STAKES FAR TOO HIGH FOR AMERICA TO FOLLOW ISOLATIONIST PATH
|| By TAYLOR BROWN || As the 2016 election unfolds against the backdrop of an increasingly dangerous world, it is critically important for candidates to be knowledgeable and practical about their foreign policy views. Truth be told, having a candidate (ahem, Senator Rand Paul) who is showing himself to be more and more of an isolationist, is dangerous to this country.
Paul recently “filibustered” the PATRIOT Act, allowing certain aspects of the National Security Agency (NSA)’s anti-terrorism intelligence capabilities to expire in large part due to his one man idiocy. He then said (and later backed away from), the following: “People here in town think I’m making a huge mistake. Some of them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me.”
Excuse me … What????
While America has practiced isolationism in the past – and isolationism has been useful in the past – in 2015 there is no place in this country for such a worldview. Those who push isolationism are harming America, her economy, her safety and her ability to maintain peace and freedom throughout the world.
In short, you can’t just ignore a problems and threats in the hopes they will go away – yet this is what Rand Paul wishes to do.
Though Paul has refuted claims that he is an isolationist, his actions and policies say otherwise. He believes our military’s most important role is to protect embassies; he wants to bring back all troops; he wants to cut out the NSA; has railed against drone warfare (as it counters due process, he asserts); and wants to reduce defense spending.
These views are fit the definition of isolationism to a “T”.
In fact, by following in the footsteps of his father, Ron Paul, Rand is setting himself further and further apart from what the rest of the Republican Party and American citizenry want. Americans, and especially Republicans, have shown themselves to be more hawkish recently; two-thirds of American voters favor doing “whatever it takes” to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), says a new poll.
ISIS has done a lot to hurt the Libertarian (lack of) foreign policy – as Libertarians are more likely to profess civil liberties over taking action against terrorist organizations.
Paul’s isolationism is making him less popular in the Republican Party, too. Recently, a poll has found that 57 percent of Republicans, a majority, believe that our policies against terrorism “have not gone far enough to protect the US.” This is pushing him away from the Republicans despite his on-again-off-again cozying up to the Establishment on issues like Israel, immigration, amnesty, foreign aid, etc.
It is double talk; it is phony; it makes him just as “establishment” of which he accuses others.
This shouldn’t faze the “Paulbots” who will support both Rand and Ron till they draw their last breaths on earth – even when confronted with facts and hard evidence to the contrary of their views. They like to play the “he’s just doing this to get elected card!” and are, thus, condoning him lying, while simultaneously claiming he’s the only “principled” candidate.
You can’t have it both ways, “Paulbots.”
I posted a link to a Breitbart article on my Facebook page the other day, in which the columnist wrote, “I couldn’t help but feel that there was something a little Obama Zombie about this ‘liberty movement.’ Ironically, they don’t come across as individuals at all, but rather a hive-mind, operating as one.”
This, I believe, is what makes Rand Paul and those in the “Liberty Movement” successful – they operate under collectivism, even if a plurality (or strong majority) of Americans disagree. This collectivism is quite ironic considering the reflexive proclivity of those in the movement to quote Ayn Rand (one of the most radical individualists).
Rand Paul’s foreign policy stance, if implemented, would harm America and her people. Our country has successfully maintained international order until now – and this will hold true until Iran gets a nuclear weapon – but if we pull out our troops and stop trying to counter terrorism then our safety (and Israel’s safety) will be compromised.
We will have shown the world that we cannot counter the aggressive actions of other countries as we did in the past – and will additionally show the world that we can no longer protect our allies. In fact in light of the total lack of response to the Benghazi debacle and other embassy attacks – that message is already being sent.
America needs to keep – and expand – our military power. While decried by doves, the cost of the U.S. military is nothing compared with the cost of America folding. When used properly, our military can maintain our hegemony. And maintaining our empire is critical to our safety – and the safety of free people around the world.
Terrorism is one of the greatest threats, if not the greatest threat, to American safety. During the last two decades, al-Qaeda was the first terrorist organization to carry out terrorist acts against their enemies in the air (World Trade Center, Pentagon, etc.), on land (embassies, London underground, Madrid, etc.), and at sea (USS Cole). The network’s primary goal was to rid the world of Western influence, apostate governments, Christianity, Judaism, and replace all governments with Caliphates and Sharia. We can’t ignore this away – especially not with an even more powerful terrorist threat emerging from the remnants of al-Qaeda.
