There are 158 comments.

1. Member
   user_240173

   @FrankSoto

   11:59 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

   Klaatu:

   I agree war is a long term program. I do not object to ‘nation building’ as it is the means to stabilize a country after a military victory. I do not believe the Bush administration failed to consider the cost in time and money necessary to create a stable Iraq. Obama was unwilling to expend any of either.

    The rising tide of Republican non-interventionism, and the massive unpopularity of the party directly caused by both wars (hugely contributing the the Republican congressional defeats in 2006) under cut your statement that Bush fully considered the costs.  

   If a party who is unwilling to carry on the war is going to take over before you can complete the war, your planning sucked.

2. Inactive
   Klaatu

   @Klaatu

   12:37 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

   Frank Soto:

   Klaatu:

   I agree war is a long term program. I do not object to ‘nation building’ as it is the means to stabilize a country after a military victory. I do not believe the Bush administration failed to consider the cost in time and money necessary to create a stable Iraq. Obama was unwilling to expend any of either.

   The rising tide of Republican non-interventionism, and the massive unpopularity of the party directly caused by both wars (hugely contributing the the Republican congressional defeats in 2006) under cut your statement that Bush fully considered the costs.
   If a party who is unwilling to carry on the war is going to take over before you can complete the war, your planning sucked.

    I’m afraid I do not follow your logic here.  Are you suggesting domestic political projections should have been a factor in the military planning?

3. Member
   user_240173

   @FrankSoto

   12:47 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

   Klaatu:

   I’m afraid I do not follow your logic here. Are you suggesting domestic political projections should have been a factor in the military planning?

    Of course they should.  Political concerns are one of the primary indicators of success or defeat in a given conflict.  Are you seriously suggesting they shouldn’t be considered in a nations overall strategy?  

   If your people do not have the will to accept weekly casualty headlines on the front page of the New York times for years on end, you can’t afford to wage a war where you will be taking casualties for years on end.  Planning to be in Iraq for a decade or more was a doomed strategy from the start.

   You could have for example, removed Saddam and the Baath party in a matter of weeks (as we did) and left.  The result is not as ideal as if Iraq then gains a stable democratic government, but the American political situation didn’t allow for a decade long war that costs Americans in a very real way, while offering them only abstract benefits.  

   Particularly when the American political cycle would fully expect the opposition party to take over in 2008.

4. Inactive
   Klaatu

   @Klaatu

   1:19 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

   Frank Soto:

   Klaatu:

   I’m afraid I do not follow your logic here. Are you suggesting domestic political projections should have been a factor in the military planning?

   Of course they should. Political concerns are one of the primary indicators of success or defeat in a given conflict. Are you seriously suggesting they shouldn’t be considered in a nations overall strategy?
   If your people do not have the will to accept weekly casualty headlines on the front page of the New York times for years on end, you can’t afford to wage a war where you will be taking casualties for years on end. Planning to be in Iraq for a decade or more was a doomed strategy from the start.
   You could have for example, removed Saddam and the Baath party in a matter of weeks (as we did) and left. The result is not as ideal as if Iraq then gains a stable democratic government, but the American political situation didn’t allow for a decade long war that costs Americans in a very real way, while offering them only abstract benefits.
   Particularly when the American political cycle would fully expect the opposition party to take over in 2008.

   No one can predict political reactions a decade out.  Expecting anyone to is unrealistic.

   We would have gained nothing by simply removing the Ba’athists regime and leaving.  Iraq would have descended into chaos and most likely devolved into a failed state.  That would have been a worse situation than that which led us to invade.

5. Member
   FloppyDisk90

   @FloppyDisk90

   1:57 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

   Klaatu: We would have gained nothing by simply removing the Ba’athists regime and leaving.  Iraq would have descended into chaos and most likely devolved into a failed state.  That would have been a worse situation than that which led us to invade.

    This is the article of faith that the American imperialists rest the entire edifice of their rhetorical case for decades long interventions:  it would have been worse.  If you don’t believe that you’re “clueless.”

6. Inactive
   AIG

   @AIG

   6:53 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

   One issue is that Ron Paul’s foreign policy views aren’t just “non interventionist” or “pacifist”.

   They are anti-American. 

   http://freebeacon.com/national-security/ron-pauls-putinistas/

   Being quiet and passive on his father’s…insanity…particularly when the right position on this issue is so obvious, does not bode well for Rand Paul to be considered a serious Commander in Chief material. 

