In June, Rand Paul was The Anti Bomb Candidate In August, he was the Maybe We'll Bomb Em Candidate. In September, he's Dr Strangelove!!! LETS NUKE EM!
Some might call it Evolution... Others might call it, an awakening to Reality... But we all know what the reason for the Rand Paul Flip Flop... Rand Paul can't get elected if he doesn't bend to the will of the Right Wingers. (Randy Is Just One More Republican)
Box, can you show me the quote where Paul said he wants to bomb Syria and Iaq?
Box, can you show me the quote where Paul said he wants to bomb Syria and Iaq?
Google is your friend, but let me help you with your request
Quoted Text
Rand Paul’s epic ISIS flip-flop 09/04/14 02:49 PM—Updated 09/04/14 09:52 PM After expressing reluctance to intervene against ISIS over the summer, Sen. Rand Paul abruptly shifted gears on Thursday and announced that he supports military action to eliminate the Islamist group.
“The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria,” the Kentucky Republican and likely 2016 presidential hopeful wrote in an op-ed in TIME. “Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.” http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-epic-isis-flip-flop
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
You have clearly stated you would SPIT on me or anyone else that served in Vietnam, etc. That is an act of batter, considered to be violence. Do you honestly believe that is not a threat????
So now show where I have threatened you! Puleeeze! and while you're at it, tell us all how you have carried out this act against your own father, uncle and brother....or again, are you just a cyber bully with your threats! Come on hypocrite, let's hear it!
I never threatened to spit on anyone.
You are mistakenly paranoid.
You posted:
...Spit on me and I will kick your a$$...that's violence! ...Accuse me of murder in front of other people and I will knock you on your a$$....that's violence! ...Call me RETARDED in front of others and I will biotch-slap the heck out of you...that's violence.
All of your rage and hatred of me stems from me saying that I spit at baby killers returning from Viet Nam in the 60's.
That was before the extremist government made it a life threatening felonious assault to be dealt with by excessive force.
Spitting was a perfectly legal form of expression at the time.
You attempt to morph it into a class a felony.
Putting the word "example" in front of threats, does not make the threats less real.
You posted threat of violence.
I posted that I spit at a representative of your baby killers club, and you make it into a present day crime against humanity.
I never threatened to spit on anyone. LIAR...you know damn well you said you would spit on me even today because of my service in Vietnam...deny it all you want. It was that statement that started the basic feud between us, and you know it.
You posted:
...Spit on me and I will kick your a$$...that's violence! ...Accuse me of murder in front of other people and I will knock you on your a$$....that's violence! ...Call me RETARDED in front of others and I will biotch-slap the heck out of you...that's violence. These are not threats of violence, just an explanation of the consequences one would be subject to if they acted toward me as you have suggested. All of your rage and hatred of me stems from me saying that I spit at baby killers returning from Viet Nam in the 60's. There you go...you are now admitting your immature rage in generic way, and know that you said you would spit on me...own it hypocrite! Also, answer, have you spit on your father, uncle and brother, or do you just hide in cyberspace with your threats?
Spitting was a perfectly [/b]completely cowardly legal form of expression at the time.
You [b] I continue to be obsessed and delusional. HESS punished me; restaurants pretend to be closed when I pull into their parking lot; the world is out to get me!!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
LIAR...you know damn well you said you would spit on me even today because of my service in Vietnam...deny it all you want. It was that statement that started the basic feud between us, and you know it.
I actually said that I would spit on any mass murderer.
If you are taking this opportunity to cleanse your guilt, thank you.
Post the words you say I posted where i stated I would spit on you today, angry man.
Google is your friend, but let me help you with your request
Thanks Joey...I noticed MSNBC quoted Paul's piece in Time Magazine. It would have been more accurate if you went to the Time article for full context. So I took a look myself, and when you read the full context, it appears much different than the cherry picked sentences MSNBC quoted and build their story around. It appears that Paul would bomb ISIS if it was clearly defined as in the US national interest and there was a strategic vision for victory.
I don't know, when you actually read Paul's words, they seem to come across much differently than the MSNBC portrayal. But...Who takes the time to read the actual words written, just read biased news outlets that cherry pick quotes and fabricate a story around it. Much easier.
FROM TIME MAGAZINE ARTICLE
Quoted Text
This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.
Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests.
The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.
There’s no point in taking military action just for the sake of it, something Washington leaders can’t seem to understand. America has an interest in protecting more than 5,000 personnel serving at the largest American embassy in the world in northern Iraq. I am also persuaded by the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities.
The long-term challenge is debilitating and ultimately eradicating a strong and growing ISIS, whose growth poses a significant terrorist threat to U.S. allies and enemies in the region, Europe, and our homeland.