By ignoring the terrorists in the Middle East, especially ISIS, we are stupidly believing that we won’t be attacked – an infantile “if I can’t see you, you can’t see me” mentality.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
War is a serious business and shouldn’t be taken lightly, but ignoring the threats of our enemies – as Paul would have us do – is to ignore a clear and present danger to our safety, our security, our prosperity and yes, all those liberties the “Freedom Movement” loves to talk about.
Taylor Brown is a 20-something Wofford College graduate who somehow got sucked into politics at an early age. She is easily won over with Rush’s fast food (obviously), wine, and spirited political arguments.
128 comments
It’s like Grand Tango without “Liberal-Tarians”, “dumb@$$”, “LMAO!! LMAO!!” and “p!$$”; but with a nice rack…
She is far more diplomatic than Grand Turd.
You could fuck up a circle jerk, you know that?
Spoken like a true operative.
Know nothing twit. You have just affirmed your warmonger status. Further, your speculation laden diatribe is about as useful as a hemorrhoid. Try some journalism out, it migh work better for you. Your impish attempts at proselytizing about war, let alone understanding it, are tough to witness. Fits can do better. Sadly, you’re what we get.
Rand said Snowden should be in jail, does that woo your war mongering heart?
Snowden was a hero.
Excellent article Taylor! I too think Rand Paul’s views on Foreign Policy dangerous, yet he touts a strong defense? Hmmmm…. Isolationists policies do not work.
The collectivism isn’t so ironic, AR and her groupies mockingly called themselves the collective. IMHO they were exactly that. While I appreciate some of AR’s views on Objectivism, her overall philosophy was one she herself didn’t even follow. It is also noteworthy that many who are in that AR community, have very cultish views. There is nothing objective about it, it is extremely dogmatic.
I find Nathaniel Branden, who did adapt much of AR’s philosophy, to be much more interesting than AR herself. I also find his books and Barbara (his wife during the AR affair) to be far more insightful and interesting than AR herself.
On the surface AR is very appealing to many, but once you go down that journey seeking knowledge, you will feel so dirty a shower can’t even wash it off. The people who attach themselves dogmatically to that philosophy, who call themselves Objectivists (which means they follow ALL the philosophy) are not people I don’t care to hang with. It’s very ugly and hateful.
Hmmmm…. Isolationists policies do not work.
Care to give an example of when “isolationist policies” did not work for the US.
Hint: The oil embargo on Japan, Lend/Lease and all those Navy ships at Pearl…were not “isolationist policy”.
Hint:
Isolationist does not equal MYOB in her world view.
We did mind our own business during WWII, I posted a link below of the results.
Your first mistake is thinking that WWII was a result of “MYOB” type policies.(hence TBG’s referral to oil embargo’s, among many other relevant facts)
Your second mistake is this notion that wanting to trade with nations instead of bombing them is “isolationist”.
George Carlin is turning over in his grave.
Let me suggest that an isolationist foreign policy starts with bombing instead of dialogue, trade, etc.
What happens when you exhaust those abilities? It is my opinion that Obama has a stronger Foreign Policy than Rand would implement.
Here is a tidbit from link posted above: “The isolationists were a diverse group, including progressives and conservatives, business owners and peace activists, but because they faced no consistent, organized opposition from internationalists, their ideology triumphed time and again. Roosevelt appeared to accept the strength of the isolationist elements in Congress until 1937. In that year, as the situation in Europe continued to grow worse and the Second Sino-Japanese War began in Asia, the President gave a speech in which he likened international aggression to a disease that other nations must work to “quarantine.” At that time, however, Americans were still not prepared to risk their lives and livelihoods for peace abroad. Even the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 did not suddenly diffuse popular desire to avoid international entanglements. Instead, public opinion shifted from favoring complete neutrality to supporting limited U.S. aid to the Allies short of actual intervention in the war. The surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 served to convince the majority of Americans that the United States should enter the war on the side of the Allies.”
“What happens when you exhaust those abilities?”
The world comes to an end.
It would be nice to see what happens when those abilities are actually exhausted before bombing, threats, embargoes, etc.
You don’t think Obama has tried that? I’m not a Democrat, I didn’t vote for him, but I will him credit for trying.
“You don’t think Obama has tried that?”
In what capacity are you referring? Who exactly are we talking about?
Let me dig up some links. So many people have affectionately referred to him as a Muslim and hater of America, because he tried to bring the countries together peacefully. He apologized to the world. All it did? Made us appear weak. I was glad he did it. I hoped it would improve relations.
