, maybe he can get some foreign policy experience from Presidents John McCain (who's photographed -allegedly- with ISIS members), or Mitt Romney.

The U.S. was never allied with ISIS. Convincing me that McCain is a corrupt and idiotic Senator is not going to persuade me that Rand Paul is the best Republican for the presidency. I was criticizing McCain before some BGP members were born.

 

Do you agree with Rand Paul's claim that Hillary Clinton is a "war hawk?"

Mitch's posts in this thread show us Rand Paul's biggest obstacle to becoming president - winning the Republican nomination. I think overall Rand is making some very smart moves but the moves he is making will not sit well in Republican primaries because they aren't "conservative" enough.

The U.S. was never allied with ISIS. Convincing me that McCain is a corrupt and idiotic Senator is not going to persuade me that Rand Paul is the best Republican for the presidency. I was criticizing McCain before some BGP members were born.

 

Do you agree with Rand Paul's claim that Hillary Clinton is a "war hawk?"

Sounds to me like you need to take a fresh look at Hillary Clinton for president. Kentucky's junior senator says she's one bellicose gal. When is the last time that a serious GOP candidate for president tried to position himself to the left of a Democratic frontrunner on any war-related issue?

The U.S. was never allied with ISIS. Convincing me that McCain is a corrupt and idiotic Senator is not going to persuade me that Rand Paul is the best Republican for the presidency. I was criticizing McCain before some BGP members were born.

 

Do you agree with Rand Paul's claim that Hillary Clinton is a "war hawk?"

 

We were arming their allies who in return armed ISIS. We allied ourselves with those who considered themselves allied and/or built coalitions with ISIS. ISIS reaped the benefits just as much as our "allies" in Syria. And given ISIS' advancement within the last year, I'd say ISIS has taken advantage of the rewards we inadvertently gave them. Many said this would happen, the loudest voice being Rand Paul. Not sure how that sounds as inexperienced or naive.

 

And yes, Hillary Clinton is a war hawk. She has virtually the same positions as you when it comes to the Middle East.

Mitch's posts in this thread show us Rand Paul's biggest obstacle to becoming president - winning the Republican nomination. I think overall Rand is making some very smart moves but the moves he is making will not sit well in Republican primaries because they aren't "conservative" enough.

 

A year ago it was that he was too extreme and couldn't win the general. Now he's going too far to the left.

 

He's a principled politician who holds his ground on key policy issues. Some policies are attractive to both progressives and hardcore limited government conservatives. NSA Spying and interventionist policies are some of them.

 

Your post shows why he will do just fine in both, should he win the primary.

A year ago it was that he was too extreme and couldn't win the general. Now he's going too far to the left.

 

He's a principled politician who holds his ground on key policy issues. Some policies are attractive to both progressives and hardcore limited government conservatives. NSA Spying and interventionist policies are some of them.

 

Your post shows why he will do just fine in both, should he win the primary.

 

Are you agreeing with me? That's what the bold sounds like. I too question whether he can win the primary.

Sounds to me like you need to take a fresh look at Hillary Clinton for president. Kentucky's junior senator says she's one bellicose gal. When is the last time that a serious GOP candidate for president tried to position himself to the left of a Democratic frontrunner on any war-related issue?

Hillary Clinton is at least as big a liar as Obama. I judge politicians on their actions, not their words. Nothing in Clinton's background suggests that she is actually strong on national security. In fact, her past actions suggest that she loathes our own military and has no respect for them.