   Sorry, but “libertarians” have been in bed with the Kremlin regime for too long, and in too many instances come out in defense of the indefensible when it comes to Russian aggression (or any action by anyone OTHER THAN America), for Rand Paul to maintain that he doesn’t have to take a stance. 

   Yes he does need to take a stance. He doesn’t need to wait until 2016 to do it either. The insane anti-Americanism of his father (and those he surrounds himself with) does not require much deliberation, nor is it too risky. “I disagree with my father and think Putin is an aggressor.” There. Why wait till “later” to say these simple words?

7. Inactive
   Klaatu

   @Klaatu

   5:29 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

   FloppyDisk90:

   Klaatu: We would have gained nothing by simply removing the Ba’athists regime and leaving. Iraq would have descended into chaos and most likely devolved into a failed state. That would have been a worse situation than that which led us to invade.

   This is the article of faith that the American imperialists rest the entire edifice of their rhetorical case for decades long interventions: it would have been worse. If you don’t believe that you’re “clueless.”

   It is not faith but reason informed by observation.  We have numerous examples of nations devolving into chaos when their governing structures are destroyed, see Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, …. 

8. Member
   DrewInWisconsin

   @DrewInWisconsin

   6:47 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

   AIG:
   One issue is that Ron Paul’s foreign policy views aren’t just “non interventionist” or “pacifist”.
   They are anti-American.

   And as far as I know, Ron Paul is a non-issue. But that’s why those who oppose Rand Paul keep bringing up Ron — to confuse voters.

9. Inactive
   Klaatu

   @Klaatu

   7:17 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

   DrewInWisconsin:

   AIG: One issue is that Ron Paul’s foreign policy views aren’t just “non interventionist” or “pacifist”. They are anti-American.

   And as far as I know, Ron Paul is a non-issue. But that’s why those who oppose Rand Paul keep bringing up Ron — to confuse voters.

    Drew,
   Do you dispute Rand has inherited many of his father’s supporters and this is due in large part because they assume Rand shares his father’s basic principles?
   Until Rand steps up and clearly lays out where he differs from his father (and risks alienating that inherited support), it is not unreasonable to assume he is at least sympathetic to his father’s views.
   If anyone is trying to confuse voters, it is Rand by failing to clearly differentiate himself from his father.

10. Member
    DrewInWisconsin

    @DrewInWisconsin

    7:46 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    Klaatu:
    Drew, Do you dispute Rand has inherited many of his father’s supporters and this is due in large part because they assume Rand shares his father’s basic principles?

    Until Rand steps up and clearly lays out where he differs from his father (and risks alienating that inherited support), it is not unreasonable to assume he is at least sympathetic to his father’s views. If anyone is trying to confuse voters, it is Rand by failing to clearly differentiate himself from his father.

    First part. Inheriting his father’s supporters does not prove that Rand Paul’s positions are the same as his father’s positions. It’s a weird argument to make.

    Second part: Rand has already done a lot to explain his foreign policy views. I’ve posted some of it in this thread. I’m not sure why people keep ignoring it. Am I invisible?

11. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    8:02 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    No one is arguing inheriting his father’s supporters proves anything but I would argue it does create a rebuttable presumption he shares those views of his father that led those people to support his father.  The presumption is his to rebut.
    I have read what Rand has said and what you have posted and I am afraid he has not been very clear as to where he disagrees with his father.  I believe he has been intentionally vague on the issue.  He is trying to assure mainstream conservatives while maintaining his most ardent supporters.

12. Member
    DrewInWisconsin

    @DrewInWisconsin

    8:22 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    Klaatu:

    The presumption is his to rebut.

    It’s your presumption. Prove that it’s valid instead of just pointing at vague signifiers.

    I provided Paul’s own words on foreign policy. All you’re doing is making insinuations based on having the same fanboys as his father.

13. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    9:17 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    DrewInWisconsin:
    Klaatu:

    The presumption is his to rebut.

    It’s your presumption. Prove that it’s valid instead of just pointing at vague signifiers.
    I provided Paul’s own words on foreign policy. All you’re doing is making insinuations based on having the same fanboys as his father.

    I have shown evidence of its validity.  There is nothing vague in presuming if a supports b because of x, a‘s support of c may well be because of x as well.  