Look, we could go on all day…but if you really believe the Bush line that “They hate us for our freedoms” or Taylor’s line:
“The network’s primary goal was to rid the world of Western influence, apostate governments, Christianity, Judaism, and replace all governments with Caliphates and Sharia.”
without considering the history, such who funded & supported Al Qaeda in the early days(the CIA) when it fought against the Soviet Union or how ISIS got its start(CIA and the Iraqi power vacuum) or why many Muslims in the Middle East want their area rid of “Western influence”(like the CIA run Iranian coup in 53′)….well then…it really doesn’t matter.
All I can say is that this thousand year war our empire is embarking on will never end. There will be no “final solution” and the mistakes made in the past will continue to perplex people like yourself as yet another war drags on and on forever and more “reasons” are concocted as to why “they hate us.”
I am looking at all sides of the debate. I agree we could go on all day. Here is one of President Obama’s speeches published 2007, yet we can see he changed in position in many cases. Why? I think he exhausted diplomatic solutions. I’m not honing in on Bush’s line or Taylor’s. Anyways, here is one of many speeches on the topic.
“And I reject it because I wouldn’t be on this stage if, throughout our history, America had not made the right choice over the easy choice, the ambitious choice over the cautious choice. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think we were ready to move past the fights of the 1960s and the 1990s. I wouldn’t be here if, time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation – to unite this country at home, to show a new face of this country to the world. I’m running for the presidency of the United States of America so that together we can do the hard work to seek a new dawn of peace and prosperity for our children, and for the children of the world.”
http://www.cfr.org/elections/barack-obamas-foreign-policy-speech/p14356
Look, we could go on all day…but if you really believe the Bush line that “They hate us for our freedoms” or Taylor’s line:
—–
If we give up now, the blood of our heroes was spilled in vain.
If we don’t fight them there, we’ll have to fight them here.
If we keep going the way we’re going, we’ll be living under Sharia law.
So, enlist today, be the first on your block to have your kid come home in a box!
Isolationist oppose free trade too.
Isolationists have bad breath.
I know. The smell even gets past my Firewall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM&list=PLd6-IKKWju3W98_BBlyH3kNw8SS1_6EVk
Simple: Visualization shows the sad truth on how many lives were lost in WWII http://sploid.gizmodo.com/visualization-shows-the-sad-truth-on-how-many-lives-wer-1707633154
Another one for you: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/american-isolationism
Isolationism Start a decade earlier. The 100,000 man army training with sticks for guns and cardboard for tanks. Our failure to join the Leagues of Nations. Our raising of high tariffs. No alliances. No mutual defense treaties.
Start a decade earlier. The 100,000 man army training with sticks for guns and cardboard for tanks. Our failure to join the League of Nations. Our raising of high tariffs. No alliances. No mutual defense treaties. Neutrality Acts….
True.
Also the majority of the US population was isolationist up until Pearl Harbor. FDR’s government (and, yes, the argument can be made, presciently) was not.
Maybe ol’ Warren G. deserves the blame for WWII, but TBG puts the horrors of WWII squarely at the feet of the good intentioned*, interventionist Woodrow Wilson.
*The Road to Hell may be constantly under construction, but not from lack of paving materials.
Masturbation leads to extinction.
See?
An argument can be made against anything!
My boobs are bigger than yours!
To acquire knowledge, one must study; but to acquire wisdom, one must observe
lol
I think I have found Senator Graham’s voter base.
I’m not voting for Graham, but I’m not voting for Rand either.
Sad, isn’t it? Quietus (sp?) made a valient attempt to explain it to me on another thread. They noted how she is unusual in that her generation usually has no concern regarding politics. I used to think that lack of concern was tragic, but if this is the kind of “thought” the concerned ones of that generation have, it was probably a blessing, instead.
We have our own Meghan McCain. A conservative, pulling for more and multi layer “feel good, do nothing” Laws and wanting to be the world police while your broke as a joke? While I can’t go the Looney Left route, the “Conservative Taliban” isn’t my thing either. So here I am, stuck in the middle with only logic and reason for company.
I’m with you there, friend! I am (what used to be, anyway) conservative on stuff like crime, gun rights, border security, and economics. I am mostly liberal on social issues such as equality, abortion, etc. I think most in our spot identify primarilyvas Libertarian.
♥✿✉⚓▼ 98$/hour@mk14
.
http://www.aGlobalworkWorldOrdinary/Goldfish/longlife...
And maintaining our empire is critical…
“I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG…AND TO THE EMPIRE FOR WHICH IT STANDS…”
Does have a nice Gibbonesque/George Lucas ring to it, doesn’t it?
