April 7, 2015

"I am running for president to return our country to the principles of liberty and limited government."

Says Rand Paul.

185 comments:

Jack Wayne said...

Funny. He's gonna return is to something we never had.

MadisonMan said...

Sorry Senator.

I'm not saying No Way -- not 'til I know who you're running against -- but a sitting Senator starts with a big strike against them.

tim in vermont said...

"That' government is best which governs least" - Henry David Thoreau

"Bullshit" Barrack Hussein Obama.

rhhardin said...

Would the destruction of Israel by Iran be a red line for Paul or just Obama.

Simon said...

Well, my problem with him is that he's a libertarian. I've suggested here before that Paul may be our best bet because the country's mood thinks itself "libertarian" (what it means, of course, is "fiscally conservative, socially liberal," and they think that means libertarian). And that may be so, we'll see. But my problem with him is that he's a libertarian. And an isolationist. I'm a conservative and an interventionist. He's not my guy even if he has to be my guy.

Anonymous said...

I like Rand Paul ok.

Not my first choice but I'm glad he is running.

traditionalguy said...

Paul is self identified as only from the self interest school of politics. Government does nothing for anyone else but lets them alone...and that goes double for foreign countries.

But the third of Americans whose ancestors entered through Massachusetts Bay Colony think that a community should be righteous and take care of its people. It is FDR's view.And it wants a righteous world government.

The pragmatic realists especially want neither one, but instead do whatever they feel they have to do to live a successful life.



Sebastian said...

"He's not my guy even if he has to be my guy."

Same here. Don't think it will come to that though.

Still, if Paul advocates less government and greater liberty in the form of things like tax cuts, spending vetoes, school vouchers, and conservative judicial appointments, he might end up being as conservative as a certain Florida governor.

Gabriel said...

"Isolationist" is an interesting label.

Does Rand Paul want to cut off trade and reinstitute tarriffs? I've not heard so.

Does he want to stop going to foreign countries to kill people, break things and then build them schools where they teach their kids to hate us and kill us? I hope he does intend to stop doing that, but more than one President in my lifetime has "grown in office" on that issue.

"Interventionist" is another interesting label. We would never tolerate a foreign country "intervening" with us, and never have. We've never been weak enough to have to tolerate it.

A libertarian insists on leaving you alone, even he he can see what would obviously be better for you than what you are doing.

Brando said...

Two things--first, I hope he figures out how to stay on the ballot so he can keep his Senate seat, as there's little chance he'll get nominated for the presidency. Second, I hope he doesn't try to morph into a party-line guy and actually sticks up for his more non-mainstream views such as prison reform, drug law reform, and a more non-interventionist foreign policy. The GOP could use some debate about these issues and could use a more libertarian voice to address those parts of the party.

Paul Jacobsen said...

But...what about my free stuff?

traditionalguy said...

Rand is a dedicated man. But he uses a point of view that says he is the only one of those very few men who possess the secret answers to everything.

Sorry but that IS a cult mentality.

As such it is super narrow segment of voters because its appeal is to a small, special group's pride. Ergo: he cannot win a nationwide election .

lemondog said...

Ok Rand which bureaucracies are you going to downsize or axe. There is plenty to work with:

List of federal agencies in the United States

Brando said...

Whether Paul is "isolationist" or "interventionist" is really going to depend on who you're talking to. It's not really "isolationist" to argue for continued free trade, and good relations with other nations--when I think "isolationist" I think tarriffs, and shunning any involvement in any international issue. But perhaps those who think Paul isn't favorable enough towards more military action, or not deferential enough to the U.N., could say he's isolationist relative to them.

I can certainly get behind a "non-interventionist" candidate because we really do need to reassess whether all these military actions (from invasions and nationbuilding to drone strikes) are necessary or helping us or our interests. Those in favor seem to take as a given that these actions are necessary and helpful, despite their costs. But like any major domestic government initiative, we're better off looking critically at these projects as we've stepped in it many times in the past.

Gahrie said...

We have a choice...we can fight them in their countries, or wait until they force us to fight them in our country.

Tank said...

I like him, even though I have concerns (which candidate generates no concerns?).

Unfortunately, he's going to have a shit storm thrown at him.

Tank said...

Gahrie said...

We have a choice...we can fight them in their countries, or wait until they force us to fight them in our country.

Gahrie, we usually agree, but this is the kind of false choice we've gotten from Mr. Zero for six years. I've had enough of it, haven't you?

Simon said...

Gahrie said...
"We have a choice...we can fight them in their countries, or wait until they force us to fight them in our country."

Those are not the only cases in which we ought to use military power. It is unconscionable that we should stand by and permit genocide when easily able to do something about it; I supported Clinton's intervention in Kosovo (and would have urged his intervention in Rwanda), I argued for intervention in Zimbabwe to follow shortly after intervention in Iraq. When our military might can be used to solve a humanitarian crisis, we ought to do it.

Rumpletweezer said...

We're seeing what the world looks like when we don't intervene where we should and intervene where we shouldn't. Isolationism isn't looking so good, even to this libertarian.

Original Mike said...

I'm interested. I want to know what agencies he'd close.

dreams said...

"Funny. He's gonna return is to something we never had."

Our country had small government before Woodrow Wilson.

dreams said...

I think he can add to the debate about where our should be going but I wouldn't vote for him.

Birches said...

I agree with MadisonMan, but the collective howling on twitter from all the "Cool Kids" over his announcement makes me want to go to his website and give him a couple of bucks.

Hagar said...

To talk about, or wish for, "isolationism", etc., when there is not a hamlet in the world so small or so isolated that American products are not sold there, or made with products from there, is just B.S.

Original Mike said...

Listening to his announcement. Debt piled up by both parties. Certainly can't argue with that.

Hagar said...

and I am still for a Constitutional Amendment barring Senators (and Congresscritters, but especially Senators) from running for President until they have sat out for at least one election cycle.

 garage mahal said...

I eat paste.

Gabriel said...

@Simon:When our military might can be used to solve a humanitarian crisis, we ought to do it.

Then we will be doing nothing else.

Meanwhile, what's happening in Yemen--and what happened in Uganda? The countries immediately affected banded together to sort it out.

Why is it our responsibility? No one wants us to do it, they always accuse us of being hegemons, they never thank us, and they always blame us for it not working out perfectly. There are many other wealthy nations that could be doing it if they cared to.

jr565 said...

a libertarians view of limited govt is decidedly different than what we had previously. So he wouldn't be returning to anything. Rather, he'd be as revolutionary as lib.

Gabriel said...

@Hagar:To talk about, or wish for, "isolationism", etc., when there is not a hamlet in the world so small or so isolated that American products are not sold there, or made with products from there, is just B.S.

Which is why you'll have a hard time finding any quote from Rand Paul where he suggests that sort of "isolation".

jr565 said...

rhhardin wtote:
Would the destruction of Israel by Iran be a red line for Paul or just Obama.

When it came to the red line with Syria Obama had no problem with Obama not honoring threat. He spent all this time saying the ME is none of our business. But suddenly ISrael's security is paramount to him?
I'm not buying it. Or voting for him.

Hagar said...

Vladimir Putin imitates Fats Domino and the China's "top nine" dress up in dark blue Brooks Bros. suits and red ties, when they go on camera to be introduced as the nation's rulers for the next cycle.

Barack Obama thinks this is unconscionable and aims to correct it.

Lots of luck with that.

jr565 said...

Rumpletweezer wrote:
We're seeing what the world looks like when we don't intervene where we should and intervene where we shouldn't. Isolationism isn't looking so good, even to this libertarian.

Hear hear.
I have a problem with Obama foreign policy. THus I also have a problem with libertarian foreign policy, since it would treats Obama's failures as features and not bugs.

lemondog said...

Debt piled up by both parties

Amen!

There is no such thing as a politician with a long-term view of anything other than his/her political power. It needs to be stripped away. A referendum on term limits? I hate the idea but would vote for it.

and I am still for a Constitutional Amendment barring Senators (and Congresscritters, but especially Senators) from running for President until they have sat out for at least one election cycle.

And are required to pass full and rigorous courses in economics, US history and the Constitution with published outcomes.

jr565 said...

rhardin wrote:

Would the destruction of Israel by Iran be a red line for Paul or just Obama.

Though I do have to say, I don't think Obama would honor any red line he put down when it came to the destruction of Israel. He would SAY he would defend Israel, but if push came to shove there is no reason to expect he would. Hes not really big on following through on threats when red lines are involved.
Ron Paul would have a problem with us putting down the red line in the first place.
So which is worse, the guy who puts down the red line and then doesn't follow through or the guy who wont put down the red line?
for practical purposes the results are the same. One would be leading my party though.

J. Farmer said...

At this point, Paul is the only major candidate of either party I would consider voting for at this time. I am sympathetic to his libertarian disposition, though there are too many countervailing forces for a President to get much done on in that direction on the domestic front. The watered down, fiscally conservative/socially liberal libertarian-lite that Paul might be able to achieve is fairly attractive to me.