    Paul’s own words do not clarify his position.  There are a lot of words but very little meaning.  If I am making an insinuation, it is merely the mirror image of that a large portion of Paul’s supporters are making.  Paul is trying to have it both ways.

14. Member
    BastiatJunior

    @BastiatJunior

    9:52 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    Rand Paul praised Ronald Reagan in his Breitbart article, using the same compliments the left uses when they are claiming Reagan as one of their own.  At the same time, he didn’t clarify his own foreign policy views.

    Here’s a question for those who think Mr. Paul’s vagueness is shrewd or prudent.

    Did anybody anywhere have any doubt what Reagan’s foreign policy views were before he was nominated?  How about 15 years before he was nominated?

    Yes, Reagan negotiated with the Russians, to the dismay of the hawks of the day.  But that was after he built up the military and established an international reputation as a tough guy.  Lebanon was the exception rather than the rule.

    If a President Paul turns out to be a military-cutting pacifist, he will have about the same negotiating leverage as Barack Obama.

    Paul invoked the phrase “Peace through strength,” but didn’t clarify what “strength” means to him.

15. Inactive
    AIG

    @AIG

    1:20 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    DrewInWisconsin: Second part: Rand has already done a lot to explain his foreign policy views. I’ve posted some of it in this thread. I’m not sure why people keep ignoring it. Am I invisible?

     When Ron Paul says something that is so insane as “Putin is right and what he is doing is legal”, there is no tip toeing around that position. 

    Rand needs to make a very clear, very forceful statement, and argument, that he disagrees with his father on this, and why. 
    Not just this, of course. There’s a long list of Ron Paul insanities that he needs to explicitly distance himself for, before he can win my vote.

16. Member
    DrewInWisconsin

    @DrewInWisconsin

    2:15 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    AIG:

    DrewInWisconsin: Second part: Rand has already done a lot to explain his foreign policy views. I’ve posted some of it in this thread. I’m not sure why people keep ignoring it. Am I invisible?

    When Ron Paul says something that is so insane as “Putin is right and what he is doing is legal”, there is no tip toeing around that position.
    Rand needs to make a very clear, very forceful statement, and argument, that he disagrees with his father on this, and why. Not just this, of course. There’s a long list of Ron Paul insanities that he needs to explicitly distance himself for, before he can win my vote.

     Why does Rand Paul have to respond to statements his father made? Isn’t that fundamentally unfair? This assumption that Rand must specifically refute every statement of his father’s is nonsense on a cracker. Yet that’s the basis of this argument and this completely unfair thread.

    Ricochet is really disappointing me lately. Almost as much as this alleged “spring” in Wisconsin is disappointing me.

17. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    2:27 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    DrewInWisconsin:

    AIG:

    DrewInWisconsin: Second part: Rand has already done a lot to explain his foreign policy views. I’ve posted some of it in this thread. I’m not sure why people keep ignoring it. Am I invisible?

    When Ron Paul says something that is so insane as “Putin is right and what he is doing is legal”, there is no tip toeing around that position. Rand needs to make a very clear, very forceful statement, and argument, that he disagrees with his father on this, and why. Not just this, of course. There’s a long list of Ron Paul insanities that he needs to explicitly distance himself for, before he can win my vote.

    Why does Rand Paul have to respond to statements his father made? Isn’t that fundamentally unfair? This assumption that Rand must specifically refute every statement of his father’s is nonsense on a cracker. Yet that’s the basis of this argument and this completely unfair thread.
    Ricochet is really disappointing me lately. Almost as much as this alleged “spring” in Wisconsin is disappointing me.

    Because he is, to a very large extent riding on his father’s coattails.  I have no doubt Rand would still be an ophthalmologist in KY if it were not for his father’s political organization. (Do you?)

    What is being asked of him is no different than what was asked of GW Bush with regard to his dad and should be asked of Hillary with regard to Bill.  As I think about it, it is very similar to what a VP is asked with regard to the president he served.

    There is nothing unfair or unusual about it.

18. Member
    FloppyDisk90

    @FloppyDisk90

    4:31 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    Klaatu: Paul’s own words do not clarify his position.  There are a lot of words but very little meaning.  If I am making an insinuation, it is merely the mirror image of that a large portion of Paul’s supporters are making.  Paul is trying to have it both ways.

    Is this or this sufficient?  If not, why not?

19. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    6:07 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu: Paul’s own words do not clarify his position. There are a lot of words but very little meaning. If I am making an insinuation, it is merely the mirror image of that a large portion of Paul’s supporters are making. Paul is trying to have it both ways.

    Is this or this sufficient? If not, why not?

     Sufficient to distinguish his views from his father’s?  Not really.
    He immediately took military action off the table (something that should NEVER be done even if it is off the table) then claimed he would be tough on Putin but proposed nothing of substance to punish or deter Putin.

20. Member
    FloppyDisk90

    @FloppyDisk90

    7:22 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    Klaatu:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu: Paul’s own words do not clarify his position. There are a lot of words but very little meaning. If I am making an insinuation, it is merely the mirror image of that a large portion of Paul’s supporters are making. Paul is trying to have it both ways.

    Is this or this sufficient? If not, why not?

    Sufficient to distinguish his views from his father’s? Not really. He immediately took military action off the table (something that should NEVER be done even if it is off the table) then claimed he would be tough on Putin but proposed nothing of substance to punish or deter Putin.

     Then your issue with him is not so much that he’s not sufficiently specific, you just don’t like what he’s proposing.

21. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    7:32 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu: Paul’s own words do not clarify his position. There are a lot of words but very little meaning. If I am making an insinuation, it is merely the mirror image of that a large portion of Paul’s supporters are making. Paul is trying to have it both ways.

    Is this or this sufficient? If not, why not?

    Sufficient to distinguish his views from his father’s? Not really. He immediately took military action off the table (something that should NEVER be done even if it is off the table) then claimed he would be tough on Putin but proposed nothing of substance to punish or deter Putin.

    Then your issue with him is not so much that he’s not sufficiently specific, you just don’t like what he’s proposing.

     The issue is two-fold, has the senator clearly set out the principles that would guide his foreign policy and how do those principles differ from his father’s?
    The information you cited did not clarify any principles but his specific recommendations did not seem to differ greatly from what I would have expected from his father.
    I have been repeatedly told I should not presume Rand shares Ron’s foreign policy outlook.  I am looking for something that rebuts that presumption.
     

22. Member
    FloppyDisk90

    @FloppyDisk90

    7:45 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    Klaatu: The issue is two-fold, has the senator clearly set out the principles that would guide his foreign policy and how do those principles differ from his father’s? The information you cited did not clarify any principles but his specific recommendations did not seem to differ greatly from what I would have expected from his father. I have been repeatedly told I should not presume Rand shares Ron’s foreign policy outlook.  I am looking for something that rebuts that presumption.

     Re policy:  http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=14.  Granted, it’s not a Foreign Affairs article but for a webpage blurb it seems sufficient to me.

23. Inactive
    AIG

    @AIG

    8:21 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    FloppyDisk90: Is this or this sufficient?  If not, why not?

     Ok, fine, Yes, I think that’s good for him to have said that. I take back…80%…of the stuff I said, in this case. 
    I would, still, like a more clear rebuttal of his father’s stance. A direct stance saying that his father’s foreign policy views aren’t just wrong, but dangerous. Then I can be certain. 

    Otherwise, anyone can say whatever they feel the situation demands, without really believing it, or without having intention of acting upon it if president. 

    Is this “unfair” of me to ask? Perhaps. But that’s what it’s going to take to get me the other 20% of the way there.

    He is going to be forced to do that anyway if he runs for president. Ron Paul has been saying crazy things like this for a long time, and Rand has stood by quietly for a long time. There’s history there, and that history needs to be addressed.

24. Inactive
    AIG

    @AIG

    8:24 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 27, 2014

    Klaatu: but his specific recommendations did not seem to differ greatly from what I would have expected from his father. I have been repeatedly told I should not presume Rand shares Ron’s foreign policy outlook.  I am looking for something that rebuts that presumption.

     To be fair, Ron Paul thinks Putin is doing the right thing, and is within the law, and it’s the US that is acting illegally and as a bully. I.e., the standard Ron Paul position on everything: anti-Americanism.

    Rand’s response to Putin’s aggression was to specifically say that it is aggression, it is illegal, it is wrong, and we are in the right for taking action. Bug difference with Ron Paul’s position. 

    Do I want to see more? Yes. But, still, 80% of the way there. 