The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.
I actually said that I would spit on any mass murderer.
So have you spit on your Father, your Uncle and your Brother???? They are apparently part of the group you state you would spit on, by your own admission...so have you done that or not HYPOCRITE?
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Thanks Joey...I noticed MSNBC quoted Paul's piece in Time Magazine. It would have been more accurate if you went to the Time article for full context. So I took a look myself, and when you read the full context, it appears much different than the cherry picked sentences MSNBC quoted and build their story around. It appears that Paul would bomb ISIS if it was clearly defined as in the US national interest and there was a strategic vision for victory.
I don't know, when you actually read Paul's words, they seem to come across much differently than the MSNBC portrayal. But...Who takes the time to read the actual words written, just read biased news outlets that cherry pick quotes and fabricate a story around it. Much easier.
FROM TIME MAGAZINE ARTICLE
Here's another take on his statements...but he clearly now supports military action against ISIL.
Quoted Text
Rand Paul Says He Is Not An 'Isolationist' Posted: 09/04/2014 2:32 pm EDT Updated: 09/04/2014 2:59 pm EDT It's getting a little hard to keep track of what, exactly, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wants President Barack Obama to do in Iraq.
The libertarian-leaning senator raised eyebrows last week when he told the Associated Press that if he were president, he would "seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily." Eliminating ISIS would be a major, prolonged undertaking, one generally viewed as a dramatic departure from Paul's prior opposition to hawkish foreign policy.
Paul defended himself against critics of this apparently new position in a Time op-ed on Thursday, pushing back against pundits who "are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militarily." Paul claimed that he is neither an isolationist nor an interventionist and that he sees "war as the last resort." But he ultimately supports military action against extremists threatening the Middle East because "'Peace through Strength' only works if you have and show strength."
That's still a far cry from a June op-ed in which he argued against reengaging America in war-torn Iraq for the fourth time. It's also hard to square with another op-ed in which he denounced war hawks for advocating a foreign policy that amounted to "shooting first and asking questions later."
So what would Paul, who is considering a run for president in 2016, have done differently?
If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.
"This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.
It's certainly fair to criticize the administration for its strategy -- or lack thereof -- in Iraq and Syria, as even some Democrats have begun to do. But by claiming he would have "acted more decisively" in hindsight, Paul papers over some of his own dithering. The Kentucky Republican, who is known for his non-interventionist and libertarian leanings, was conspicuously silent on U.S. strikes days after Obama ordered them in early August. When he finally broached the subject, he said he had "mixed feelings about it."
In the Time op-ed, Paul went on to advocate for further air strikes, including in Syria, as well as arming Kurdish allies and building a coalition of willing partners to take on the extremist group (a prescription that puts him more or less in line with the Obama administration). Paul also named Turkey and Jordan as two potential candidates with the incentives to aid U.S. interests in the region.
But Paul also notably omitted Iran and Syria from that list of potential allies. As recently as Wednesday, he was saying those two countries should be key players in any U.S. effort against ISIS.
“Right now, the two allies that have the same goal would be Iran and Syria, to wipe out ISIS. They also have the means, and the ability, and they also have the incentive to do so because [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad’s clinging for power and clinging for life there,” he said on Sean Hannity's radio show.
Successfully defeating the extremist group may ultimately require collaboration with notoriously bad actors like Syrian President Bashar Assad, but it would also make Paul vulnerable in a potential 2016 primary against more establishment GOP candidates -- which could explain why he omitted them in Thursday's op-ed.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
So have you spit on your Father, your Uncle and your Brother???? They are apparently part of the group you state you would spit on, by your own admission...so have you done that or not HYPOCRITE?
My family does not act as you do.
They make no claims to have participated to protect my freedoms.
Some people are capable of learning something.
But thanks for sharing your obsessions with us, defender of those who kill in our name.
And speaking of obsessing, I walked into Hess and asked if we were being punished because the entire store had everything backwards on the shelf.
Most sane people who read that post understood that it was my attempt at humor using a sarcastic comment.
You latched on to it and have been obsessing over it for 2 years.
Wow.
I just let you go.
Month after month.
You really believe that I thought it was a conspiracy against me?
I hereby apologize for associating actual retarded people with you.
You would need a 50 point IQ boost to register even as a minimum life force.
Obsessed delusional defender of death and destruction.
You need to have your hard drive reformatted.
Your programming has encountered a fatal error.
You are unable to see reality.
Just your obsession driven hatred of those who want an end to death and destruction.
Who is responsible for the catastrophes in the Middle East?
“The United States of America is not responsible for what happened in Libya, nor is it responsible for what is happening in Iraq today,” Secretary of State John Kerry declared at a Cairo news conference held in the midst of his recent crisis tour of the Middle East.