But, of course, the real reason to get excited about a potential Paul candidacy is that we might finally get a president who will roll back this absurd, global military adventurism we have been engaging in for the last 15 years. In my estimation, Paul has all the right enemies in his party (McCain, Graham, etc.), and the fact that he is loathed by Jennifer Rubin is just icing on the cake.

WestVirginiaRebel said...

Rand Paul is good on Constitutional issues. I think I'd rather see him as Attorney General. But at least it will keep the race interesting.

J. Farmer said...

The foreign policy of today's Republican Party is an interesting thing to ponder. It is grounded in patriotism and a strong conviction in American exceptionalism, yet one of its key metrics is how subservient and obsequious its members are to the interests of a foreign power.

EMD said...

Hus I also have a problem with libertarian foreign policy, since it would treats Obama's failures as features and not bugs.

I would favor less intervention if the interventions we chose were actually rigorous and definitive.

No one wants to be Tecumseh Sherman. That is the one man that understood war in all of it's despair. Maybe we can resurrect him to be Secretary of Defense.

Hagar said...

The next president will face a domestic situation where the bureaucracy has got the idea it is all right for them tp cooperate across agency boundaries to further their ideological preferences regardless of what the laws say or the administration in power may wish, and abroad, seriously vicious regional wars may break out at any moment in any of the four corners of the world.

I do not think Rand Paul has either the ability or the backing to deal with any of this.

Original Mike said...

Widespread power outages in D.C.

Rand's already on the job.

J. Farmer said...

@Hagar:

"...seriously vicious regional wars may break out at any moment in any of the four corners of the world.

I do not think Rand Paul has either the ability or the backing to deal with any of this."

Just out of curiosity, if a vicious regional war did break out in a faraway corner of the world, why would we need to "deal with" it? Iran and Iraq fought one of the more brutal wars of the 20th century, and it was still "morning again in America."

Tank said...

A bit of what he actually said today:

In my Vision for America, Freedom and prosperity at home can only be achieved if we defend against enemies who are dead-set on attacking America.
The enemy is Radical Islam and not only will I name the enemy, I will do what ever it takes to defend America from these haters of mankind!
We need a National Defense robust enough to defend against all attack, modern enough to deter all enemies, and nimble enough to defend our vital interests.
But we also need a foreign policy that protects American interests and encourages stability — not chaos!
I envision an America with a National Defense unparalleled, undefeatable, and unencumbered by overseas nation building!
I envision a National Defense that promotes, as Reagan put it, ‘Peace through Strength.’
I believe in applying Ronald Reagan’s approach to foreign policy to the Iran issue.
Successful negotiations with untrustworthy adversaries are only achieved from a position of strength.
We brought Iran to the table from strength, through sanctions I voted for.
Now we must stay strong. That’s why I co-sponsored legislation that insures that any deal between the US and Iran must be approved by Congress.
Not only is that good policy, it is the law.
I will oppose any deal that does not end Iran’s nuclear ambitions and have strong verification measures. I will insist that any final version be brought before Congress.
The difference between President Obama and myself-he seems to think you can negotiate from a position of weakness.

——————–

We must realize, though, that we do not project strength by borrowing money from China to send it to Pakistan.
Let’s quit building bridges in foreign countries and use that money to build some bridges here at home!
It angers me to see mobs burning our flag and chanting death to America in countries that receive millions of dollars of our foreign aid.
I say it must end. I say not one penny more to these haters of America!

MayBee said...

The Republicans who will run are all very different from each other. I hope they can somehow manage to let us hear their differences without them tearing each other apart.

Tank said...

MayBee said...

The Republicans who will run are all very different from each other. I hope they can somehow manage to let us hear their differences without them tearing each other apart.


Exactly !

jr565 said...

Obama gets dinged for having a horrible deal with Iran. But would Rand Paul even try to sanction Iran in the first place?
Absent a deal would there be anything preventing Iran from trying to get nukes. Even with the deal they still are allowed to process uranium and proceed as if there are no impediments.
I want a president who views Iran getting nukes as not a good thing.

So in that regard I'd have to vote for an Obama over a Rand Paul.

Gahrie said...

I hope they can somehow manage to let us hear their differences without them tearing each other apart.

If so, the MSM will simply doing the tearing apart for them.

Hagar said...

The goodness or badness, or, for that matter, whether there is any deal at all with Iran, is irrelevant.
Iran was maneuvering to get the sanctions, especially the international, U.N, sanctions lifted, and Congress may huff and puff, but the sanctions are gone, and they are not coming back.

As for their nuclear weapons program, well, I do not think Iran sees any need to discontinue doing what they say they never did, anyway.

Todd said...

jr565 said...

I want a president who views Iran getting nukes as not a good thing.

So in that regard I'd have to vote for an Obama over a Rand Paul.

4/7/15, 12:39 PM


What has Obama actually ever done to make you think that?

jr565 said...

And I'd view Obama's handling of Iran as borderline criminal.

jr565 said...

Todd wrote:
What has Obama actually ever done to make you think that?

He actually started containment efforts in the first place. I'm not sure if a Rand Paul wouldn't find that to be meddling in other countries affairs. His dad would be saying rather than contain them we should be trading with them.
At least when Obama stinks up the place with his horrible foreign policy I can blame the democrats.

Tank said...

jr565 said...

Obama gets dinged for having a horrible deal with Iran. But would Rand Paul even try to sanction Iran in the first place?


See above - what he said (and did).

Todd said...

jr565 said...

He actually started containment efforts in the first place.

4/7/15, 12:57 PM


What efforts? I don't mean what has he said but what has he actually done? He is a paper tiger and the world knows it. He has these red lines that are threads. He has yelled at the podium and ends his speeches with "wink, wink, nod, nod" so many times that he supporters don't even believe him anymore which is fine with them as they too see Israel as the real enemy over there. Sorry but I think his foreign policy has been worst than no policy at all. He and his administration have crapped all over everything that was working and have been patting themselves on the back for everything else they screw up. If it did not have real consequences it would be funny as hell, like watching the foreign policy version of "Dude, where's my car".

I Callahan said...

There is no such thing as a politician with a long-term view of anything other than his/her political power.

It doesn't matter. Politicians are just reflections of the constituency that they represent. The stupider the people in particular districts, the stupider the politician. I can use other adjectives in that sentence as well.

The founding fathers knew this, warned us against it, suggested that only an educated (not credentialed) people could possibly keep this thing afloat. And what do we get? Exactly what they predicted. When the left took over education and the media, it became the death knell of the country.

It still pisses me off to no end, but there isn't really a reason it should. This is human nature. In the immortal words of Agent K: "a person is smart - people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it!"

J. Farmer said...

@Todd:

"He and his administration have crapped all over everything that was working and have been patting themselves on the back for everything else they screw up."

What was "working?"

Original Mike said...

"But would Rand Paul even try to sanction Iran in the first place?"

Well, he voted for them.

Hagar said...

jr565 said...

He actually started containment efforts in the first place.


George W. contained them by planting a substantial US garrison in the middle of the chicken yard.

Obama removed that garrison, and has pretty much invited everyone to just have at it.

jr565 said...

Hagar wrote:
George W. contained them by planting a substantial US garrison in the middle of the chicken yard.

Obama removed that garrison, and has pretty much invited everyone to just have at it.

DOn't get me wrong. I think what Obama did was borderline criminal as I mentioned. I just don't feel like giving my vote to someone who wil have a starting point that they will not meddle in Iran's affairs and instead trade with them. I don't want him leading MY party so I have to defend republicans from charges that they are weaker than Obama.

J. Farmer said...

@Hagar:

"George W. contained them by planting a substantial US garrison in the middle of the chicken yard."

That is a very interesting definition of contained. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the subsequent abolition of their respective regimes were both huge strategic gains for Iran. Again, one can easily be critical of Obama's foreign and domestic policy and find plenty to complain about. I do. But this pathetic attempt at revisionism where Obama somehow chose to lose the foolish wars Bush embarked on is asinine in the extreme.

J. Farmer said...

@jr565:

Why don't you want to trade with Iran?

Anonymous said...

Obama did chose to lose the war. He said so. From the time he started to campaign. And when he withdrew the last of our troops, he celebrated.

Iran wouldn't be looking so tough right now if they were surrounded by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. You may notice that one is west and the other is east of Iran.

Hagar said...

We have been at war with Iran for the last ten years and more. The great majority of the casualties we have suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan fell to Iranian made weapons and explosives used by Iranian financed and advised "insurgents."

We need to have a "conversation" about these matters before engaging on any "friendly" overtures.

Hagar said...

Delete "need to have" and insert "should have had."

Roughcoat said...

"We would never tolerate a foreign country "intervening" with us, and never have. We've never been weak enough to have to tolerate it."

I give you the Quasi-War to a limited extent and the War of 1812 to a very big extent. In the latter the British went so far as to burn the capital in D.C. to show us they meant business. We didn't tolerate it but we couldn't stop it either. But the republic was still getting its legs under it. By the time of the Civil War the European great powers wouldn't dare intervene. Britain seriously considered it but wisely chose to refrain. In part because a Russian naval squadron came to Boston to lend support to the Union while Union ships were busy blockading the South. That's intervention too, but of a positive nature.

jr565 said...

