United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Rand Paul -- Proof That the Nut Doesn't Fall Too far From the Nut Tree
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 29, 2015
Author: AP
Post Date: 2015-05-29 18:41:35 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 901
Comments: 6
Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is blaming his own party for the rise of the Islamic State group. The freshman senator from Kentucky said Wednesday that the GOP’s foreign policy hawks “created these people.” That assertion led potential 2016 rival Bobby Jindal, Louisiana’s governor, to say Paul was unqualified to be president. The Islamic State group, commonly referred to as ISIS, has seized one-third of Iraq and Syria and in recent days made gains in central Iraq. “ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately,” Paul said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He continued: “They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved – they loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. They just wanted more of it.” Foreign policy has emerged as a central debate in the 2016 Republican presidential primary. Many of Paul’s Republican colleagues have offered aggressive rhetoric, but few specifics when asked about IS. Paul favors less military intervention abroad, wants a dramatic reduction in U.S. money to foreign governments and stands in opposition to the Patriot Act and the U.S. policy behind drone strikes. It all makes him something of an outlier on foreign policy and national security in the GOP field. He stood apart from many in his party in opposing U.S. military action in Syria before the ascension of the Islamic State. Sensitive to being branded an isolationist in the race, he has scaled back some of his positions, no longer calling for deep cuts in the Pentagon budget, for example, and no longer proposing the elimination of foreign aid, including to Israel. On the Islamic State, he wants coalitions of Arab troops – instead of U.S. troops – to take the lead on the ground. Paul’s comments also underscore the challenge for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother launched the invasion of Iraq more than a decade ago. Jeb Bush faced pointed questions recently from a college student in Nevada who said former President George W. Bush “created ISIS.” The younger Bush does not blame his brother, but instead accuses the Obama administration of creating a void by withdrawing American forces, creating a vacuum in Iraq that was ultimately filled by the Islamic State group. Jindal described Paul’s comments as “a perfect example of why Senator Paul is unsuited to be commander in chief.” “We have men and women in the military who are in the field trying to fight ISIS right now, and Senator Paul is taking the weakest, most liberal Democrat position,” Jindal said. “We should all be clear that evil and radical Islam are at fault for the rise of ISIS, and people like President Obama and Hillary Clinton exacerbate it.” In his interview earlier, Paul described Iraq as “a failed state” and criticized Republicans who condemn his foreign policy as weak. “Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise,” Paul said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
The only nuts here are the neo-con scum who told us that we could use the U.S. military to force western civilization on the tribal people's of the Middle East, who have never had any kind of decent civilization at all. Those are the real nuts. Today, the neo-cons tell us that Iran and ISIS are the two biggest problems in the world. Who was Iran's biggest enemy? Saddam Hussein. Saddam kept Iran busy with a 10 year long war. It wouldn't have taken much prodding and funding to get him to do it again. Instead, Bush and the neo-cons got rid of Hussein and Iran has been strengthening it's position in the Middle East ever since. Saddam was also a secular dictator who BRUTALLY oppressed the Muslim crazies. Once Bush and neo-cons removed Saddam, the Muslim crazies have been on a march to take over Iraq. Yes, there is plenty of blame for Obama to share too, but Bush and the neo- cons set in motion the disaster in the Middle East. Obama and Hitlery only made the horrible situation created by Bush worse. Screw them all. My view is more aligned with FDR -- "he may be an son-of-a-bitch, but he is OUR son-of-a-bitch". That is the way the real world works, BOZO.
I'm surprised you don't love Rand...after all he hates Snowden. :
Your choice of words is inaccurate. It was not western civilization but something of a western style democracy that was the goal. The fact is there was the beginnings of a real democracy in Iraq but its We The People legitiamtely voted in a different type of secular tyrant that was Shite instead on Sunni - then the purges began. That is not too different from the Spoils system that the U.S. has embraced since Jefferson but certainly not a western style democracy. Turkey is another example of a Muslim country with a democratically elected government but no democracy. It is a historical error to say that there never have been "decent civilizations" in the Middle East. "The compatibility of democracy and theocracy Laroui answers the question as to whether two such contradictory concepts as democracy and theocracy can be compatible, as follows: "Political scientists engage with this concept, at least indirectly, but analysts prefer not to touch it at all, because they think it incompatible with the insights of modern scholarship. But today it emerges that this kind of co-existence is possible. This new problem arises out of the failure of communism and capitalist globalisation." This is not the first time that Laroui, an advocate of modernity and secularism, has held up the compatibility of civil government in the form of democracy and religious rule in the form of theocracy."
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Utter nonsense. While the U.S. Military was in Iraq, they supported the Shia majority (in cahoots with Iran) who oppressed the Sunnis and Kurds. That may be "real democracy", but it does not equate to a stable country. As soon as we left, the Sunnis and Kurds fought back. What a surprise. Anyone who thinks that Bush and the neo-cons left Iraq in any kind of "stable" condition needs to put their crack pipe down and rejoin reality.
While the U.S. Military was in Iraq, they supported the Shia majority (in cahoots with Iran) who oppressed the Sunnis and Kurds. That may be "real democracy", but it does not equate to a stable country. Are you usually in the habit of contradicting yourelf?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Are you usually in the habit of living in a fantasy world?
#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#3. To: cranko (#1)
The only nuts here are the neo-con scum who told us that we could use the U.S. military to force western civilization on the tribal people's of the Middle East, who have never had any kind of decent civilization at all.
#4. To: SOSO (#3)
The fact is there was the beginnings of a real democracy in Iraq
#5. To: cranko (#4)
Utter nonsense.
#6. To: SOSO (#5)
Are you usually in the habit of contradicting yourelf?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]