Can’t forget a new upbeat national anthem to go with the new pledge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NWeKB8n7qw
In the Morning Gitmo Nation Slaves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgaO6A8C5v0
Today’s young would get confused by the early Star Wars movies. They would have a hard time determining which side was the good one.
Yep, I noticed that too.
she’s big on that empire thing without ever serving her “empire”.
But I know her type (both male and female).
“bless her heart”
Hey sparkle, you forget I was the one taking up for you when you cried about SBTP. You forget the posts that I am a war vet. You forget my many posts on Graham’s defense policies. You are just mean when someone disagrees with your views. Fair weather friend you are.
What in the hell are you talking about???????????????????
Sorry Sparkle, in my haste, I saw your comment and wrongly thought you were commenting on my thread with your snarky comment addressed to me. I am just in a rush and that is why I shouldn’t be commenting right now.
My apologies.I lock my daughter in the closet so I can post on Fits 24/7.
She asked for some attention and I got upset.
brutal….but probably half true
Hubris Inc.
Hells bells,,,,,,,,, how many times has Rush Limpballs said that liberal tree hugers want to see an environmental disaster occur so they can say “I told you so”
**********I don’t doubt for a minute that some right-wingers (like Limpballs) can’t wait for something to happen (either another 9/11 attack while Rand Paul is running for prez or econominic collapse under “Obammer”) so they can say “I told you so”***********
I ain’t no fan of Rand Paul or “Obammer” but I sure as hell ain’t no fan of your brand of conservativsm either.
One other thing there sweetcakes:
I’ll be happy to drive you to the nearest military recruiting station so you can sign up so you can put your money where your mouth is
If you don’t have the sand to do that and you feel so strongly about “national security” how about you writing an article in favor of reinstituting the draft for BOTH men and women?
If Russia were to invade Poland while we were back in the Middle East, ain’t no way we can handle both situations with the lack of “manpower” we have at present.
Something tells me you won’t let your pretty feet leave the lower 48 cause you got bigger fish to fry and let “someone else” do the fighting while your type does the talking.
Oh, and don’t forget to say “thank you for your service” the next time you see a person in uniform…………………………..That’s soooooo played!!!!!
If Russia invaded Poland they’d quickly learn the skill and ability of German panzer units, the capabilities of European joint strike aircraft and the finely tuned artillery accuracy of NATO gunners. In other words, they’d pretty quickly get their butts kicked. Lead elements encountering German armor would die looking at the sky – wondering – where is this coming from.
2015 ain’t “Raygun’s 1988 bud………….
Leapold II is a Leapold II. A 120mm tank round in an auto-firing turret with a laser range finder and fully automatic fire control is still there. Again, Russia invades Poland, they get their asses kicked.
Ever hear of the USS Liberty????
Benghazi my ass…………………………………….
Sadly sweetcakes all you know is what you’ve heard or read from your own partisan sources
This is why young voters don’t vote. Don’t tell me it’s because they are too stupid to vote. She spent a great deal of time and research to post an article that she feels passionately about and you want to call her “sweetcakes?”
Spending a lot of time on something you are passionate at doesn’t equate to a masterpiece worthy of praise.
I posted this over on another article. The millennials (for my purposes anyone born after about 1983 or 1984) think completely different than the other 4 generations currently inhabiting this planet.
“The millennials (for my purposes anyone born after about 1983 or 1984)
think completely different than the other 4 generations currently
inhabiting this planet.”
There’s hope! Hope I say!
New ideas ARE a good thing.
Sadly all Ms. Brown is doing is parroting conservative middle-aged caucasian males or like minded contemporaries of either sex who again are just parroting conservative middle-aged (or older) caucasian males who have been saying the same old shit since that old fool Reagan.
She’s expressing it differently that’s what has so many commentators around here pissed off.
What’s your problem with Reagan, he was easily the best president we’ve had in 50 years and likely in the top 5 overall.
I think many are pissed simply because she makes a valid argument, but this is not a Conservative site more of a Libertarian, so a clash in belief systems. I find her views refreshing and nice to see differing views. I wonder how long before commenters run her off. Politics is very ugly. I hope she stays. She and I don’t agree on everything, but she is proving she has her own values and opinions.
think completely different
——
think? That’s too generous.
Kim Kardashian for Prez!
They aren’t all airheads that do nothing but follow reality TV. You’re projecting.
you wouldn’t even know about it if they didn’t.
“New ideas are a good thing.”
Not always…I prefer quality ideas instead of the new/old paradigm.
All ideas are worthy of contemplation, not all ideas are worthy of implementation. Old or new with out contemplation we won’t know which are truly worth consideration of implementation, thus new ideas are always good if for nothing but to validate that the old ideas are still worthy of implementation.
Still yet though, I don’t really see any “new” ideas she’s putting forth…it seems like a regurgitation.
In her defense, she might think they are “new”, or that the general public hasn’t considered them.
Well, I suppose I could have called her “honey”……………..
Never said a damn word about her demo being stupid or her view of the world – just too bad she’s eating up all that neo-con bullshit.
I’ve got 3 kids around her age and they haven’t missed a general election or most local ones since they turned 18 (I made damn sure they registered to vote) and they are independents like myself.
They don’t need to follow some political dogma to make them feel like they are a part of something as apparently Ms. Brown does.
Like I posted, if Ms. Brown feels so passionate about this country and be a part of something bigger than her precious self, I’ll be happy to take her to the military induction station in Charlotte or Columbia – something tells me she won’t take me up on it.
I could go for a Benghazi, and by that I mean having a bunch of Middle Eastern men storming my backdoor. LMAO!!! LMAO!!!
You say isolationism is defined by: cutting defense spending, cutting out the NSA (whatever you mean by that), protect embassies, bring troops home, and follow due process of law.
Isolationism is actually a policy of protectionism- barring or taxing free trade and travel to and from the country, in addition to not being involved in foreign affairs.
Neither of the Pauls advocate this. Theirs is a policy of nonintervention. The isolationist smear is wonderfully effective, yet wholly inaccurate. But accuracy doesn’t matter to warmongers- especially when it comes to drone strikes.
I’ve been hearing the isolationist epithet since Ron’s first run in 2007, and am dismayed that it’s still the go-to attack on noninterventionism. Please, from now on, when you write your pro-war bankruptcy-inducing foreign policy that arms and trains the very terrorists you wish your brothers and sisters to kill, give the noninterventionists a fair shake.
I supported Ron Paul during his last election, initially, until I heard his plans for defense cuts. Read everything I could find on him. Was an admin of a HUGE forum with thousands and thousand of people. I saw exactly what they want. It is isolationism.
Can you tell me which forum? His plan for cutting defense was to balance the budget and pay down the debt, which according to one former secretary of defense, is “the biggest threat to national security”. Also in that plan was an INCREASE in spending for the Department of Veteran Affairs.
I cannot remember the forum name. Ron Paul something….I didn’t create it, but was an admin for a good while. It was ruthless. I could barely stomach it – the people were mostly nuts!
I saw his plan, read it, dug into, heard his explanation that they were “actually” proposed cuts (cough) Bull shit….
The biggest threat to our national security is people like Snowden who is paraded as a hero? Do people realize how much it cost the taxpayers to develop the information he spieled? How far it set us back? How much new tax revenue it will likely take to rebuild? How many lives he could have put at risk? That isn’t liberty, that is wreckless disregard for American lives and investment aka tax dollars.
“Wreckless disregard for American lives and tax dollars…”
You’re really showing your ignorance on this one. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. The result? A worse enemy than we had before. And you think Edward Snowden’s actions were more dangerous than these disastrous policies?
I don’t believe for a second you were a Ron Paul supporter. If you truly were, what issues attracted you to him? Foreign policy couldn’t have been one of them.
What attracted me to him? Liberty Defined. Sick of the status quo, looking for a flavor closer to mine. As a Fiscal Conservative but Social Moderate bordering Social Liberal – I don’t really fit into any particular party at this point in my life.
I wish I had more time to respond, but I have plans and need to go. Appreciate the fact you are able to talk about without name calling.
Come on, you and Buz long ago leaped far over the line from being Social Moderate to being Social Liberal. I do believe you are a Fiscal Conservative. Buz is too — except when he’s not. Face it, you guys are Mocha Latte Half-Caff Middle of the Road all the way, and mainly are against collectivism, warpigism, crony capitalism, and corruption. Now I will sign a fake name and pretend not to be who I really am, so that I … I mean Buz … can have some plausible deniability if one of those knothead trolls throws it up in my … I mean his … face. btw, you a cute lady.
I have no idea what you are talking about in all your rant there. Last I knew of Buz he was far left of me on most issue. Notice he is more likely to comment positive on Mande’s posts and I am more likely to lean Taylor’s way. We found some common ground. I started off Center Right, moved far right and back to center right. My voting record is Republican dominant. Will be interesting to see where I end up this election, because I don’t even know right now.
I have a great deal of tolerance for the intolerant of tolerance of the intolerable. If you can figure that out, then you might understand – that is what puts me in the category of Social Moderate/Liberal.