J Farmer wrote:
Why don't you want to trade with Iran?

Because they are a terrorist state, trying to get nukes, refusing to cooperate, and who have waged proxy wars around ME, often to the direct detriment of our troops.
I have no problem with engaging with them if they are not these things. But being that Iran is Iran, no.

jr565 said...

J Farmer wrote:
But this pathetic attempt at revisionism where Obama somehow chose to lose the foolish wars Bush embarked on is asinine in the extreme.

He chose to lose the war in IRaq while we were fighting it (along with many democrats). And he chose to lose the peace after we won it. He chose to do it. Deliberately.

jr565 said...

ORiginal Mike this is what Rand was saying in 2007.
"They all want to invade Iran next," said Paul. "I tell people in speeches, you know, we’re against the Iraq War, we have been from the beginning, but we’re also against the Iran war, the one that hasn’t started yet. I think people want to paint my father into some corner, but if you look at it intellectually, look at the evidence that Iran is not a threat. Iran cannot even refine their own gasoline. Over 50 percent of their gasoline is imported from Europe."
I don't want to hear then how he's some hawk. He's his daddy's son through and through, and if he isnt' he better do a good job of distancing himself from his dads position.

jr565 said...

He also said:
"Paul. "I’m not sure he understands what the National Intelligence estimate is. But you’re right, even our own national intelligence community says that they’re not a threat. My dad says they don’t have an air force, they don’t have a navy, you know? It’s ridiculous to think that they’re a threat to our national security. It’s not even that viable to say they’re a threat to Israel. Most people think Israel has 100 nuclear weapons, you know?"
so, um, that's worse than Obama. I would rather have Obama leading our party than that guy.

jr565 said...

In 2012 Rand Paul said:
"You know, Ron Paul doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons," says Rand Paul. "He thinks it could destabilize the Middle East. But should they get nuclear weapons, he thinks that there are some choices, and we shouldn't box ourself into a war." He quoted the head of Mossad to make his point, and chastised Santorum and his ilk for talking about dropping bombs: "I don't think they're thinking through the issues of what the unintended consequences of war are."

He also said:
"Understandably no one wants to imagine what happens if Iran develops a nuclear weapon," says Paul. "But if we don’t have at least some of that discussion now, then the danger exists that war is the only remedy. No one, myself included, wants to see a nuclear Iran. Iran does need to know that all options are on the table. But we should not preemptively announce that diplomacy or containment will never be an option."

Same false choice arguments that Obama posed when he said if you weren't for this particular deal then you are for war. Who is saying that containment should NEVER be an option> The straw men that he's constructing in his head?
Hes the same ideologue as OBama and he's trying to nuance his position enough away from his dads so that he can feign being a Hawk. But he's as mushy as Obama is.

Fritz said...

Original Mike said...
Widespread power outages in D.C.

Rand's already on the job.


More like Obama's energy policies succeeding.

Terry said...

Rand Paul said:
"They all want to invade Iran next," said Paul. "I tell people in speeches, you know, we’re against the Iraq War, we have been from the beginning, but we’re also against the Iran war, the one that hasn’t started yet. I think people want to paint my father into some corner, but if you look at it intellectually, look at the evidence that Iran is not a threat. Iran cannot even refine their own gasoline. Over 50 percent of their gasoline is imported from Europe."
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-06/rand-paul-finally-sort-of-responds-to-the-iran-negotiations

That was spoken on Infowars in 2007. I hope that Paul has abandoned this naive, ignorant viewpoint. Iran has ICBMs that can reach into the heart of Europe.

Original Mike said...

"I don't want to hear then how he's some hawk.

Nice attempt at deflection. Who said he's a "hawk"? You questioned whether he would support sanctions. I pointed out he voted for them. Then you posted some crap about a hawk.

Simon said...

WestVirginiaRebel said...
"Rand Paul is good on Constitutional issues."

Well, sort of. Like Randy Barnett, he has an idee fixe that the Founders were libertarians and the Constitution is a libertarian document and a demand for no government more than a libertarian would approve of.

Simon said...

In point of fact, however, the constitution neither allows a federal government so swollen as progressives want nor mandates a federal government so emaciated as libertarians want.

Sebastian said...

"But he's as mushy as Obama is."

And opportunistically so, bolstered by irritating straw-men arguments that usually cut against fellow GOPers.

jr565 said...

Original Mike wrote:

Nice attempt at deflection. Who said he's a "hawk"? You questioned whether he would support sanctions. I pointed out he voted for them. Then you posted some crap about a hawk.

If he's so afraid of war, his support of sanctions will be as tepid as Obama's.
Remember, Obama is supposedly trying to get Iran to not have nukes, and supported sanctions. Clearly then words to that effect don't mean much if you wont back up your words with actions.

jr565 said...

Hes' trying to have his cake and eat it too. He's straddling the anti war position and the tough on Iran position in a nuanced way so as to appeal to both. He doesn't fool me.
To quote the bible by way of Bill the Butcher:
I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

jr565 said...

Sebastian wrote:
And opportunistically so, bolstered by irritating straw-men arguments that usually cut against fellow GOPers

Yup. in his own way he is as antagonistic towards fellow republicans, articulating the lefty postion as Mccain ever was. At least with Mccain, he is serous about Iran.

Original Mike said...

Iran will get the bomb. The only way to stop them is to go to war.

garage mahal said...

Iran will get the bomb. The only way to stop them is to go to war.

Why wouldn't Iran want the bomb? I mean, if you were them, wouldn't you want it?

Terry said...

"Why wouldn't Iran want the bomb? I mean, if you were them, wouldn't you want it?"
But what are they -- meaning the theocrats who stand above Iran's constitution -- willing to do to get it?

Original Mike said...

"Why wouldn't Iran want the bomb? I mean, if you were them, wouldn't you want it?'

No, I wouldn't. I'd be spending my money on economic development.

William Chadwick said...

Liberty? Limited government? Is he trying to give garage mahal and other State-f*ckers nightmares?

If so, good.

garage mahal said...

iberty? Limited government? Is he trying to give garage mahal and other State-f*ckers nightmares?


That you think Republicans are for liberty and limited government is pretty funny. But Republicans are the biggest suckers on the planet.

jr565 said...

" Paul's basically maintained that stance ever since, yet completely reframed his view of the Iranian threat. In 2007, it did not really exist.
In 2015, it has been real enough for Paul to sign a letter warning Iranians that the Congress could blow up any deal negotiated by the president. The only constant: To Paul, the people he disagrees with are adventuresome lunatics who want to start a war."



It's that last bit that I don't like about Paul. His insistence on characterizing fellow republicans as adventuresome lunaitcs who want to start a war.
Id love to solve Iran absent a war>

Original Mike said...

"Id love to solve Iran absent a war'

And I'd love free ice cream. Not going to happen.

jr565 said...

oRiginal Mike wrote:

And I'd love free ice cream. Not going to happen.

lets first get to sanctions that we stick with. If we still cant' get Iran to comply then war. Or at least threats of war. If threats don't work. Then actual war.

jr565 said...

War is not the worst thing. A nuclear Iran is the worst thing. If Iran gets nukes a war may be required anyway. Only now Iran has nukes.

Drago said...

MayBee: "The Republicans who will run are all very different from each other. I hope they can somehow manage to let us hear their differences without them tearing each other apart."

It will be easier if the Republicans decide it's not wise to have democrat operatives "moderate" their debates.

Drago said...

garage: "But Republicans are the biggest suckers on the planet."

I wonder if the republicans are dumb enough to believe that Breitbart operatives hacked Anthony Weiners Twitter accounts?

I know some non-Republicans who did.

jr565 said...

By the way, in yet another example of how Mitt Romney would have been a better president - he even picks his brackets better than Obama.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/04/07/mitt-romneys-ncaa-bracket-was-almost-perfect/

Hagar said...

The sanctions are gone, and Obama is not going to war with anyone - at least not abroad.

William Chadwick said...

So garage mahal, are you saying that Rand Paul is actually MORE of a Sate-f*cker than, say, Obama, Reidf or Pelosi? Or yourself? If so, can you give specific examples of Paul's closet statism?

Original Mike said...

"lets first get to sanctions that we stick with."

You're ignoring the fact it's not just the U.S. It's the rest of the world, too.

Iran's getting the bomb. Get used to it.

William Chadwick said...

GM, I also would be interested in where you personally fir on the Statist Scale, so we can see where you're "coming from," philosophically. With scale of 0 t0 10, and with a Robert LeFevre or a Murray Rothbard at 0, Hitler and Mao at 10, and Obama at, say, 7, where would you fit it? Would you be closer to 0 than Rand Paul, or more on the Obama end of the scale? Go on, champ, enlighten us!

jr565 said...

Original Mike wrote:

You're ignoring the fact it's not just the U.S. It's the rest of the world, too.

Iran's getting the bomb. Get used to it.

If Iran gets the bomb then saudia Arabia is going to get the bomb. then we'l have a nuclear arms race in the ME, while groups like ISIS take over countries.

jr565 said...

