User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 44

  1. #1
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default The Rand Paul Doctrine

    Senator Rand Paul gave a speech today at the Heritage Foundation that might be looked back at as a career landmark speech with possible ramifications for the country and world.

    The Wash Times writes:
    Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday he plans to fight for a “saner” and “restrained” foreign policy that stakes out a middle ground between the way neoconservatives and isolationists see the nation’s role in the world.
    Mr. Paul said that his “realist” view of the world calls for fewer soldiers and military bases overseas and for the nation to pursue targeted attacks against enemies as opposed to large-scale wars.
    If military force is deemed necessary, the Kentucky Republican said that the United States “should attempt to intervene in cooperation with the host government” or require Congress to issue a formal declaration of war.
    “What the United States needs now is a policy that finds that middle path. A policy that is not rash or reckless. A foreign policy that is reluctant, restrained by constitutional checks and balances but does not appease,” Mr. Paul said in a “”Restoring the Founders’ Vision of Foreign Policy” speech a the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

    ...

    Mr. Paul told the crowd that he opposes a nuclear-armed Iran, and said the Middle Eastern nation needs to know that “all options are on the table.” “But we should not pre-emptively announce that diplomacy or containment will never be an option,” he added, as part of his call for a more robust public debate on how to handle the issue. “Let me be clear. I don’t want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, but I also don’t want to decide with certainty that war is the only option.”

    ...

    “Perhaps, we might want to ask the opinion of the one million Christians who live in Syrian, many of whom fled Iraq when our Shiite allies were installed. Perhaps, we might want to ask: Will the Syrian rebels respect the rights of Christians, women, and other ethnic minorities?” he said. “In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed [Osama] bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.”

    ...

    Mr. Paul called former President Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy “robust, but also restrained,” and criticized “neoconservatives” who want to claim the Reagan mantle.
    “The truth is that Reagan used clear messages of communism’s evil and clear exposition of America’s strength to contain and ultimately transcend the Soviet Union,” Mr. Paul said. “The Cold War ended because the engine of capitalism defeated the engine of socialism. Reagan aided and abetted this end not by ‘liberation’ of captive people but by a combination of ‘Don’t mess with us’ language and diplomacy”

    Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...#ixzz2K9neRkqU

    Full text of speech: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2520731

    Video:

    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #2
    respect the brick C.J.Woolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Sounds pretty much like Obama's foreign policy.

  3. #3
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.J.Woolf View Post
    Sounds pretty much like Obama's foreign policy.
    Except Obama pretty much ignores the constitution and has no interest in sharing power

    Also, Paul opposes military aid to countries that behave like enemies and can't be trusted to maintain basic human rights.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #4
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Except Obama pretty much ignores the constitution and has no interest in sharing power

    Also, Paul opposes military aid to countries that behave like enemies and can't be trusted to maintain basic human rights.
    Obama barely has any power. There's nothing to "share" to begin with. You act like the executive branch is dictating things, when they can barely get anywhere. Even with the approval of 2 successful elections. Any strong language you most of the time is simply setting up a position. Not actual policy. Congress is still the most powerful group in the world. One man didn't magically change everything.

    I agree with CJ though. Republicans would be so lucky to have a non-neocon who operates similarly to Obama. It's kind of ironic though that our last 3 democratic presidents have reined it in far more than neoconservatives have. Neocons behave more like dems than dems do.

  5. #5
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Obama barely has any power. There's nothing to "share" to begin with. You act like the executive branch is dictating things, when they can barely get anywhere. Even with the approval of 2 successful elections. Any strong language you most of the time is simply setting up a position. Not actual policy. Congress is still the most powerful group in the world. One man didn't magically change everything.
    Wrong.

    He has the unilateral power to wage war and has used that power to attack Libya and Yemen without congressional authority.

    I agree with CJ though. Republicans would be so lucky to have a non-neocon who operates similarly to Obama. It's kind of ironic though that our last 3 democratic presidents have reined it in far more than neoconservatives have. Neocons behave more like dems than dems do.
    Obama has shown himself to not be that far off from the neocons.

    See: Obama administraton white paper on drone attacks.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  6. #6
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I'd like to see someone suggest a better solution than drone strikes. The so called "war on terrorism", tiresome as it is, is a reality that must be addressed. At the same time, wars and PTSD inflicted soldiers (among many other things) have become an unpopular subject around America's dinner tables. So there's a dilemma.. the wars must be fought, but the traditional cost is too high. In comes the solution of drones.

    What is better than drones? I think it should be heard. Go completely Jimmy Carter and give in? Or go GW Bush and be an asshat? Those are the other options. What is the next step, besides criticizing drones?

  7. #7
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I'd like see someone suggest a better solution than drone attacks. The so called "war on terrorism", tiresome as it is, is a reality that must be addressed. At the same time, wars and PTSD inflicted soldiers (among many other things) have become an unpopular subject around America's dinner tables. So there's a dilemma.. the wars must be fought, but the traditional cost is too high. In comes the solution of drones.

    What is better than drones? I think it should be heard. Go completely Jimmy Carter and give in. Or go GW Bush and be an asshat? What is the next step, besides criticizing drones?
    It's not just the use of drones (although the deaths of 160 children would tell me he hasn't been responsible with their use) it's the way he goes about it.