As Kerry spoke, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and a growing Sunni insurgency were consolidating their grip over the north and west of Iraq, including the country’s borders with Syria and Jordan. Upwards of a million Iraqis had been displaced by the fighting, and thousands had been killed in the mounting sectarian slaughter.
Libya is in a state of complete collapse, with continuous fighting between rival militias, a government that exists in name only, oil production down by at least 80 percent, and over a million people forced to flee the country’s violence. Many thousands are incarcerated in a network of prisons run by armed groups that practice systematic torture.
Kerry’s statement merely made official the steady drumbeat from the political establishment and the media since the situation in Iraq turned into a complete debacle: “The US bears no responsibility.”
Typical was the commentary by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, a “human rights” imperialist who was a vocal proponent of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. He wrote: “The debacle in Iraq isn’t President Obama’s fault. It’s not the Republicans’ fault… overwhelmingly, it’s the fault of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.”
Maliki, the stooge put in power and kept there by the US occupation, is made the fall guy.
Thomas Friedman, the Times’ foreign affairs columnist, wrote Sunday that Maliki is an “arsonist,” who, “the minute America left Iraq,” deliberately unleashed mayhem. This is the same Friedman who in 2003 declared that the US invaded Iraq “because we could,” spoke proudly of US troops going house-to-house and ordering Iraqis to “suck on this,” and declared that he had “no problem with a war for oil.”
Listening to the chorus of statements insisting that the US has no responsibility for the deepening tragedy inflicted upon the people of Iraq and Libya, one is reminded of nothing so much as the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, from Hermann Göring on down, rising one-by-one in the dock to declare themselves “not guilty.”
What are the crimes for which Kerry and so many others in the ruling establishment insist Washington bears no responsibility?
The description that they used for their own actions at the time was “shock and awe,” the unleashing of colossal destructive force upon a society already shattered by a decade of sadistic US sanctions. Killing hundreds of thousands of people and turning millions into refugees, the US war and occupation destroyed every institution of Iraqi society, while Washington deliberately fomented sectarian divisions as a means of overcoming Iraqi nationalism. The country’s deposed ruler, Saddam Hussein, was tried by a drumhead court and unceremoniously executed.
All of this was justified with warnings about the imminent threat from “weapons of mass destruction” and ties between Baghdad and Al Qaeda. As the whole world now knows, it was all lies.
There were no WMDs and there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until US imperialism overthrew the country’s government and tore its social fabric to pieces. In fact, there was no Al Qaeda at all before Washington set about inciting a bloody war by right-wing Islamists in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
In Libya and now in Syria, the Obama administration abandoned the “war on terrorism” pretext for an equally cynical and fraudulent justification for regime-change: “human rights.” In Libya, the US and NATO heavily bombed the country while organizing and arming Islamist-led militias in a sectarian war that destroyed all of the existing governmental and social structures. As in Iraq, it ended its war with the brutal murder of the country’s secular leader, Muammar Gaddafi.
Washington is carrying out a similar war for regime-change in Syria, backing Sunni Islamist and sectarian militias that are led by ISIS, the same force that has overrun much of Iraq. The US hopes to end this war with the assassination of a third secular Arab head of state, Bashar al-Assad.
Just last week, Obama proposed to funnel $500 million in arms to the Syrian “rebels”—weapons that everyone knows will end up in the hands of ISIS, which the US is supposedly committed to defeating in Iraq.
As the contradictions and deceptions of Washington’s policy become ever more glaring, US officials simply act as though the American people won’t notice, or will believe anything. Or, for that matter, they won’t see that $500 million can be conjured up instantly to pay for a criminal war, while working people are being told “there is no money” for health care, education, housing or jobs.
The destruction that the US oligarchs have wrought in the Middle East, with all of its terrible human consequences, is the external manifestation of their destructive role within the US itself—smashing up the country’s manufacturing base, turning its economy into a gambling casino for financial parasites, destroying the jobs and living standards of millions of people. With no answers to the growing crisis at home, they turn to violence abroad, only compounding the catastrophes they have created overseas.
The “not responsibles” and “not guilties” from Kerry, Kristof, Friedman and the other advocates and apologists for American military aggression won’t wash. US imperialism is responsible for terrible crimes against humanity.
Yet no one has been held accountable. Not those in Washington—Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, et al.—who conspired to wage a war of aggression; not those in the current administration, from Obama on down, who conspired to shield their predecessors and continue the same predatory policies; not the military brass who carried out the war; not the private contractors who enriched themselves off of it; not the lying media that helped foist the war onto the American public; not the cowardly and conformist academics who justified and went along with it.
Together, they are responsible for the catastrophes that have been inflicted upon the peoples of Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Logged