“Wreckless disregard for American lives and tax dollars…”
You’re really showing your ignorance on this one. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. The result? A worse enemy than we had before. And you think Edward Snowden’s actions were more dangerous than these disastrous policies?
—–
Bush kept us safe.
wreckless disregard
Someone should prolly reign this in. A veritable palate of low hanging fruit to tempt TBG’s palette…
A day of wreckoning is coming, TBG tells ya!
Ha! Consider this, was the guy who hacked SCDOR a hero? Why does no one call him a hero? How much money did that cost the taxpayers? Now consider the Snowden leaks, maybe a full decade of information, for technology/tools that we the taxpayer have paid for and will have to pay again. Is it 1 Billion? 10 Billion? 20 Billion?
LOLOL – I just figured out the mock! I misspelled reckless – ooops! It is a day of reckoning I tell you!
THANK YOU MP, for being part of the few who get that!!!!!!
Let me get this straight …so you’re saying Pat Buchanan is full of shit?
Nice post there Tater. 10+! That is one of the distorted stereotypes the Pauls suffer from, the other being the drugs for everyone thing.
Missing from this anti Rand Paul rant is any solid proposal to do anything.
All we get are the usual cliches.
Tell us your Plan .How much is it going to cost?I presume as a good “conservative” you want to pay for your wars.
Are you going to increase taxes to pay for these wars?(that’s a dumb question ,she’s a Republican.Hell,ISIS could be landing today and she wouldn’t go for that)
So if you’re not going to increase taxes how you going to pay for it(or are you a Dick Cheney fan and believe that deficits don’t matter?What kind of “conservative are you.)
Ah,what the Hell stick with the cliches!
Truth is, we could probably ISIS out in no time, but President Obama is not allowing that. He is trying more diplomatic solutions. Yet, to many here – even his defense policies don’t go far enough.
Oh pray tell, how do we do it in no time? Maybe send a couple thousand us troops? Maybe 15,000, or a full 20,000 division. Maybe two or three divisions, and a Marine division? Wouldn’t it be fun again to see US servicemen maimed, losing arms and legs and vision going house to house in Ramadi? So cool. I can’t think of anything more beautiful than a US soldier bleeding from a sucking chest wound being carried on a blanket back to a safe spot to get airlifted back to a hospital. Yeah, and fighting over such beautiful and picturesque places like Ramadi, and Mosul. They are shit holes, and if the people living in those shit holes don’t want to die for them, why in God’s name should we?
seriously? When I have time, I’ll dig up sources, but ISIS isn’t that smart. Example:
“A “moron” terrorist took a selfie in front of ISIS headquarters — leading the U.S. Air Force straight to its doorstep.
U.S. airstrike destroyed the building less than a day after airmen based in Florida spotted the incriminating post on social media, Gen. Hawk Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command, said Monday.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/moron-terrorist-leads-u-s-troops-isis-hq-selfie-article-1.2247912
Let me give a clue on ISIS and who they are. There are estimated 55,000 members of ISIS. about 5,000 are nut-job jihadists with some religions bent running around cutting off heads, doing crazy crap. The other 49,000 consist of 15,000 Syrian rebels who need access to weapons, cash and for those with leadership skills, troops to lead against Assad. We don’t care about them too much. There’s 35,000 others. Those others consist of 5,000 former Iraqi military officers who are disenfranchised from the current Iraqi government, and see no other alternative but to resist the Shi’ite government in Rag-dad. They employ 30,000 former Iraqi troops, or Sunni fighters who see no other way to protect their own autonomy against a hostile Iraqi government. The ones you describe above, they’re in group one, and the smallest group. Group three, is skilled in fighting US forces, understand modern company, platoon and squad-level deployment, use of non-traditional weapons (car-bombs, IEDs), are highly organized and effective. So, back to – how many kids do you want to see bleeding in Ramadi, because after the last 12 years, I for one, don’t give a rats ass about Ramadi. Not one more American life. Not one.
Let me give a clue on ISIS and who they are. There are estimated 55,000 members of ISIS. about 5,000 are nut-job jihadists with some religions bent running around cutting off heads, doing crazy crap
——
dude!
Sorry for the tone – I’m pretty emotional about this one. Sick of seeing kids with fake legs and arms walking around.
No offense taken Rock. If I had more time to respond adequately, you are one of the more diplomatic to talk to. I find I am in such a rush I keep editing. I have about 2 hours and I need to be out of here. I too am sick of that. I don’t want a hawkish military, but I don’t weak one either.