25. Inactive
    Umbra Fractus

    @UmbraFractus

    5:53 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 28, 2014

    DrewInWisconsin: Why does Rand Paul have to respond to statements his father made? Isn’t that fundamentally unfair? This assumption that Rand must specifically refute every statement of his father’s is nonsense on a cracker. Yet that’s the basis of this argument and this completely unfair thread.

     Why should Jeb Bush be held accountable for his brother’s presidency? Why is it okay to dismiss a Bush out of hand for no reason other than his last name, but to express skepticism over a Paul is “fundamentally unfair?”

26. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    6:03 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 28, 2014

    AIG:

    Klaatu: but his specific recommendations did not seem to differ greatly from what I would have expected from his father. I have been repeatedly told I should not presume Rand shares Ron’s foreign policy outlook. I am looking for something that rebuts that presumption.

    To be fair, Ron Paul thinks Putin is doing the right thing, and is within the law, and it’s the US that is acting illegally and as a bully. I.e., the standard Ron Paul position on everything: anti-Americanism.
    Rand’s response to Putin’s aggression was to specifically say that it is aggression, it is illegal, it is wrong, and we are in the right for taking action. Bug difference with Ron Paul’s position.
    Do I want to see more? Yes. But, still, 80% of the way there.

     I will grant you this but while you may be 80% there, I am 60% tops.

27. Member
    user_961

    @DuaneOyen

    

    11:04 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 28, 2014

    Salvatore Padula:
    The frequently-held assumption that Rand Paul’s views are necessarily the same as his father’s reminds me of how when radical socialist MP Tony Benn’s son ran for a seat in the Commons as a New Labour Blairite he felt it necessary to declare, “I am a Benn, but not a Bennite.”

     Rand’s continuous mischaracterization of the  NSA metadata collection is pretty telling, though.  I think he is consciously obfuscating his real views, a la 2008 Obama.  Troy is too nice here. 

    A speech does not have to be full of “substance” to reveal the overall tenor of the core views.  One can listen the the Paul speech, and the Rubio speech, and understand pretty well which one is the foreign policy traditional internationalist and which is the 21st century anti-interventionist.

28. Inactive
    user_1020988

    @thedaner

    1:33 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 28, 2014

    Western Chauvinist: I’m not trying to sidetrack the discussion, but why does anyone think Senator Paul would be better at governing than former Senator Barack Obama? It’s not just Paul’s foreign policy positions which concern me. It’s the unreality of the Senate, the disconnect from the people inherent there, and the unproven ability to administer the, admittedly, too far-reaching powers of the executive.

    Can I take a stab at this? Obama literally ran on nothing; just empty, gauzy platitudes and faith that his personality, skin tone, and ability to serve as cipher for the wishes of all kinds of leftists would be enough to carry him across the transom. Rand is nothing if not crystal clear about his ideas and proposals. 5 year blanced budget, economic freedom zones, lawsuit against the NSA and Obama, sentencing and drug reform, congressional verification (annually) on any border enforcement/immigration deal, a 17% flat tax, a clever 5% corporate overseas repatriation tax.  Sure, none of it is law yet, but no other minority party senator has moved the needle either. Rand is the definition of a policy entrepreneur, and he has got ideas. Plenty.

29. Member
    BastiatJunior

    @BastiatJunior

    3:19 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 28, 2014

    FloppyDisk90:

    Is this or this sufficient? If not, why not?

    The first link shows that Mr. Paul believes that what Mr. Putin did is bad.  So far, so good.  In the second link, he makes a few hawkish noises, but with a suspiciously high number of qualifiers.  (Outside of this topic, how do you like those folks who say “I believe in free markets, but …”?)

    Mr. Paul finally lost me when he said, “The greatest threat to America’s security is our national debt.”  Really?

    Let’s see.  There’s an international terrorist network that has proven itself capable of entering this country and killing a large number of people.  On top of that, those terrorists are only a short hop away from getting nukes.  That’s just one threat.

    When it comes to national security, liberals talk about the deficit.  With the exception of missile defense in Eastern Europe (but only if someone else pays for it,) the article in the second link could have been written by Nancy Pelosi.

30. Inactive
    AIG

    @AIG

    9:17 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 29, 2014

    BastiatJunior: With the exception of missile defense in Eastern Europe (but only if someone else pays for it,) the article in the second link could have been written by Nancy Pelosi.

     But not Ron Paul. Better than nothing.