- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rand Paul nails it on Iraq then & now
Posted on 6/20/14 at 6:43 am to Jim Rockford
Posted on 6/20/14 at 6:43 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
I heard a pundit the other day say Cheney's PR offensive on Iraq is really aimed at Rand.
I believe this.
Cheney really isn't the type of guy to give a shite about backlash from the usual suspects or the MSM. Those are already enemies to him. He probably takes it personal when there is a fellow republican of significant stature actually busting his balls on this issue. He sees Rand as a threat to the version of the GOP he believes is the correct one for America.
Unfortunately for him, the more he drones on with this PR offensive, the greater the message of anti-war in the mideast and by default, message of Rand Paul sounds.
1
Posted on 6/20/14 at 6:46 am to pleading the fifth
He got it right for sure.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 6:53 am to pleading the fifth
quote:
Saying the mess in Iraq is President Obama's fault ignores what President Bush did wrong. Saying it is President Bush's fault is to ignore all the horrible foreign policy decisions in Syria, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere under President Obama, many of which may have contributed to the current crisis in Iraq. For former Bush officials to blame President Obama or for Democrats to blame President Bush only serves as a reminder that both sides continue to get foreign policy wrong. We need a new approach, one that emulates Reagan's policies, puts America first, seeks peace, faces war reluctantly, and when necessary acts fully and decisively. Too many in Washington are prevented by their own pride from admitting their mistakes. They are more concerned about saving face or pursuing a rigid ideology than they are with constructing a realist foreign policy.
I like the guy, but this doesn't really tell us anything of substance.
It's one thing to put realism on a pedestal, it's another thing entirely to define what that means to a populace that really doesn't want to hear that the United States is not really some benevolent hegemony, but rather acts in its own self-interest just like any other nation-state.
FWIW -- most scholars consider Reagan an idealist in terms of his approach to foreign policy.
This post was edited on 6/20/14 at 6:54 am
Posted on 6/20/14 at 7:25 am to pleading the fifth
Is there any way we can read the op-ed w/o subscribing?
Posted on 6/20/14 at 7:42 am to pleading the fifth
Posted on 6/20/14 at 7:46 am to Sentrius
quote:
quote:
I heard a pundit the other day say Cheney's PR offensive on Iraq is really aimed at Rand.
I believe this.
Cheney really isn't the type of guy to give a shite about backlash from the usual suspects or the MSM. Those are already enemies to him. He probably takes it personal when there is a fellow republican of significant stature actually busting his balls on this issue. He sees Rand as a threat to the version of the GOP he believes is the correct one for America.
Unfortunately for him, the more he drones on with this PR offensive, the greater the message of anti-war in the mideast and by default, message of Rand Paul sounds.
And also the fact that RP accused cheney of being a war criminal and said only reason he went to war was for $$$$
This post was edited on 6/20/14 at 7:48 am
Posted on 6/20/14 at 7:51 am to pleading the fifth
quote:
We need a new approach, one that emulates Reagan's policies, puts America first, seeks peace, faces war reluctantly, and when necessary acts fully and decisively.
Gee, that's so SPECIFIC and everything. What a little political genius.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 7:54 am to Rex
quote:
Gee, that's so SPECIFIC and everything. What a little political genius.
Meh, he's coming at it from a conservative point of view, so he embelishes Reagan a little, still seems to be running circles around both sides on Middle East policy...
Posted on 6/20/14 at 7:59 am to Rex
quote:speaking of specific how is that "Hope and Change" working out?
Gee, that's so SPECIFIC and everything. What a little political genius.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:10 am to Rex
REX???!!.....Dude, we have missed you in all the IRS threads! Where have you been?? You know the scandal must be really bad when you can't even join in and stand up for your democratic/cult leaders.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:21 am to pleading the fifth
Islamism is on the march; we can fight them over there where they establish bases for military expansion and train to attack us...or we can let them take the whole ME, establish their Caliphate and play our cards then.
Reagan bombed Quadaffi's HOUSE. Killed some of his family. What did Q do? He shut down the aggression.