France seems more gungho to sanction Iran than Obama does. If the US could get France it can get a lot of countries to be on board tough sanctions. Lets start there and see how much leverage we can get before we just give regimes like IRan nukes.

Original Mike said...

"If Iran gets the bomb then saudia Arabia is going to get the bomb."

That's actually a good thing (assuming Iran has the bomb).

"Then we'l have a nuclear arms race in the ME, while groups like ISIS take over countries."

Yeah, that sucks, but there's no avoiding it now. Ten years ago, maybe. But not now.

jr565 said...

Original Mike wrote:
Yeah, that sucks, but there's no avoiding it now. Ten years ago, maybe. But not now.

You're such a defeatist. Then lets let Israel let loose the dogs of war.

jr565 said...

ORiginal Mike wrote:

Yeah, that sucks, but there's no avoiding it now. Ten years ago, maybe. But not now.

Yeah that suck? That's all you have?Iran supplies various groups with arms to wage proxy wars around the ME. I dont' want there to be possibility that one of those groups gets nukes. Or seizes a town and suddenly has nukes. Like if Iraq had nukes, and Isis strolled into town and seized control. Oops, now ISIS has nukes. Or al Qaeda has nukes.

jr565 said...

and sure there is avoiding it now. You sanction the shit out of IRan. Tough enough where they feel it.

jr565 said...

the reason they were able to get further is that we weren't tough enough.

garage mahal said...

Would you be closer to 0 than Rand Paul, or more on the Obama end of the scale? Go on, champ, enlighten us!

------------------------
stat·ism (stā′tĭz′əm)
n.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
------------------------

I would put me around a 5?

Scott Walker a 10.

Rand Paul a 4.

Original Mike said...

"the reason they were able to get further is that we weren't tough enough."

Yes.

"and sure there is avoiding it now. You sanction the shit out of IRan. Tough enough where they feel it."

No way in hell Obama gets the rest of the world to go along.

" That's all you have?Iran supplies various groups with arms to wage proxy wars around the ME. I dont' want there to be possibility that one of those groups gets nukes. Or seizes a town and suddenly has nukes. Like if Iraq had nukes, and Isis strolled into town and seized control. Oops, now ISIS has nukes. Or al Qaeda has nukes.'

I get all that. I also get that just because I want something doesn't make it happen.

Drago said...

garage: "I would put me around a 5?
Scott Walker a 10.
Rand Paul a 4."

LOL

Trenchant self-analysis like this is what keeps us all coming back!

Up next: Slavery is freedom! Workers of the world unite!

William Chadwick said...

"Trenchant self-analysis like this is what keeps us all coming back!"

Yes, indeed, Drago. GM must wow 'em at the Mensa conventions.

Terry said...

Spokesman for the proletariat said:
"That you think Republicans are for liberty and limited government is pretty funny. But Republicans are the biggest suckers on the planet."
The bigger suckers are the people who think that socialism will work this time!
Maybe even without environmental destruction, a police state, summary executions, and death camps!

J. Farmer said...

@jr565:

"He chose to lose the war in IRaq while we were fighting it (along with many democrats). And he chose to lose the peace after we won it. He chose to do it. Deliberately."

Beyond laughable. How does the word "won" even make sense in that context? How are you defining victory? At what point did it transition from "won" to "lost?" The withdrawal timetable followed by Obama (and insisted upon by the Iraqi leadership) was negotiated and signed by the Bush administration?

Trying to referee a sectarian civil war between groups of people who pose no significant threat to us seems like a really lousy reason to send young American men and women off to die.

William Chadwick said...

Yes, if you actually drink the snake oil of voodoo economics, neo-Marxist class warfare, and old-fashioned State-cultism that goes by the name of "liberalism" these days, you're in no position to call other people "suckers."

garage mahal said...

The bigger suckers are the people who think that socialism will work this time!

Socialists don't separate gullible rubes from their money anywhere near what conservatives do with their supporters.

Some socialist countries:

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium

List of successful countries that have attempted to rule themselves in the model of the Tea Party?

1. Iran?

LOL

jr565 said...

J Farmer wrote:

Beyond laughable. How does the word "won" even make sense in that context? How are you defining victory? At what point did it transition from "won" to "lost?" The withdrawal timetable followed by Obama (and insisted upon by the Iraqi leadership) was negotiated and signed by the Bush administration?

it was signed by Bush after we had a year long conversation from the left about how we need to get out based on set timetable. Rather than withdrawing when we were good and ready to Meanwhile while fighting the war the dems were saying "The war is lost" and "the surge can't work". They undermined it from day one, while we fought it.
And now are outraged that repubs second guess the president on Iran. We're not exactly at war with Iran. Didn't stop them then.

"Trying to referee a sectarian civil war between groups of people who pose no significant threat to us seems like a really lousy reason to send young American men and women off to die."
a destabilize ME does in fact pose a threat to us. And we deal with sectarian groups all the time. sometimes better than others.

damikesc said...

Those are not the only cases in which we ought to use military power. It is unconscionable that we should stand by and permit genocide when easily able to do something about it; I supported Clinton's intervention in Kosovo (and would have urged his intervention in Rwanda), I argued for intervention in Zimbabwe to follow shortly after intervention in Iraq. When our military might can be used to solve a humanitarian crisis, we ought to do it.

Unless you stay there indefinitely, the crisis tends to return.

We thought Libya had a "humanitarian crisis" under Khaddafy. Killing him made things immeasurably worse.

When it came to the red line with Syria Obama had no problem with Obama not honoring threat.

I had no beef with not going since Obama was a moron to even say that.

It didn't work out well, but sentencing soldiers to die because the C-in-C is an idiot is a poor idea.

jr565 said...

"
Socialists don't separate gullible rubes from their money anywhere near what conservatives do with their supporters." NO they separate OTHER peoples money from the gullible rubes or from those with the big fat wallet.

Terry said...

Your list is ridiculous, Mahal. China? You are going to brag on China? The countries on your list are not socialist, they are neoliberal. Put Cuba on their next to Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. They trade with one another, when they can get away with it. Where did Iran get its ICBM tech? North Korea. Where did Iran get its nuclear tech? Pakistan.

jr565 said...

How are you defining victory? At what point did it transition from "won" to "lost?"
Won is us withdrawing and leaving behind a stable country that we don't have to contain because they aent' developing nukes or WMD. Check.
And one where they are able to fend off groups like ISIS without our support. Not Checked.
We even had a govt where the bad leader was able to be removed democratically and war didnt' ensue. How often does that happen in the ME?
THe only failure wa security and that occurred because we pulled out before it was secure. Simple as that.

jr565 said...

Garage would praise china for its economy while telling mcdonalds they need a living wage here.
Or going after Walmart for not paying its workers enough.

J. Farmer said...

@jr565:

"Rather than withdrawing when we were good and ready to"

You seem to be forgetting at least 50% of the equation. Namely, the Iraqi government. How could the US maintain a military presence in opposition to the host government? Would you have supported going to war against al Maliki and the new Iraq security forces in order to maintain US troops in Iraq?

"a destabilize ME does in fact pose a threat to us."

Well, I would say that destroying state forces and unleashing anarchy into countries with millions of people is a surefire way to create instability. See Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. If instability is the threat, then why not argue for US troops on the ground in Libya or Yemen or Somalia in order to stabilize them?

jr565 said...

if china has a good economy it's because they pay their workers crap and steal all our technology.

jr565 said...

"You seem to be forgetting at least 50% of the equation. Namely, the Iraqi government. How could the US maintain a military presence in opposition to the host government?"
Behind the scenes the Iraqi govt was saying they would allow us to stay.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380508/no-us-troops-didnt-have-leave-iraq-patrick-brennan

Terry said...

"You seem to be forgetting at least 50% of the equation. Namely, the Iraqi government. How could the US maintain a military presence in opposition to the host government? Would you have supported going to war against al Maliki and the new Iraq security forces in order to maintain US troops in Iraq?"

You could always try a thing called "diplomacy". It involves give and take that is called "negotiation."
At Columbia, Obama majored in poli sci with a concentration on foreign policy.

Simon said...

garage mahal said...
"List of successful countries that have attempted to rule themselves in the model of the Tea Party?"

The United States prior to Roosevelt. That seemed pretty successful.

Drago said...

garage: "Socialists don't separate gullible rubes from their money anywhere near what conservatives do with their supporters."

Thanks for the middle school take on things garage.

Mike said...

Garage, where do you get your fucked up information? While Obama and the other grifters you support were scheming on how to turn Obamacare into a single-payer system (this was before it "rolled out" and crashed) the good folks in Sweden were PRIVATIZING all healthcare in their liberal democracy. Is it just the fact that there's a Socialist Party or a Social Democrat party in these countries that leads you to tag them with "being like China"?

Socialist? I know people joke about Sweden and they did have a very Blue model post-war but get with the times man! Except for their immigrant problem, Sweden is a very homogenous country with a very strong social fabric that, like Japan's, tends to lead people to live conservative lives of hard work and thrift and a strong "live and let live" attitude.

You need to get out more and stop learning your "facts" from Matty Iglesias and Markos. Hell. GO to Sweden. It's a great place to visit -- in summertime.

Mike said...

garage mahal said...
"List of successful countries that have attempted to rule themselves in the model of the Tea Party?"

Then there's THAT gem, a mindbendingly stupid statement. Try Hong Kong pre-1999. Switzerland has a lot of Tea in it too (100% gun ownership, economic freedom, strong nationalism without being militaristic). Except for the parliamentary system, Israel has a lot of Tea to it too. Prolly why lefties hate it so much.

Mike said...

garage: "Socialists don't separate gullible rubes from their money anywhere near what conservatives do with their supporters."

Obama raised over $1 Billion to run for President, after saying he would use public financing. A lie and a big separation of dollars from supporters, bigger than anyone else in history. DEMOCRAT.

Every rube who believed (1) their premiums would go down, (2) they could keep their insurance and (3) they could keep their doctor learned over the last two years that those were all lies -- and cost all of the rubes a lot more money. Thanks DEMOCRATS!

Obama spent almost $1 Billion on a freaking (as yet unfinished) Web site that couldn't even scale up to the task it was "designed" for. That's about 50 times what Facebook cost to program -- and that model MAKES money. And yet the Rube who founded FB is HAPPY to send dollars to Obama. DEMOCRATS.

All those Wall Street banks sent greater than 90% of their donations to Democrats in 2008 and 2012. Rubes. Separated. DEMOCRATS helped by other Democrats in Fanny and Freddy who made it possible to extract money from homeowners.

Unions exist for the sole purpose of separating rubes from their paycheck so they can, in turn, buy politicians who will help them separate more money from other rubes. DEMOCRATS.

But Republicans, you sputter.

Yeah? The party of TAX CUTS -- which reunites people with their money?

Yeah! The party of FREE ENTERPRISE that (should but doesn't always) stands for economic liberty? That doesn't separate rubes from their money.

Try again Shortbus. You're striking out with your glib glop.

Terry said...

It takes a special variety of dull-minded ideologue to look at a group of people who champion the idea of smaller centralized government, lower taxes, and openly armed citizens, and see a theocracy in the making.
If you want to see a theocracy in the making, check out Obama's words today: “On Easter I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian I am supposed to love. I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians I get concerned."
Obama, as a Christian, is questioning whether other Christians are observing their faith properly.

J. Farmer said...

@jr565:

"Behind the scenes the Iraqi govt was saying they would allow us to stay. "

The most it has been alluded to that al Maliki would have been willing to tolerate was a larger troop presence in non-combat roles. That is, he would accept troops who were training and advising, but he would not accept troops who were actually conducting combat missions. It is easy to assert a counterfactual in which a larger number of trainers and advisors would have been able to accomplish all sorts of things that contributed to the current mess--such as the manner in which the Maliki managed the country--but there is no logical reason to explain how extra troops could have accomplished this.

The chief catalyst to the rise of ISIS was the collapse of the Syrian state under Assad. And foreign policy hawks have been screaming for the US to destroy what remains of the Syrian government. I am still not sure how it is after we drop the bombs and arm the "moderate" rebels ("All moderate jihadists raise your hand!"), how do we ensure that what fills the subsequent power vacuum is not even worse than Assad.

What is so striking to me about the so called neocon foreign policy is how much it relies on a solidly left-wing belief that regimes/states can be changed quickly and radically and you will somehow end up with something that is not a total mess.

Terry said...


An important lesson of 9/11 was that America's enemies will use any tactic they can to kill as many Americans as they can. "Only" 3,000 died in the WTC because logistics forced al Qaida to strike their targets early in the day. Osama would have been happier if 30,000 had died.
How, as a wealthy, responsible nation, do you respond to that?
The argument was settled by democratic means in 2003. The neocons won that argument. If things have changed since then, or we've learned new things, let's have the debate again.
The Iraq War was approved by bipartisan majorities in congress because of 9/11. Trying to discuss the pros and cons of American foreign policy while ignoring 9/11 is foolishness.

Gahrie said...

"Gahrie said...

We have a choice...we can fight them in their countries, or wait until they force us to fight them in our country."

Gahrie, we usually agree, but this is the kind of false choice we've gotten from Mr. Zero for six years. I've had enough of it, haven't you?



How do you propose to deal with the problem of Islam? They openly wish for our destruction and send terrorists to kill our people. We are in a war for the survival of our civilization, whether we want it or not.

We basically have three choices:

We can wipe out Islam. Destroy Mecca, tear down every mosque, ban the Koran. It would be ugly, brutal and bloody. I don't hink our civilization has the will to do it. (and I don't think that that is necessarily a bad thing, or a sign of weakness)

Our second choice is to submit, and become slaves. All Muslims are slaves, and proudly proclaim it. Any non-Muslims in their civilization are slaves of slaves.

Our third choice is to do enough damage, and kill enough fanatics, that Islam will have to leave us alone for a generation while they rebuild. This is the choice our civilization has used for about the last 1500 years.

I would rather do the killing on their land instead of ours.

sinz52 said...

It's interesting how so many Republicans keep coming up with ingenious rationalizations for the Iraq War that Bush himself never thought of.

Michael K said...

The most important reason why I could not support Rand Paul is shameless and incoherent pandering to blacks of the Al Sharpton variety .

I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.

That statement includes all of criminal law since blacks are far more likely to commit crimes.

If he would take a leaf from Shelby Steele or Walter Williams, it would make sense. What he said does not.

Foreign policy is another huge area where he is lost. But domestic is supposed to be his strong point.

Michael K said...

"It's interesting how so many Republicans keep coming up with ingenious rationalizations for the Iraq War that Bush himself never thought of."

It's interesting how many facts Democrats ignore when discussing Iraq.

sinz52 said...

I like Rand Paul.

But the time for noninterventionism ends when the enemy takes the first shot at you.

ISIS already beheaded Americans and will kill more if they can.

Rand Paul cannot look past that. No government is worth its salt if it doesn't do its utmost to protect its citizens from foreign attack. No matter what else it does.

Beyond that, I don't know. There are some genuine lunatics in the GOP, Christian social conservatives who seem almost eager to see the Colossal Battle of Armageddon Between the Satanic Islam and the God-Fearing Christians. I guess they figure this is the way to get Jesus to return.

But I say that Iran is Israel's problem. Israel has never asked the U.S. for military intervention to fight her enemies, and so we shouldn't do that.


J. Farmer said...

@Terry:

"Trying to discuss the pros and cons of American foreign policy while ignoring 9/11 is foolishness."

You don't have to "ignore" 9/11 to understand it in its proper context. The problem is that the US got the analysis basically wrong. Al Qaeda was never the big global network of jihadists. It was a loose, decentralized group of very radical operators carrying out military operations against civilian and military targets (e.g. African embassies, USS Cole, etc.). Using special ops, covert agents, and even aerial bombing of camps would all have been permissible as part of a military response to the attack. However, the US very foolishly allowed mission creep to set in very quickly. By deciding to go for regime change against Afghanistan, the US committed itself to stabilizing and controlling that region. That was totally unnecessary for our security. Suddenly, the enemy was expanded from just Al Qaeda to the Taliban as well. What made the whole "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" argument foolish is that the Taliban were not fighting us because of some religious zealotry based on a war against America, they were fighting us for that old age reason most people have fought each other--power. They were vying for power in their homeland, and they saw US troops as competitors. When we left, they would have gotten right back to doing what they were doing before we got there. And that's exactly what they are doing now. There have always been radical jihadists willing to use force and violence to gain political control. There's been a long simmering insurgency in the south of Thailand along the Malay borders against the Thai government by radical jihadists. These people would largely be sympathetic to violent jihadists group, but they have no desire to attack (or even think that much about) America. Are these people are enemy? Do we need to concentrate a military garrison in Thailand because a half dozen or so of these guys might decide to fly to America and commit a terrorist act?

Regime change has been a completely idiotic foreign policy goal, and everywhere it has been implemented recently it has left instability, uncertainty, and chaos. The region has been left more violent and radically churning than it was pre-9/11. And yet, John Bolton can still gleefully take to the op-ed pages of the New York Times to cheerlead for regime change in Iran.

Gahrie said...

And yet, John Bolton can still gleefully take to the op-ed pages of the New York Times to cheerlead for regime change in Iran.

What other solution is there?

The current regime in Iran is dedicated to the destruction of our nation and civilization, and to enslaving every single one of us. They are willing to lie, cheat and steal to do so. What other choice do we have besides changing that regime? you cannot co-exist with those who refuse to co-exist with you.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Michael K said...
The most important reason why I could not support Rand Paul is shameless and incoherent pandering to blacks of the Al Sharpton variety .

I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.


Yeah, I saw this on Powerlineblog earlier. Ugh. What a complete and total pander. If he actually believes it, even worse.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Terry said...
"You seem to be forgetting at least 50% of the equation. Namely, the Iraqi government. How could the US maintain a military presence in opposition to the host government? Would you have supported going to war against al Maliki and the new Iraq security forces in order to maintain US troops in Iraq?"

You could always try a thing called "diplomacy". It involves give and take that is called "negotiation."
At Columbia, Obama majored in poli sci with a concentration on foreign policy.


Terry, this is just beating your head against the wall.

What was there to negotiate for? The stated goal of the Obama administration was to pull all of our troops out of Iraq. The SOFA gave Obama and his administration exactly what they wanted, all troops out of Iraq. They celebrated this. They wanted this.

The left likes to stick it's head in the sand and pretend like it wasn't Obama's fault, because somehow, the most powerful nation in the world couldn't keep troops in Iraq if they wanted to? Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell you.

Obama wanted out of Iraq, we're out of Iraq. Now we reap the whirlwind.

Thanks Democrats and lefties.

Anonymous said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@jr565:

"Behind the scenes the Iraqi govt was saying they would allow us to stay. "

The most it has been alluded to that al Maliki would have been willing to tolerate was a larger troop presence in non-combat roles


I'm going to assume you're a partisan Democrat and not this dumb. Giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone who seriously believes this is either a very low information voter (Not usual on Ann Althouse website) or someone who has retarded their brain with too much drugs.

I don't suppose you're either, which makes you a partisan shill.

Drago said...

J. Farmer: "There's been a long simmering insurgency in the south of Thailand along the Malay borders against the Thai government by radical jihadists. These people would largely be sympathetic to violent jihadists group,but they have no desire to attack (or even think that much about) America."

You've established this precisely how?

J. Farmer: "Are these people are enemy?"

They are probably just an enemy that is not in a position at this time to do direct harm to American interests.

J. Farmer: "Do we need to concentrate a military garrison in Thailand because a half dozen or so of these guys might decide to fly to America and commit a terrorist act?"

Is that the true extent of the "threat"? And how do you know? (imagine being asked these questions by someone with a very heavy German accent)

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

"The current regime in Iran is dedicated to the destruction of our nation and civilization, and to enslaving every single one of us."

You have an extremely ill informed and childish view of that regime. One of Iran's closest alliances is with Russia, a country full of Orthodox Christians with a history of oppressive behaviors towards Muslims in places like Afghanistan and Central Asia and who largely supported Serbian efforts at ethnically cleansing Muslims. Despite all the claims of irrationality that the hawks always try to make, the Iranian regime has been rather deft at maintaining its power, and its foreign policy is guided primarily by a self-interested desire to maintain and consolidate power.

J. Farmer said...

@eric:

"I'm going to assume you're a partisan Democrat and not this dumb."

I am not a member of any political party, but even if I was a radical Maoist, it would have no bearing on whether what I said was true or not. So if you have evidence that Maliki wanted a large number of combat troops, I would be happy to take a look at it. The National Review article I was responding to conceded that point. It simply claimed that the additional number of trainers/advisers would have possibly been able to have prevented ISIS. How it would have accomplished this is never spelled out. Considering that US forces were never able to successfully put down the Taliban insurgency, I am curious why people are so confident that garrison troops in Iraq would have been able to prevent ISIS.

Eric, simple question. Do you want the US to put troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS? There are jihadist groups in Libya announcing their solidarity with ISIS. Do you want us to put troops in Libya? Somalia? Yemen's looking pretty unstable these days. More troops? Oh, wait, the radical jihadists are on our side in Yemen. Never mind. Is Iraq the only Arab country whose security and stability you want the US to accept permanent responsibility for?

Gahrie said...

@J. Farmer

History shows us that it is very unwise to disbelieve someone when they tell you they intend to kill you.

What has the Iranian regime ever done to make you doubt their word?

Drago said...

J. Farmer: "One of Iran's closest alliances is with Russia, a country full of Orthodox Christians with a history of oppressive behaviors towards Muslims in places like Afghanistan and Central Asia and who largely supported Serbian efforts at ethnically cleansing Muslims."

LOL

Wow, so, let me get this straight. The shiite islamic leaders of Iran are willing to work with the Russians in order to get "stuff"they need even though those same Russians have supported oppression of sunni muslims?

Wow.

Shocking.

Inexplicable.

Gahrie said...

Do you want the US to put troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS?

I'll answer.

If we have to.

But we probably don't. What we should do is lead Western Civilization in forming volunteer units similar to the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, or the Rough Riders to go and fight for us. We should accept volunteers from any nation, and then train and equip them to fight ISIS.

J. Farmer said...

@Drago:

"Is that the true extent of the "threat"? And how do you know? (imagine being asked these questions by someone with a very heavy German accent)"

The point is that these movements, while frequently justified and described in religious terms, are largely seeking political aims. To gain control and institute the kinds of governments they believe in. That is, governments based in a conservative interpretation of the Quran. These kinds of movements exist in one form or another all over the place. Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Morocco, Somalia, etc. State forces keep them at bay. And in some instances, Baathist Iraq for example, practically kept them out completely. It has been in the face of collapsing states that these groups have proven most able to thrive.

J. Farmer said...

@Drago:

"Wow, so, let me get this straight. The shiite islamic leaders of Iran are willing to work with the Russians in order to get "stuff"they need even though those same Russians have supported oppression of sunni muslims?"

If you actually knew anything about the regime and its history, it was actually worried about how it would look being closely aligned with a power that was acting in a very heavy handed way against Muslims. The Iranian leadership paid some lip service to this criticism but knew that its alliance with Russia was too beneficial to risk over silly notions like "Islamic solidarity." The point is, the so called "crazy mullahs" acted in a coldly self-interested way instead of some religiously motivated zeal. The notion that Iran is looking to destroy and enslave our civilization is beyond cartoonish.

Good, smart foreign policy would encourage a strategic pivot towards Shia Iran over the wahhabist financiers known as the al Saud royal family.

J. Farmer said...

@gahrie:

"What has the Iranian regime ever done to make you doubt their word?"

They have cooperated with us in the past, and the leadership has on a number of occasions made overtures towards wanting a closer, more pragmatic relation with the US. Why do you think so many in the regime study in US graduate schools? Yes, they use bellicose language towards the US regime, which Iran is very suspicious of and which has made no secret of its desire to destroy that regime. But it is absurd to say that because of that rhetoric, coexistence is impossible.

A rapprochement between the US and Iran would massively be to both countries benefit, but as usual domestic factionalism works to help preclude that. It is worth keeping in mind that the most conservative elements in Iran are also very unhappy about the recently announced deal, as they view it as a capitulation towards the west and a weakening of Iranian sovereignty.

Gahrie said...

But it is absurd to say that because of that rhetoric, coexistence is impossible.

Co-existence is impossible because they are Muslim, not because of rhetoric. Their civilization has been trying to destroy our civilization, at the express and explicitly demand of their God, for nearly 1500 years. They freely and openly admit this.

Anonymous said...

Eric, simple question. Do you want the US to put troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS? There are jihadist groups in Libya announcing their solidarity with ISIS. Do you want us to put troops in Libya? Somalia? Yemen's looking pretty unstable these days. More troops? Oh, wait, the radical jihadists are on our side in Yemen. Never mind. Is Iraq the only Arab country whose security and stability you want the US to accept permanent responsibility for?

We broke it, we need to fix it. More specifically, Barack Obama broke it, but he's incapable of fixing it.

The only thing that will bring peace is strength and the strongest thing we have is the US Military.

We never should have left Iraq. Who cares what Maliki wants? Who the hell is he? If your child throws a tantrum because they don't get enough candy, do you feed them more candy?

You have to do what is right, as an individual, and as a nation, no matter what. In this case, we needed to stay in Iraq and we could have stayed in Iraq. There was no way Iraq could do anything about it. They could huff and puff, but that would be it.

Obama wanted out of Iraq so we are out of Iraq. Pretending otherwise is just lame and makes you look dumb.

Are you going to insist that we had no choice and had to leave Iraq?

The region is on fire now. The only way to put that fire out is to go in full scale and set it right. That's with the US military. That's with a coalition of militaries from around the world. We could easily get these nations on board, and we could influence these nations for the better once we are there.

Unless of course we take the stance of, "We want to get the hell out as soon as you point your finger for us to go and we quiver in our boots and leave."

Pathetic. Seriously. Who are you trying to convince that we had no choice but to leave Iraq?

You don't insult our intelligence with that, you insult your own intelligence.

Anonymous said...

J Farmer wrote;

You have an extremely ill informed and childish view of that regime.

Says the guy who thinks we had no choice but to leave Iraq.

Anonymous said...

I am curious why people are so confident that garrison troops in Iraq would have been able to prevent ISIS.

Because they did. We don't have to wonder about it, or be curious about it. There was no ISIS until we left. Hence, we prevented ISIS and our absence brought them about.

garage mahal said...

MIC wants war. Which means Fox wants war. Which means conservative sheep want war. The idea that Israel or anyone else is genuinely threatened by Iran's nuclear capability is just laughable. Iran wouldn't get a nuke 10 feet off the ground before they turned into a parking lot.

Gahrie said...

The idea that Israel or anyone else is genuinely threatened by Iran's nuclear capability is just laughable. Iran wouldn't get a nuke 10 feet off the ground before they turned into a parking lot.

You really don't get it do you?

The scary thing about Iran getting the bomb is the fact that they don't care if they get the country blown up! Their most effective tactic is suicide bombers for Allah's sake.

Michael K said...

" By deciding to go for regime change against Afghanistan, the US committed itself to stabilizing and controlling that region. That was totally unnecessary for our security."

The fact that Reagan did NOT go for "Regime Change" is ignored. Has anyone else noticed that the left always assumes the opponent in any discussion is stupid ?

This who are whistling past the graveyard today might read this Belmont Club post and the included links.

I think the Saudis are going to fall. and Iran is going to control about 80% of the world's oil that we don't produce here. My argument is here if anyone is interested.

Terry said...

Sinz wrote:
"It's interesting how so many Republicans keep coming up with ingenious rationalizations for the Iraq War that Bush himself never thought of."

You really ought to talk to Hillary, or Kerry, or Biden about why they voted for the Iraw War, Sinz.
And, like a lot of democrats, you refuse to be specific. What rationalizations for the Iraq War are you thinking of?

Terry said...

Garage Mahal wrote:
"Which means conservative sheep want war."
Yet all the politicians talking about the US going to war with Iran are Democrats.
I once read a Mother Jones article titled "LISTEN: In Private Speech, Dick Cheney Talks Bombing Iran and GOP Donors Applaud".
The article centered around a second-hand report that Cheney had made approving body language when a hawkish Israeli mentioned a repeat of the Osirak raid of 1981.

Hagar said...

Garage,

China has its own brand of post-Mao Communism, whcih is basically Mafia and no kind of "socialism."

The Norwegian Labor Party has declared that it no longer is a socialist party, but is now "social-democrat." (That is basically something like old-fashioned Democrat. The loony lefty parties - Venstre, etc. - are down in single digits, percentage-wise.)

I think that if you bother to check you will find that this is also true for a number of the other countries on your list.

J. Farmer said...

@eric:

"Who cares what Maliki wants? Who the hell is he? If your child throws a tantrum because they don't get enough candy, do you feed them more candy?"

This statement is beyond foolish. Even the people who were calling for keeping troops were arguing that they were there to help secure and stabilize the Iraqi government. The Petraeus COIN strategy that was much ballyhooed by Iraq war hawks included enmeshing US troops with Iraqi security forces. How, presumably, could this have been accomplished in defiance of the government we would supposedly be there to support?

"They could huff and puff, but that would be it."

I don't know. The Taliban seems to be doing a lot more than huffing and puffing and with less resources than the Iraqi state. The Taliban has been leading a guerilla insurgency campaign that we have been unable to stop. Why do you presume that the Shiites in Iraq could not do the same thing? For somebody who seems to be so pro-military, you seem awfully cavalier about putting the lives of US troops in danger.

"Pathetic. Seriously. Who are you trying to convince that we had no choice but to leave Iraq? "

I never said that nor tried to convince anyone. That seems to be your serial misleading. Obviously Obama wanted us out of Iraq. I wanted us out of Iraq. A majority of Americans wanted out of Iraq. Obama won a decisive election campaigning on getting out of Iraq. That is obvious and beyond dispute. The point in bringing up Bush is that the SOFA he negotiated included no combat troops. Why did Bush negotiate such a SOFA?

"Because they did. We don't have to wonder about it, or be curious about it. There was no ISIS until we left. Hence, we prevented ISIS and our absence brought them about."

If you truly believe that this is a logically coherent argument, then you much bigger problems than being uninformed. Actually there was ISIS; they just were not using that name. Their influence declined primarily because of the Anbar Awakening. The most direct cause of the rise of ISIS has been the chaos brought about from the collapse of Assad's regime in Syria.

@Michael K:

"The fact that Reagan did NOT go for "Regime Change" is ignored. Has anyone else noticed that the left always assumes the opponent in any discussion is stupid ?"

What does that have to do with anything that was being discussed? And what regime change should Reagan have gone for?



Michael K said...

"What does that have to do with anything that was being discussed? "

Just your language. Are you unaware of how you sound to those who read your comments ?

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

From your link, you wrote the following:

"The question is whether the Saudis will fall to their own Shiite population and whether the capture of Aden will allow Iran to block Saudi oil shipments."

Probably close to 90% of Saudi Arabia's population is Sunni. How do you presume it will be so easy for the small Shia population of Saudi Arabia to defeat the state's internal security forces?

I think it's hilarious that when Iran intervenes in other country's domestic affairs in order to back forces that it believes are more amenable to its interests, this is held up as evidence of what a dangerous, destabilizing regime Iran is. However, this is what powerful countries do all the time. The Saudi war against Yemen is pretty foolish and has high potential for bogging the country down in a quagmire. It's no wonder then that the US is supporting it. Quagmires with ill defined goals and no clear exit strategy seem to be the hottest rage among hawks these days.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

"Just your language. Are you unaware of how you sound to those who read your comments ?"

I don't care how I "sound" to anybody here who reads my comments. Everybody is free to ignore me and think that everything I write is worthless. Fine by me. But if you do want to engage, let's have the argument.

I have said multiple times that the US could have gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan without having to go after the entire regime and without having to expand its military scope to including the entire country. That has nothing to do with Reagan, and instead of making asinine insinuations about language, why not just make a rational argument like an adult?

Michael K said...

"Everybody is free to ignore me and think that everything I write is worthless. Fine by me."

Sounds good to me.

J. Farmer said...

"Sounds good to me."

Thank you for that concession, Michael. It takes a big man to admit when he has lost. Your mother would be proud. Hugs and kisses.

EMD said...

Iran wouldn't get a nuke 10 feet off the ground

Why would they ever need to get it off the ground?

Drago said...

J. Farmer: "If you actually knew anything about the regime and its history, it was actually worried about how it would look being closely aligned with a power that was acting in a very heavy handed way against Muslims."

LOL

Yeah, they were losing alot of sleep over that.

Drago said...

EMD to garage: "Why would they ever need to get it off the ground?"

Hey now. Do not ever question the strategic chops of our very own rural WI armchair strategist garage mahal.

Did you know that he played contact sports as a yute?

Titus said...

First of all I love him because he is a pube and they are perfect.

My concern is his faith; does he really love God and hate fags? I am not convinced of his hatred of the gay.

He needs to be foreceful in letting me and us, as a repulican party, know his hatred for the gay.

Than he could possibly be a viable candidate.

Hatred of the gay is so important to us in the pube primary.

Anonymous said...

How, presumably, could this have been accomplished in defiance of the government we would supposedly be there to support?

Diplomacy. When we had Bush and Cheney, we stayed, even though they wanted us out, repeatedly. Diplomacy.

Why do you presume that the Shiites in Iraq could not do the same thing?

Because they didn't. They tried, but our surge brought peace. It worked. It was working until Obama came along and withdrew all of our troops.

Why did Bush negotiate such a SOFA?

I don't know. It's irrelevant. While Bush was in office, we stayed. Because Bush wanted to stay. We left because Obama wanted us to leave.

Actually there was ISIS; they just were not using that name.

Not only were they not using their name, they weren't killing anyone. There was peace in the region.

Then we elected President Obama.

Titus said...

It would be very helpful if he called Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, a fag fudge packer.

And called Pence, governor of Indiana, a fag lover.

Original Mike said...

" Iran wouldn't get a nuke 10 feet off the ground before they turned into a parking lot."

Nuking Iran into a parking lot. We'll call that "The Garage Plan".

J. Farmer said...

@eric:

"Diplomacy. When we had Bush and Cheney, we stayed, even though they wanted us out, repeatedly. Diplomacy."

Earlier you said it didn't matter what the Iraqi government wanted, and we could do whatever we want. Why bother with diplomacy? And what if diplomacy failed? I refer back to my original question. Go back and read the SOFAs the Bush administration negotiated earlier after the transitional government. See the concessions the Bush administration made regarding redeployment of troops from Iraqi cities. The only counterfactual that has been proposed is the assertion that Maliki would have accepted more trainers and advisors, but combat troops were not negotiable. This is undisputed.

"Because they didn't. They tried, but our surge brought peace."

No, "they" didn't. The insurgency was mostly fueled by the Sunnis and former Baathists. The Shiite attacks were mainly reprisals and efforts at ethnic cleansing of mixed neighborhoods. The surge and its success were focused in the Sunni areas of western Iraq. You need to read a bit more beyond the talking points. This does not even begin to talk about how much credit the surge gets for things that had nothing to do with the surge per se. Most of the drop in violence occurred as a result of the Anbar Awakening, the local sunni population turning against a sunni force that it believed was acting in too brutal a fashion.

"Not only were they not using their name, they weren't killing anyone. There was peace in the region."

Completely wrong. The Anbar Awakening did help significantly reduce casualties but never to zero. The attacks continued, just at a slower pace and with a smaller death toll. ISIS, which is a pathetically small force that barely controls a small amount of territory in parts of Iraq and Syria, benefited most directly from the Syrian Civil War. And ever since that conflict got started, foreign policy hawks were eager for us to help ISIS out by eliminating Assad.

Anonymous said...

Earlier you said it didn't matter what the Iraqi government wanted, and we could do whatever we want. Why bother with diplomacy?

