- 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
Rand Paul Dares to Use the C Word with Regards to Iran
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:28 am
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:28 am
Hats off to Paul for having the political courage to say what others inside the beltway are afraid to, namely that we don't necessarily have to go to war with Iran even if it does build nukes. He also had some things to say about the defense budget that I'm sure won't make the MIC happy.
LINK /
quote:
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl he believes “all options should be on the table” to prevent a nuclear Iran, but the U.S. should not immediately accept the idea of war when the threat of a nuclear Iran could be contained as it has been with other nuclear powers.
“I’ve repeatedly voted for sanctions against Iran. And I think all options should be on the table to prevent them from having nuclear weapons,” Paul said on “This Week” Sunday. But he said those who oppose the idea of containment — or living with an Iran with nuclear weapons — ignore that such an outcome has been necessary in the past.
“They said containment will never ever, ever be our policy,” Paul said of those who oppose Iran getting nuclear weapons at any cost. “We woke up one day and Pakistan had nuclear weapons. If that would have been our policy toward Pakistan, we would be at war with Pakistan. We woke up one day and China had nuclear weapons. We woke up one day and Russia had them.”
“The people who say ‘by golly, we will never stand for that,’ they are voting for war,” he added.
Asked by ABC’s Karl if we could “live with” and “contain” a nuclear Iran, Paul said, “I think it’s not a good idea to announce that in advance.”
“Should I announce to Iran, ‘Well, we don’t want you to, but we’ll live with it?’ No, that’s a dumb idea to say that you’re going to live with it,” Paul said. “However, the opposite is a dumb idea too,” referring to the prospect of war.
Paul also defended his push to cut U.S. defense spending beyond lower sequester levels.
“I believe national defense is the most important thing we do, but it isn’t a blank check,” he said. “Some conservatives think, ‘Oh, give them whatever they want and that everything is for our soldiers’ and they play up this patriotism that, ‘Oh, we don’t have to control defense spending.’”
“We can’t be a trillion dollars in the hole every year,” he continued.
LINK /
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 11:34 am
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:32 am to trackfan
Not so courageous. Everyone knows this administration won't let Iran complete a nuke.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:49 pm to trackfan
Good for him!
He may be a pioneer politician trying to usher in a new era in the GOP.
He may be a pioneer politician trying to usher in a new era in the GOP.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 1:04 pm to Sentrius
quote:
He may be a pioneer politician trying to usher in a new era in the GOP.
It's only new since Reagan.
Reagan's foreign policy was more about containment, a very strong military and military defense positioning to prevent war. Rand seems to want to play the middle ground like Reagan did on foreign policy. The McCain/Rove side of the GOP is different in the fact that they justify little war to prevent big war.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 1:17 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Reagan's foreign policy was more about containment, a very strong military and military defense positioning to prevent war. Rand seems to want to play the middle ground like Reagan did on foreign policy. The McCain/Rove side of the GOP is different in the fact that they justify little war to prevent big war.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 1:33 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Reagan's foreign policy was more about containment, a very strong military and military defense positioning to prevent war. Rand seems to want to play the middle ground like Reagan did on foreign policy.
Ron and Rand Paul are less hawkish than Reagan. I doubt very seriously that either Paul would have sent troops into Lebanon. I would put Reagan in the middle ground between between Paul and McCain.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 1:38 pm to trackfan
quote:
Ron and Rand Paul are less hawkish than Reagan. I doubt very seriously that either Paul would have sent troops into Lebanon. I would put Reagan in the middle ground between between Paul and McCain.
the reagan administration was quite hawkish.
reagan sent troops into lebanon, invaded grenada, bombed libya and not to mention iran contra affair.
reagan wasn't mccain that is for sure, but he was closer to mccain than paul.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News