    His legal justification is that he is preventing an imminent attack when he authorizes drone attacks and then he defines "imminent" as "not imminent" and then tells the American people to just trust him that he will be wise and ethical just like he was when he signed the NDAA and told us not to worry about him suspending our due process rights.

    It's very sleazy and shows a complete disregard for the future implications of setting such precedents.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  8. #8
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Sleazy, eh? I guess it's your prerogative if you want to assign "character" traits to it. I don't see that much meaning behind his actions.

    Anyways, if you don't have much problem with drones, but just the legal justification... then how do you think an attack should be carried out? I'm sure there's room for improvement, but what are you suggesting then? Do you really believe he is picking imminent threats through "wisdom and ethics"? Is that how you truly imagine the decision making process plays out, in the situation room and in front of intelligence community advisors and the joint chiefs of staff? It's all just left to the discretion of Obama's wisdom and ethics. I'm not even an "N" type, and I still have enough of a imagination to see what's hypothetically going on in a typical military meeting. And it's nothing close to that. We're doomed if it is.

    For one, I'm pretty sure the "imminent" label is coming from the intelligence community first. Post 9/11, all the agencies work more closely and in tandem, and have fewer obstacles in spotting and notifying each other of "imminent" threats. 9/11 is partly a result of them not working together before. I highly doubt Obama is screwing up these new protocols with his random whims. They've been working. It's probably the one thing Bush did right.

  9. #9

    Default

    When it comes to any change in US foreign policy I'll believe it when I see it, Chomskey and others have written about how the US hasnt been at peace since WW2 and over that time the entire national psyche, national economy and national interest has become adapted to that, it doesnt change over night and it sure doesnt change because politicians make pleas or promises to make it so.

    Whatever your opinion of Obama is its correct to say that objectively his foreign policy has been what this politician is talking about, perhaps its a signal that the right intends to pursue the legacy Obama will leave behind with respect of foreign policy but his administration is one of the only in my living memory that has not embarked upon any fresh wars or interventions or maintained and escalated existing ones, including the Clinton administration.

    It has even seen the British and French embark upon independent military intervention in Mali.

    There were some signals in relation to these developments during the Bush administration with his suggestions that Germany and other central European nations remilitarise, even if it was in order to act in support roles.

    I've read about how the main military colleges in the states, sources of core support for the Republicans, have become concerned about how globalisation and economic policy since the eighties has resulted in a lot of key industrial and manufacturing sectors have been essentially out sourced to foreign nations effectively threatening US capacity should those nations ever become hostile or be threatened by hostility from other nations. That's more interesting to me than this. Either there are fears that the next conflagration is going to be a real doozey between some major powers or there is something in the offing which will require some kind of autarky, so much so to warrant a rethink of foreign policy as an expense, perhaps the threat of a real pandemic flu or something like that.

  10. #10
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Sleazy, eh? I guess it's your prerogative if you want to assign "character" traits to it. I don't see that much meaning behind his actions.

    Anyways, if you don't have much problem with drones, but just the legal justification... then how do you think an attack should be carried out?
    I do have a problem with drones. I was just focusing on the legal issues as I'm more familiar them with than war tactics. But, I suppose I can delve into it.

    Drones aren't protecting us from massive amounts of PTSD. It's massive land wars and nation building that are so costly in terms of money, fatalities, injuries and PTSD. We could restrict Drones to REAL imminent threats and situations where the intel is much better and makes clear there aren't innocent civilians around. Anywhere there are children we should be sending in special ops that can use some discernment. This would also have the plus of bringing more people in who surrender and can offer intel (provided we don't torture them). This is something Obama is clearly not doing given his child death count. Lowering child death not just a moral consideration, but would also lower the blowback from such attacks and heighten the status of America as there will be fewer edditions of muslim news papers with pictures of dead children killed by America.

    For one, I'm pretty sure the "imminent" label is coming from the intelligence community first. Post 9/11, all the agencies work more closely and in tandem, and have fewer obstacles in spotting and notifying each other of "imminent" threats. 9/11 is partly a result of them not working together before. I highly doubt Obama is screwing up these new protocols with his random whims. They've been working. It's probably the one thing Bush did right.
    I don't understand how this corresponds to my complaint.

    It doesn't matter if they're "working" if they're violating human rights.
    Almost nobody questions if a high jacker who is in the act of boarding a plane should be bombed and killed. A lot of people would question whether someone who has expressed anti-Americanism should be bombed while going to visit there cousin who has terrorist affiliations. That paper justifies that.

    If a country is willing to regularly sacrifice any foreigners' human rights for the sake of security why wouldn't they sacrifice their own citizen's rights for the sake of security?
    Last edited by Beorn; 02-06-2013 at 06:53 PM. Reason: Added a comment
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

Similar Threads

  1. Who Is The More EVIL: Rand, or Kant?
    By Mal12345 in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-08-2012, 10:14 PM
  2. [NT] What Strategy Would Win Ron Paul the Republican Nomination/Presidency
    By Vizconde in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 03:28 AM
  3. Ayn Rand: The Ultimate INTJ
    By Into It in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 09:44 PM
  4. Rand Paul: How much of my foot can I fit into my mouth at one time.
    By kendoiwan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 09:21 PM
  5. [INTJ] The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged/Ayn Rand's Objectivism and INTJ's
    By Harlow_Jem in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 01:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO