Rand Paul Wants To Block Obama From Sending Aid To Syria...

[paulitician]

"...The thing that annoys me most is brainless neocon apologists who believe that Turkey's interests are our interests..."

1. are neo-cons brainless?

2. is everyone who believes that Turkey's or Israel's interests and ours coincide to some extent or another - automatically eligible to be labeled as a 'neo-con'?

3. is everyone who merely ASKS whether our interests are jeapordized in allowing an Assad 'win' in the Syrian civil wsar ALSO automatically eligible to be labeled as a 'neo-con'?

"...No not one life, not one bullet, not one dollar for overseas adventurism. Enough is enough."

I'll have a cup of Isolationist Coffee with a slice of Global Abandonment Pie, please.

We will not be returning to the Isolationist America that existed prior to the Spanish-American War of 1898, anytime soon, insofar as I can figure.

And, if that is true, then, the original question still stands; shortened to...

Is it in our best interests to allow Assad to win?

Possibly. No one really knows for sure. And that's the whole point. It's not our fight. We should mind our own business. We've got plenty of problems right here at home.

 

[Kondor3]

Is it in our best interests to allow Assad to win?

Possibly. No one really knows for sure. And that's the whole point. It's not our fight. We should mind our own business. We've got plenty of problems right here at home.

I'm half-ready to agree with you, but the other half of me is not; at least not without knowing that an Assad win will not harm our nearby Allies nor give some new strategic advantage to a re-emergent Russia or Iran. I'm sensing that it's more complicated than a simple "it's not our fight" but I must confess that that argument does resonate with me to some extent.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

We spent 12 years wasting money, resources adn countrymen chasing around al qaeda, only to hand them Libya and now arm them in Syria.

This government is one giant clusterfuck.

Im with the majority here. It's not our fight and unless sand flees are a national interest, our "allies" can take care of themselves for a change. Including the newly sided al qaeda rebels.

 

[kaz]

Hitler would enjoy you non-interventionist.

Great point. If we're going to take on someone who's systematically attacking and conquering countries across the globe, certainly we should take on every tin pot dictator who's in a region of the world where tin pot dictators are a dime a dozen.

So for the record, are at least consistent in that you're intent on getting involved in toppling the 75 or so tin pot dictators around the world, or are you just fixated on this one because you're a liberal drone who's incapable of independent thought and you're just parroting what they are saying?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

"...The thing that annoys me most is brainless neocon apologists who believe that Turkey's interests are our interests..."

1. are neo-cons brainless?

2. is everyone who believes that Turkey's or Israel's interests and ours coincide to some extent or another - automatically eligible to be labeled as a 'neo-con'?

3. is everyone who merely ASKS whether our interests are jeapordized in allowing an Assad 'win' in the Syrian civil wsar ALSO automatically eligible to be labeled as a 'neo-con'?

"...No not one life, not one bullet, not one dollar for overseas adventurism. Enough is enough."

I'll have a cup of Isolationist Coffee with a slice of Global Abandonment Pie, please.

We will not be returning to the Isolationist America that existed prior to the Spanish-American War of 1898, anytime soon, insofar as I can figure.

And, if that is true, then, the original question still stands; shortened to...

Is it in our best interests to allow Assad to win?

Here comes the isolationist nonsense. Encouraging foreign trade and not killing our potential trading partners is not isolationism, it's common sense.

In truth, it's none of our business if Assad wins or if Assad loses.

We have plenty of more important business to attend to.

Thus your question is based on untenable assumptions coupled with silly conclusions and not worth answering.

Does anyone who thinks we should not entangle ourselves in foreign alliances deserve to be labeled an isolationist?

I would happily trade with Assad if he wins and his opposition if he loses.

 

[kaz]

We spent 12 years wasting money, resources adn countrymen chasing around al qaeda, only to hand them Libya and now arm them in Syria.

This government is one giant clusterfuck.

Im with the majority here. It's not our fight and unless sand flees are a national interest, our "allies" can take care of themselves for a change. Including the newly sided al qaeda rebels.

Yes, it's not exactly good guys Obama's been helping topple countries in the middle east, is it?

 

[paulitician]

And what exactly has Assad done to our country to warrant such hate and aggression? Just curious.

 

[Contumacious]

Is there any substantive risk to the vital interests of America and its regional allies (Turkey, Israel, etc.) by allowing the Assad regime to win the civil war with the support and arms-shipments of Russia and Iran?

Syrian Opposition's Amazing CIA Credentials .

"LewRockwell.com (LRC) is a libertarian website which states that its purpose is "to help carry on the anti-war, anti-state, pro-market work of Murray N. Rothbard." It was begun in 1999 by anarcho-capitalists Lew Rockwell and Burt Blumert as an affiliate of the nonprofit Center for Libertarian Studies. On the advice of counsel, LRC separated in mid-2007 and become a 501(c)(4) organization so that it could continue to publish articles endorsing Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign..."

LewRockwell.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--------------------

If there's anything that irritates me almost as much as an ObamaBot, it's a Paul-ite.

And this fine, objective analysis comes from such a biased source.

No thanks.

Besides..

All that article does is to spew accusations that the Syrian Rebels are the paid proxies of the CIA et all...

Yo Dufus the article clearly references the British Journal GUARDIAN as the source. So tell me the facts contradicting the article


Syrian Opposition's Amazing CIA Credentials


Thanks once again to the indispensable Moon of Alabama blog for highlighting, among other interesting facts, the amazingly open ties of the Syrian opposition to their Western paymasters. As the astonishing Guardian story linked in the MoA piece outlines, down to the person these Syrian engines of regime change are products of the US empire and its interventionist, Trotskyite foreign policy of "global democratic revolution." I urge interested readers to click on the original piece for the full story. I am paraphrasing and quoting the Guardian story below by way of summary:"

.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Thus your question is based on untenable assumptions coupled with silly conclusions and not worth answering..."

You declaring various assumptions to be untenable and you declaring various conclusions to be silly does not actually render them thus.

I am comforted by the idea that SERIOUS people on both sides of the aisle are asking themselves these same questions and that our present national policy in this context also indicates that such questions are being asked.

I do not (for our purposes here) take sides with Conclusion A or B, but I am comforted by the idea that a great many other folk do not consider such questions to be silly and not worth answering.

"...Does anyone who thinks we should not entangle ourselves in foreign alliances deserve to be labeled an isolationist?..."

That's a very close call, considering what such disengagement would mean in practice or actuality; borderline, at best; one puff of smoke away from attaining Isolationist status.

 

[paulitician]

So why is Assad their new Boogeyman? I'm interested in hearing why so many believe he is.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Yo Dufus the article clearly references the British Journal GUARDIAN as the source. So tell me the facts contradicting the article..."

Don't look now, but I was not referring to the article connected to the OP.

I was referring to the online article (linked narrative) that you included with Post #9.

Settle down, Jethro... nobody's gone attack-dog on your precious Paul-ite Precepts yet.

We have only to look at the behavior of the ObamaBots to know how you Paul-ites will react when your precious icons and dogmatic positions are challenged.

Nobody in their right mind wants to tangle with The Faithful, else risk getting sidetracked for days-on-end and being labeled as an Un-Believer... and nobody's got time for that $hit...

 

[Clementine]

Good to see some brave Politicians joining Paul on this. It's especially nice to see it from both Republicans and Democrats. But we still need more. And the People should be allowed to be much more involved with Foreign Aid decisions.


Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is one of four senators on Capitol Hill who introduced a new bill Thursday that would block President Obama from getting involved in the Syrian civil war.

It comes after the Obama administration announced plans last week to send arms to the rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime after determining Assad had been using chemical weapons on its people.

The bill proposed Thursday would stop “the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities” from “supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.”

“The President’s unilateral decision to arm Syrian rebels is incredibly disturbing, considering what little we know about whom we are arming,” Paul said Thursday.

Said Paul: “Engaging in yet another conflict in the Middle East with no vote or Congressional oversight compounds the severity of this situation. The American people deserve real deliberation by their elected officials before we send arms to a region rife with extremists who seek to threaten the U.S. and her allies.”

Other sponsors include Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican, is also a sponsor.

“Any military involvement in Syria, including the arming of Syrian rebels, needs to be authorized through Congress, where concerns can be publicly debated and the American people can have a say,” Lee said...

Read more: Rand Paul wants to block Obama from sending aid to Syria | The Daily Caller

The Syrian rebels already stated that they are part of al Qaeda, so why would the Obama administration even consider helping them? It's absolutely insane.

 

[Kondor3]

Personally, I think that IF we are going to be foolish enough to stick our noses into Syria (and we may end-up being obliged to), then, I hope-to-hell that we at least use the common sense that God gave an ant and keep dangerous stuff out of the hands of the al-Qaeda types. I'm just not very sure if that's actually possible, so, it may prove best to err on the side of caution and not give anything to anyone in this context. Then again... I'm not sure whether we would otherwise be missing an opportunity or yielding the floor to the Russians and Iranians in some way that might come back to bite us in the ass. It's a puzzler, alright.

 

[Kondor3]

We spent 12 years wasting money, resources adn countrymen chasing around al qaeda, only to hand them Libya and now arm them in Syria.

This government is one giant clusterfuck.

Im with the majority here. It's not our fight and unless sand flees are a national interest, our "allies" can take care of themselves for a change. Including the newly sided al qaeda rebels.

Hmmmmm... an appealing and seductive approach...

 

[LoneLaugher]

The minute the President decides to take a less interventionist approach to the ME, 90% of the assholes calling for an end to this weapons agreement will be calling the dude weak on defense.

If you all were not so predictable, you'd have to be carried away in straight jackets.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Having said that. I am against this intervention.

Ifbyounfuckers were not constantly thinking about what attack ads you'll run next year, the right thing might get done every once in a while.

You bitch and moan about politicians being wishy washy and without principles.....then you support the PACs that force them to be that way.

Consistency. Please.

 

[paulitician]

Having said that. I am against this intervention.

Ifbyounfuckers were not constantly thinking about what attack ads you'll run next year, the right thing might get done every once in a while.

You bitch and moan about politicians being wishy washy and without principles.....then you support the PACs that force them to be that way.

Consistency. Please.

No offense, but you can hop off your high horse now. You just described yourself and the political party you support. So let us know when you're done with the high & mighty shtick. Then you can be included in an honest up front discussion.

 

[Mr Natural]

I can support Rand Paul on this.

But I wonder what his position might be if there was a republican in the White House.

 

[paulitician]

I can support Rand Paul on this.

But I wonder what his position might be if there was a republican in the White House.

It would be the same.

 

[Mr Natural]

I can support Rand Paul on this.

But I wonder what his position might be if there was a republican in the White House.

It would be the same.

I doubt it.