- 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
Foreign policy is no place for ‘red lines’
Posted on 4/15/14 at 9:23 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 9:23 pm
LINK
quote:
By Rand Paul
I am not for containment in Iran. Let me repeat that, since no one seems to be listening closely: I am unequivocally not for containing Iran.
I am also not for announcing that the United States should never contain Iran. That was the choice I was given a few months ago and is the scenario being misunderstood by some in the news.
To be against a “we will never contain Iran” resolution is not the same as being for containment of a nuclear Iran. Rather, it means that foreign policy is complicated and doesn’t fit neatly within a bumper sticker, headline or tweet.
Those who reduce it to such do a disservice to their reporting and, potentially, to the security of our nation.
To some people this may seem to be a nuance, but it is, in fact, an incredibly important detail in the consideration of war.
Nuance has been a bit lacking in our foreign policy of late. Whether through preemptive war or “red lines” that were crossed without consequence, the extremes of foreign policy have had their way, and it has not worked.
Ronald Reagan was once criticized for not announcing in advance his policy toward particular situations. He was accused of not having a concrete foreign policy. His response was that he simply chose not to announce his policies in advance.
If he had been bluffing the Soviets with his Strategic Defense Initiative, or using it as leverage in negotiations, it would have been counterproductive to announce that in advance.
In fact, Reagan often practiced strategic ambiguity. He thought, as many other presidents have, that we should not announce to our enemies what we might do in every conceivable hypothetical situation.
It is a dumb idea to announce to Iran that you would accept and contain that country if it were to become a nuclear power. But it is equally dumb, dangerous and foolhardy to announce in advance how we would react to any nation that obtains nuclear weapons.
If, after World War II, we had preemptively announced that containment of nuclear powers would never be considered, the United States would have trapped itself into nuclear confrontations with Russia, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea.
I believe all options should be on the table to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, including the military option. I have voted repeatedly for sanctions against Iran and will continue to do so. But I will also continue to argue that war is a last resort and that, as Reagan wrote, we should be reluctant to go to war but resolved to do so if necessary.
Should war become necessary, the American people through their representatives must debate and deliberate the pros and cons of action and not be trapped into a predetermined response based on a resolution passed without debate or discussion.
The Constitution reserved the power to declare war to Congress, and when contemplating war, words are critical.
Containment of Iran is a bad idea, but our leaders need to think before they speak and consider that preemptively announcing responses to every hypothetical situation may well damage our ability to keep the United States safe and strong.
I have often said that we have, for too long, had a debate between the extremes of foreign policy — and that to be on either end of the extremes can have life-or-death consequences.
False choices between being everywhere all of the time and nowhere any of the time are fodder for debate on Sunday morning shows or newspaper columns. Real foreign policy is made in the middle; with nuance; in the gray area of diplomacy, engagement and reluctantly, if necessary, military action.
National defense is the No. 1 job of our government, and I believe in a strong nation, at peace with the world.
I believe peace through strength should be our goal at all times.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 9:31 pm to RollTide4Ever
While I am not in agreement with the Senator, this op-ed (I assume) is very savvy and I find it hard to find faults from a non-anarchist perspective. Excepting a few beginning blunders, Rand Paul has done an excellent job at positioning himself to appeal across a broad spectrum. I hope he has more of his father in him than I give him credit for, should he become President. Even should he not attain that office, I will not be one to bemoan any attempts to restrict government authority in any sphere, which he could very well do in the Senate.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 9:32 pm to Dead End
Obama's foreign policy sounds like that nuisance of a parent that constantly warns her kids and never does anything:
"Johnny, if you do that one more time, I'm going to punish you."
"Johnny, if you do that one more time, I'm going to punish you."
Posted on 4/15/14 at 10:45 pm to RollTide4Ever
Paul is telling Republicans what they need to hear. Unfortunately for him, Cruz is telling them what they want to hear.
LINK /
quote:
Paul began on a thundering note, invoking Thomas Paine and calling on listeners to "stand like men and women of courage and fight for your freedom." He barely mentioned healthcare reform, focusing instead on his pitch to broaden the appeal of the GOP by changing the way it is perceived.
"If you want to grow the movement, we cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street," he said. Paul went on to argue against indefinite detention, to mock Justice Department terrorist profiling, and to argue for more lenient sentences for marijuana dealing—nontraditional conservative subjects that seemed to perplex the audience.
Cruz, on the other hand, told the crowd only what he knew it wanted to hear. His speech, unlike Paul's, was infused with personality, beginning with cute stories about his young daughters. Of his defiant five-year-old, Caroline, who likes to play a game she calls "attack the Daddy," he mused that she must be taking her cues from Senate Republican leadership.
Cruz, like Paul, made a populist appeal: "The rich and powerful, those who walk the corridors of power, are getting fat and happy" under the current administration, he said. At one point, someone in the crowd yelled, "Thank you!" And when he finished with a defiant promise to "repeal every single word of Obamacare," the crowd was on its feet.
In interviews with a dozen audience members, I could find only one who preferred Paul to Cruz.
LINK /
Posted on 4/15/14 at 10:54 pm to HempHead
I love the fact that Paul is doing nuance, but I worry that nuance might not play so well in the Republican primaries.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 4:56 am to RollTide4Ever
quote:
I believe peace through strength should be our goal at all times
Do what? Is this why he wants to gut defense spending?Ran Paul
and Ronald Reagan would agree with each other about 10% of the time when it comes to defense spending and foreign policy.
Does anybody think for a second he would have supported SDI?
How bout his policy in Nicaugra?
How bout deployment of medium range missles in Western Europe?
Posted on 4/16/14 at 6:14 am to RD Dawg
Was America 17 trillion in debt when the ole sellout was potus? I don't think Rand would've turned a blind eye to CIA pushing drugs in our cities or send our boys to die in Lebanon either.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 7:22 am to RollTide4Ever
quote:
CIA pushing drugs in our cities
:
Awesome! Keep getting your talking points from Alex Jones or is it Rosie O'Donnel?
Back to the point of your whole post...so,why was your boy slobbering all over Ronnie's policies?
Posted on 4/16/14 at 7:57 am to RD Dawg
B/c sheep like you still worship the ole sellout. You prob. thought Beirut was a masterpiece.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 8:07 am to RollTide4Ever
Sounds like your boy's doing all the worshipping :spank
Sheep, I'm not the one spouting infowars talking points...not a bigger bunch of lambs on this planet than those followers.
Hey,but its what you WANT to believe so have it.
Your claim about the CIA dealing drugs was first brought up by the San Jose Mercury News and was investigated ad nauseum by Frontline,NY Time.Post etc...but I'm sure they were all in on it along with the CIA
Sheep, I'm not the one spouting infowars talking points...not a bigger bunch of lambs on this planet than those followers.
Hey,but its what you WANT to believe so have it.
Your claim about the CIA dealing drugs was first brought up by the San Jose Mercury News and was investigated ad nauseum by Frontline,NY Time.Post etc...but I'm sure they were all in on it along with the CIA
Posted on 4/16/14 at 8:26 am to RD Dawg
Last I checked Gary Webb won the Pulitzer and then shot himself twice in the head years later.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News