No, as a good conservative she doesn’t want us to pay for wars, she wants to borrow money with no intention of paying it back and use accounting gimmicks to hide it from the American public.
First off – hurray Taylor is back. Good on ya sweetie. Missed you.
OK – real stuff. So what’s the alternative view. Well ole’ Lindsey was on TV the other morning declaring we needed to put 15,000 US troops back into Iraq. Oh, great plan. So let’s give them 15,000 new targets. Why is it the other side is always wanting to send the young bullet sponges back to Iraq? (Of course Iraq hasn’t said they’d even allow that many troops back). But let’s say they do. Let’s see, we had 100,000 there nearly lost the entire show, had to surge to 175,000 whilest we paid off ISIS / Sunni’s to stop fighting (yeah – ya’ll thought the surge worked with just the boots on the ground – it was not. It was a negotiated payoff). But somehow, today, through miracle, 15,000 US troops inserted into a raging civil war, brings peace. Have we not heard that before. Oh, right, 1964, 1965, 1966, 2003. What Lindsey is really is saying is – “we’ll start with 15,000, then increase it quarterly just like a SC highway trust fund, and perty soon, we’ll have 200,000 there, and sure higher casualties, but won’t it be fun?”
We need to fight them there (or at least let them shoot at us) so we don’t have to fight them here.
Right, because there’s an interstate highway between Ramadi and Columbai SC and they’re halfway here, bumper to bumper.
Don’t forget the “Domino Theory” regarding Viet Nam whereby the commies would take Japan, Austrailia, and then us if we let S. Viet Nam fall. Damn I’m tired of sending my tax money to and taking my orders from Hanoi! Aren’t you? ;-)
Blows. Oh wait, now we hire the Vietnamese to do document typing and take Customer Service calls, while we buy communist-made TVs and iPads. Yeah, that domino fell like a great big, leaf.
They told us if we didn’t defeat North Vietnam we would lose our freedoms…
*Looks around at Patriot Act, asset forfeiture laws, structuring laws etc*
…and they were right!
We need to fight them there (or at least let them shoot at us) so we don’t have to fight them here.
Air power, Holmes.
Bomb their shipbuilding facilities, their rail transport system, their amphibious landing vehicle factories, their long range fighter/bomber factories/bases etc.
wait…WHAT??
Rand Paul is going to be a good President he’s already winning a lot. Senator Rand Paul our next President 2016!!!!! Period.
Keep telling yourself that. Chances are if we don’t get a strong independent or a better field of Republican candidates, we are going to have another Clinton in office.
I enjoyed great wage growth under the last Clinton.
I did too – just not sure I like female Clinton so much ;)
Why both parties don’t wanna accepted that Rand Paul is already winning.We being listened to him. I’m so proud of him and I’m for all his ideas.He’s very smart and genuine no matter what media keep saying BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA.Senator would be our next President you like it or not .Rand Paul 2016 period.
We’ve tried warmonger a few times now, how about we give the “dove” a chance?
Go Rand!
Take me to… crazy town…
My reality has sucked a time or two, ok maybe more, but I am more afraid of LSD than reality.
I agree will all of the article except the following:
The U.S.A may be the only Super Power, but other formerly undeveloped countries are now developed and the American share of world GDP will naturally decline because less developed countries can sustain higher growth rates.
This means that other countries have to participate more in maintaining world peace than previously. The best way to get them to participate is to tie them into the global economic system which provides them the best opportunity for prosperity and provides motivation to promote peace.
If they believe that the global economic system means U.S. hegemony or empire, then they won’t be interested.
That is why TPA, TPP, TTIP and TISA are so important. Not just for jobs and consumers, but for peace.
I have a few minutes to argue, so let’s point out the minute difference where we disagree LOL. I do support US as a Leader, someone is going to be, so I prefer it be US. Not necessarily an empire. Wonder if Will slipped that line in there? ;)
I have mixed feelings on TPA, TPP and the other T’s. We are in a global market, like it or not, seems those who support free trade would also support it, but there is the argument that free isn’t fair. I do think it affects jobs and peace, just hesitant to take a side.
True “crony capitalist” oppose free trade because they would rather have protected home markets with high profit margins than compete with the rest of the world.
Support Trade Promotion Authority then wait for the treaties to be published to decide on each.
I agree with your first paragraph.
“Support Trade Promotion Authority then wait for the treaties to be published to decide on each.”
There’s a catch. Big corps buy off pols, so it’s hard to know if all the trade deals mean more or less crony capitalism.
Consolidation of power is rarely good.