Good question. You tell me. Especially if you wanted to leave and the SOFA says you're leaving, why bother trying to change that?

The Anbar Awakening did help significantly reduce casualties but never to zero.

You're not left with much, are you? There's peace in Chicago too, oh wait, did I just claim there are zero casualties in Chicago?

Move them goalposts! You can do it.

I've answered all your stupid questions.

Here's an easy one to answer for you so I'll know if it's worth even continuing.

If McCain were elected, the John McCain who was mocked for saying, "It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq, it's if we succeed or not," McCain said to CNN's Larry King.

"And both Sen. Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal -- that means chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we've achieved and al Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America.

"I won't let that happen."

And finished with

"Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain replied."


Maybe 100? Hahahahahaha, that was funny, right?

So, here is my question. If McCain were elected instead of Obama, would our troops still be in Iraq?

Achilles said...

Gabriel said...

"Why is it our responsibility? No one wants us to do it, they always accuse us of being hegemons, they never thank us, and they always blame us for it not working out perfectly. There are many other wealthy nations that could be doing it if they cared to."

This is wrong. The people of those areas want us there. The people of Iraq, particularly the women, wanted us there. It is the governments and political classes of those areas that don't want us there.

Achilles said...

garage mahal said...

"MIC wants war. Which means Fox wants war. Which means conservative sheep want war. The idea that Israel or anyone else is genuinely threatened by Iran's nuclear capability is just laughable. Iran wouldn't get a nuke 10 feet off the ground before they turned into a parking lot."

Could it be that Obama, GM and the left has a brilliant secret plan to deal with Islam? And is it a bug or a feature when a few million Jews die right before they halve the number of Muslims in the world?

jr565 said...

Eric wrote;
So, here is my question. If McCain were elected instead of Obama, would our troops still be in Iraq?
<br
A few follow ups (and good points by the way):
If we were still in Iraq would ISIS be in Iraq?
If we were still in Iraq would Iran be so confident they they csn ignore containment and move along with their nukes.

jr565 said...

"If you want to see a theocracy in the making, check out Obama's words today: “On Easter I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian I am supposed to love. I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians I get concerned."
Obama, as a Christian, is questioning whether other Christians are observing their faith properly."

he would say that On Easter?
And what are Christians suppose to love? Sin? The winner yes, but not the sin.(and I don't have to be talking about gays here). Christians are forgiving of sin, if you renounce it. But if you don't think its a sin I'mThe first place they are not supposed to go along with the sin because they love. What a peculiar reading of Christianity.

Oh, and when he sat in the pew when Wright was saying GOD DAMN AMERIKKKA was he applying this lesson?
He's no Christian.

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
"List of successful countries that have attempted to rule themselves in the model of the Tea Party?"

Switzerland and Hong Kong.
Although Hong Kong isn't really a country.

Rusty said...


He needs to be foreceful in letting me and us, as a repulican party, know his hatred for the gay.

Nobody hates gays, Titus.

What they hate is all this whiney, self absorbed, tedious, bullying.

jr565 said...

Another proble with Rand Paul is when he says stuff like this:
" he’d like to see “an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.”

way to pander to blacks Rand. Only it makes no sense. Certsinly laws should be equally applied. But if more blacks wind up in jail than other groups it doesn't mean thst laws weren't equally applied.
It might simply mean that more blacks are commiting crimes. If up you have a law on the books, how many are incarcerated are not based on quotas but actions. There will never be a parity where the number of blacks in jail matches population statistics of blacks as individuals commit crimes at greater rates?

I think he's trying to talk about laws like for crack cocaine, where blacks had tougher sentences than whites who had sold coke, for example.
But thsts a separate issue, and would fall more in line with the first part of his statement.

It's a pandering argument that is just stupid. And incidentally, even when it comes to crack cocain, why were the penalties tougher. Because crack was destroying the black communities. And they demanded tough laws to deal with those selling crack.
Then the laws are passed and since its black people selling crack in those communities they are the ones facing those lower penalties. Don't blame racist Justice system, blame the community asking for something then not liking the result.

Fernandinande said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernandinande said...

Brando said...
Second, I hope he doesn't try to morph into a party-line guy


He already has, to the socialist/racist party, and apparently has never heard of the NCVS:

Rand Paul Demands Laws Against Murder and Rape be Repealed
"I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed."

jr565 said...

Rand later qualified his remarks to say he was referring to non violent crimes. But even that's a stupid argument and he's essentially calling for a race based criminal justice code.

So lets take one non violent crime. Driving without a license. SO if it turns out that more blacks are caught driving without a license (non violent crime) that he will do away with the law that you need a license to drive a car? That is ludicrous.
And why does there have to be parity anyway? Should cops look at statistics and realize that blacks are reaching their quota of driving without licenses and will let everyone else black go after a certain point?
Overstaying your visa is a non violent crime that seems to more readily effect Mexicans, since they are the ones more likely than not doing it? So,
do away with immigration laws?
Many laws for non violent crimes are perfectly valid to uphold and enforce.

As powerline mentions:
The line between violent and non-violent crimes is not totally clear. However, non-violent crimes are generally thought to include:

Manufacturing or selling heroin
Stalking
Driving without a licence or with a suspended license
Driving under the influence of alcohol
Reckless driving and driving after the police signals you to stop
Second and third degree burglary
Arson
Larceny
Credit theft and illegal use of credit cards
Identity theft
Forgery
Enticing a minor or using one in an obscene performance
Possessing an unauthorized weapon on school property
Overstaying a visa or otherwise being in the U.S. illegally

I see no basis for repealing any of these prohibitions. But if there’s a case to be made, it shouldn’t be based on race.

Even with his backpedaling, Rand Paul is calling for a race-based criminal justice code. This should disqualify him from the GOP nomination."

I don't know if it should disqualify him outright, but it's certainly giving me pause to vote for him.

J. Farmer said...

@Eric:

"Good question. You tell me. Especially if you wanted to leave and the SOFA says you're leaving, why bother trying to change that?"

I never believed it should have been change. Let me repeat that my intention of bringing up the SOFA was not to "blame Bush" or say that Obama had no choice. My point was to show that a US military presence in Iraq was not simply up to the president but was checked by a number of domestic and international political factors within Iraq. Bush negotiated a SOFA with the Maliki government, and that SOFA included complete withdrawal. This would suggest to me that either a total withdrawal is what the administration wanted or the administration wanted residual forces but was unable to obtain the concession of the Maliki government. The most that anybody has conceded is that the Iraqis would have been amenable to larger numbers of military trainers and advisers but were adamantly opposed to US troops maintaining a combat role in Iraq. This point was conceded in the National Review blog post. We have no idea what type of concessions the Maliki government may have asked for or sought in exchange for more troops. SOFA's are not just about troop levels but often contain a variety of restrictions on troop deployment and operational roles.

"You're not left with much, are you? There's peace in Chicago too, oh wait, did I just claim there are zero casualties in Chicago?

Move them goalposts! You can do it."

You are making my point for me. The word "peace" makes no sense in the context in which you are using it. You were the on who chose to define "peace" as a reduction in violence. So, tell me, how many violent deaths does it take to go from "peace" to "no peace." You're absolutely correct; there are more than zero killings in Chicago. However, if a few hundred people were dying every week from bombings and organized attacks on the streets of Chicago, something tells me that "peace" would not be high on the list of adjectives used to describe the situation.

"Maybe 100? Hahahahahaha, that was funny, right?

So, here is my question. If McCain were elected instead of Obama, would our troops still be in Iraq?"

I defended McCain at the time of those remarks against people that I believed were taking them wildly out of context. I think what McCain said was obviously true. Americans are not much bothered by the deployment of US forces overseas so long as those forces are not regularly exposed to violence that gets them killed on a routine basis.

It is easily conceivable that had the US government gotten the Iraqis to concede to a residual force of combat troops (highly dubious), such a force could have prevented some of the larger territorial gains that ISIS made in Iraq. I do not see how residual forces in Iraq would have stopped the fracturing of the Syrian state, which has been the primary power vacuum in which ISIS has been able to thrive. It is worth remembering that right up until ISIS declared themselves, people like McCain argued that the US should be fighting on their side and helping them to more quickly destroy the Assad regime and thus spread even more chaos and anarchy around Syria. In any event, the most probably outcome would be that the US would find itself in the very type of situation that the American public had become very dubious about: getting killed while trying to referee a low-level sectarian civil war.

I find it interesting that commenters here are so convinced that a small residual force of US troops in Iraq could accomplish against ISIS what tens of thousands of US and NATO forces have been completely unable to accomplish against the Taliban after almost a decade and half of deploying military force to Afghanistan. The large, technologically advanced, shock and awe military force we developed over the 20th century to fight big nation-state wars against great powers is very ineffective at putting down a guerrilla insurgency.

Mike said...

Rusty said...

Switzerland and Hong Kong.
Although Hong Kong isn't really a country.


Oops, my mistake, but they were self-governed in a very liberal, almost libertarian way until the handover.

jr565 said...

On a positive note, Rand did get some nice barbs in on Debbie washerman Shultz.