You would like to go to war with ISIS? How long to we engage with them? How much money are we willing to fork over to engage? Another trillion dollars?

 

Should we even consider sending American lives when the Iraqis are throwing down their weapons and deserting their own country?

 

Will Congress vote on this declaration of war?

 

So we ignore that they have killed U.S. citizens? What do you suggest?

 

Sooner or later, when they pick a fight, they get one they can't handle.

The main topic on the conservative talk shows today is that Obama had been briefed on ISIS for the last year. He has done little to nothing, until the last few weeks, to stop them. Earlier air strikes and political intervention (pressure) may have stopped them way before this point. I understand that someone in the government spoke up because of Obama's dithering, indifference or lack will or guts to come up with a strategy. I believe the individual felt the need to speak out to get someone to push Obama into action, whether it be his aides, Congress or public opinion.

A year ago, the same advisers who briefed the president were asking the POTUS to drop bombs on Assad's military that would have helped ISIS in the Syrian conflict.

 

If we did that, we would have taken out Assad and ISIS would arguably have much more resources, weapons and equipment at its disposal as well as regional clout in the middle east.

 

There can be an argument made that if we were not supplying ISIS' allies in Syria with weapons and equipment, ISIS would not have gained the momentum they have in such a short time.

A year ago, the same advisers who briefed the president were asking the POTUS to drop bombs on Assad's military that would have helped ISIS in the Syrian conflict.

 

If we did that, we would have taken out Assad and ISIS would arguably have much more resources, weapons and equipment at its disposal as well as regional clout in the middle east.

 

There can be an argument made that if we were not supplying ISIS' allies in Syria with weapons and equipment, ISIS would not have gained the momentum they have in such a short time.

Now that Rand Paul has gone on record as favoring a military operation to crush ISIS, are you going to continue to support him for president? Or do you think that his flip-flopping on this issue is justified?

Now that Rand Paul has gone on record as favoring a military operation to crush ISIS, are you going to continue to support him for president? Or do you think that his flip-flopping on this issue is justified?

 

The most important part about Rand's ISIS military approach is his following in line with constitutional procedure. He would ask Congress for permission to go to war.

 

Where has he flip flopped his position on ISIS?

The most important part about Rand's ISIS military approach is his following in line with constitutional procedure. He would ask Congress for permission to go to war.

 

Where has he flip flopped his position on ISIS?

When has he called for destroying ISIS militarily before? I thought his theory was that if we withdrew all the troops, the Islamists would just fight among themselves and leave us alone.

 

In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: "If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily." - Link

 

That sounds pretty war-hawkish to me. I agree with him, but it seems like an abrupt change in his message.

The best scenario would be for the mainstream Muslims to step up and put an end to this.

When has he called for destroying ISIS militarily before? I thought his theory was that if we withdrew all the troops, the Islamists would just fight among themselves and leave us alone.

 

 

 

That sounds pretty war-hawkish to me. I agree with him, but it seems like an abrupt change in his message.

 

His "theory" has always been that if it threatens national security interests, military options would be on the table.

 

Please prove me wrong.

 

Like I said, the most important thing with what you're referring to is his wanting to go to Congress to seek authorization. If it truly threatens national security interests, members of Congress should vote on it

 

And when the war with ISIS becomes a failure much like many consider the Iraqi war, those who voted to go in will take responsibility in the election season.

 

Back to your original question: no, I wouldn't consider your example as "flip-flopping."

 

Will I still support him? Most likely.

His "theory" has always been that if it threatens national security interests, military options would be on the table.

 

Please prove me wrong.

 

Like I said, the most important thing with what you're referring to is his wanting to go to Congress to seek authorization. If it truly threatens national security interests, members of Congress should vote on it

 

And when the war with ISIS becomes a failure much like many consider the Iraqi war, those who voted to go in will take responsibility in the election season.

 

Back to your original question: no, I wouldn't consider your example as "flip-flopping."

 

Will I still support him? Most likely.

You and other Rand supporters have been criticizing other likely candidates for making very similar comments. Now that he has belatedly reached the correct position on this issue, you cannot bring yourself to criticize him for it.

 

I am glad that Rand Paul at least seems to be learning what a serious threat the Islamo-fascists are to this country. The threat will not disappear if the U.S. military simply retreats to our own borders. ISIS and similar groups would simply view our exit from the Middle East as a sign of weakness and bring the fight to this country. If Rand Paul understands that now, I am happy for him. He is obviously a much quicker study than Obama is.

You and other Rand supporters have been criticizing other likely candidates for making very similar comments. Now that he has belatedly reached the correct position on this issue, you cannot bring yourself to criticize him for it.

 

I am glad that Rand Paul at least seems to be learning what a serious threat the Islamo-fascists are to this country. The threat will not disappear if the U.S. military simply retreats to our own borders. ISIS and similar groups would simply view our exit from the Middle East as a sign of weakness and bring the fight to this country. If Rand Paul understands that now, I am happy for him. He is obviously a much quicker study than Obama is.

 

I obviously don't agree with the assertion that ISIS is as threatening to us as you are quick to believe. No matter who says it. They have no navy, no air force. If we secure our border properly, not really sure how they bring the fight to us.

 

And again, by saying he's "belatedly reached the correct position," you're implying that he's never argued to eliminate those that threaten our interests.

 

Please recall when Rand Paul didn't want to aid the Syrian rebels who were aligned with ISIS (and now make up much of ISIS). Because of our intervention, it was easier for ISIS to gain momentum in Syria, making it harder for Assad to destroy them.

 

I'll ask you the same question I asked others in another thread:

 

Are you willing to make the country go through another war and bear the costs of that war to take out ISIS?

 

Why should I or any other American have to bear the costs when our European counterparts and "Allies" in the middle east like Saudi Arabia won't prove to us they're willing to do what it takes and risk their lives, money, and resources?

The best scenario would be for the mainstream Muslims to step up and put an end to this.

 

Hahahahahahaha

Now that funny and will never happen.

Why are American journalists over there anyways?

This would be over quickly if we didn't allow imbedded journalist and have stupid, non-realistic ROE's......

 

 

What has happened to these 2 American citizens requires a completely disproportionate response.

This would be over quickly if we didn't allow imbedded journalist and have stupid, non-realistic ROE's......

 

 

What has happened to these 2 American citizens requires a completely disproportionate response.

 

 

What does ROE stand for?

Rules of engagement.