Your comment is thought provoking, but when I see TB click like, I wonder is some sarcasm. I have a natural tendency to become skeptical of anything that is fast tracked, but overall, when one supports free trade, I find it difficult to mount an argument against all the T’s.
I do know a manufacturing company I worked for several years ago in the plastics industry. Companies from China could make and ship products to the US, cheaper than our company could, even with tariffs. The argument was they used child labor and did not have to comply with the same regulations US does. They also had a monopoly of sorts going on. Most of these products are are made of resin a petroleum based product. In US, at that time, I know of no company who sold or produced petroleum, who also manufactured plastic. Not saying it didn’t happen, but I remember the key players of that time and no one could compete based on price.
I know for a fact the product imported was inferior, I had customers show me product wrapped in hairballs. These were food service items. I also saw faulty product, completely useless. Still, price was a major concern for anyone in food service industry.
Maybe TPA will address some of those issues and implement regulations? Pure free markets don’t support regulations, though I do.
Here is an interesting msg. from Tom Rice, who I am not endorsing, but sharing information: http://2013-sc07.congressnewsletter.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100126752.85528.760&gen=1
Considering Rand Paul seriously is foolish.
He stopped renewal of the Patriot Act, replaced it with the Freedom Act and postponed Senate action for a week. He has more influence than most Senators.
influence is dangerous… Bush for example… and Faux news.. and Rush Limbaugh
AND SARAH PALIN!
Didn’t say he wasn’t dangerous. Taking him seriously, well that’s another matter.
good point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLvBUSJucg
Let me describe a few dangerous worlds. In the mid-80s when I graduated from High School there were something like 3000 nuclear warheads pointed at us, and we were at a high level of anxiety. And we were not talking with the Russians too much. Now that was dangerous. In 1991, when I was finishing up Grad School – some nuts in Moscow overthrew their own President and for two days we didn’t know what to expect. That was dangerous. In the early 1990s millions of Afgahns died in a civil war, dangerous. In 1991 to 1997 there was a civil war in Europe that killed thousands and thousands, in areas bordering Italy, Austria, Greece. That was dangerous. In 2001 – 2007 some dip shit let North Korea get a nuclear bomb. That was dangerous. In the mid to late 1980s over a million Iranians died fighting to liberate southwest Iran from Iraq. That was dangerous. Our so called best friend is Israel – that’s always dangerous. So honestly, this, the world is increasingly dangerous part – it’s always dangerous. And let’s see, in all those dangerous issues, how often did we use US military forces. One – Bosnia. OK – two – we had a big stick in the Cold War. Point is, you can mitigate danger leveraging allies and friends way better than just pulling out your big stick. Unless of course, you have a sense of insecurity about the size of your stick, in which case, no stick will ever be big enough.
Does she even realize how silly she sounds. I almost feel bad for her, she is clearly an I’ll informed halfwit regurgitating neo con talking points.
Let me guess, you opened this Disqus account for the sole purpose of bashing her. Really?
Temporarily not able to get on using this browser again, with my regular account, so I will call myself something else besides my real name.
Taylor, I disagree with the majority of this, but it is generally well-written, and you made your (faulty) argument well. Some of these asshole will attack you just for even daring to write for FITSNews, so I wouldn’t worry about them. And Will should be happy to see that your haters really do run up the hit count.
I’m no “Paulbot”, and it’s not accurate to claim that the most fanatical of them represent all who find Paul’s opinions worth consideration. For my part, I admire someone who goes against the pack mentality of the rest of their party. Even as you go against it in the GOP by seriously addressing rape and other forms of sexual abuse, as well as CDV, in a way that makes the GOP mainstream in SC foam at the mouth with contempt for you. There’s “collectivism” in that united front against you and against recognition of rape culture and overcoming “slut-shaming” to truly empower women.
I hope you’ll keep writing for FITSNew.
When is Ms. Brown enlisting? Endless wars provide great upward mobility in the armed forces.
Thanks for the reminder of why I don’t call myself a republican anymore. Just because you are and incurable busybody does not mean our nation should bomb more brown people. You and your totalitarian statist girlfriends (Hi Nikki!) need to leave the foreign policy to the menfolk.
At least Ron & Ran Paul see’s the NSA for what it has become: An Agency out of control and spying on the American People without constraints. Thus, allowing the enemy to achieve it’s goals without even firing a shot.
I think it was best stated by and old POGO quote:
“We have met the enemy, and he is us!”
Rand Paul talks fast, mixes up non sequiturs and intentionally makes it impossible to follow what he is saying.