From Regan to Bush to Obama and to Paul or WHOMEVER will deal with Muhammad's Islamism, it's going to be either bow to their Theocracy, or reject it. And if we reject it...they'll have to be killed; and done so while they hide amongst their families. It's no more complex than that.
Paul and his Daddy or Obama can run, but neither he - nor any leader sworn to protect our Freedom - can long hide. Either we shoot or we don't. Sooner or later. Drones/smart bombs now...nukes later. Pick your poison.
Earth 2014.
Reagan bombed Quadaffi's HOUSE. Killed some of his family. What did Q do? He shut down the aggression.
From Regan to Bush to Obama and to Paul or WHOMEVER will deal with Muhammad's Islamism, it's going to be either bow to their Theocracy, or reject it. And if we reject it...they'll have to be killed; and done so while they hide amongst their families. It's no more complex than that.
Paul and his Daddy or Obama can run, but neither he - nor any leader sworn to protect our Freedom - can long hide. Either we shoot or we don't. Sooner or later. Drones/smart bombs now...nukes later. Pick your poison.
Earth 2014.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:39 am to Rex
yeah Obama's campaign was based on specifics. so specific we had to pass it to see what was in it.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 10:22 am to Tiguar
Campaigning on an ideaology is one thing. Getting in office, receiveing intelligence briefings regarding national interests changes the equation entirely.
We saw it from Obama, Paul is doing it... hell, we even saw it from Johnson and a few other Cold War presidents.
We saw it from Obama, Paul is doing it... hell, we even saw it from Johnson and a few other Cold War presidents.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 10:32 am to BobBoucher
Posted on 6/20/14 at 10:32 am to TT9
quote:
I'm quasi liberal, and he would get mine because of his foreign policy views alone.
This country needs new blood.
I am forwarding this to the GOP. Telling them they need to support Rand.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 10:41 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
Islamism is on the march; we can fight them over there where they establish bases for military expansion and train to attack us...or we can let them take the whole ME, establish their Caliphate and play our cards then.
Reagan bombed Quadaffi's HOUSE. Killed some of his family. What did Q do? He shut down the aggression.
From Regan to Bush to Obama and to Paul or WHOMEVER will deal with Muhammad's Islamism, it's going to be either bow to their Theocracy, or reject it. And if we reject it...they'll have to be killed; and done so while they hide amongst their families. It's no more complex than that.
Paul and his Daddy or Obama can run, but neither he - nor any leader sworn to protect our Freedom - can long hide. Either we shoot or we don't. Sooner or later. Drones/smart bombs now...nukes later. Pick your poison.
Earth 2014.
Exactly correct sire.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 10:43 am to ChineseBandit58
Except Qaddafi aided in the bombing of a Pan-Air Flight.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 10:55 am to RollTide4Ever
quote:I don't recall, but was that before or after Reagan dropped bombs on his family, I want to say Pan-Air flight was before.
Except Qaddafi aided in the bombing of a Pan-Air Flight
This post was edited on 6/20/14 at 10:58 am
Posted on 6/20/14 at 10:56 am to trackfan
quote:
He was doing good until he held up Reagan as an example to be emulated, lest we forget his Mideast screw-ups. IMO, Bush 41 was the best foreign policy President in my lifetime, both in the Mideast and elsewhere.
so true. He had me for most of the speech. I notice he said "Bush officials" instead of Republicans, but I gave him a pass for a bit of partisanship. Then he said we should emulate Reagan and I was like 
Hindsight being 20/20, what should have been done in Egypt, Syria, etc?
Posted on 6/20/14 at 11:05 am to trackfan
I generally agree with Rand on this one
totally off topic, but saw this thing on GB41 on CNN sunday night. Very interesting, as I didn't know that much about him since I was an infant when he was pres.
over
quote:
O, Bush 41 was the best foreign policy President in my lifetime, both in the Mideast and elsewhere.
totally off topic, but saw this thing on GB41 on CNN sunday night. Very interesting, as I didn't know that much about him since I was an infant when he was pres.
over
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News