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

[Surfer]

I think Rand Paul has the right idea and we should stay out of everyone else's business and out of Syria and out of everything but fixing our own problems first.

 

[paulitician]

What's Syria ever done to our Nation? The case for War with them seems very flimsy at this point. I've yet to hear a coherent argument for War from this Administration. The same can be said of McCain and others in the Republican Party who are pushing it.

 

[SteadyMercury]

My issue is campaign finance reform. I want the money taken out of politics. And your asshole Rand takes plenty.

You got it. Like father like son.

Citizens for a Sound Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) was established in 1984 by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch of Koch Industries. Ron Paul was appointed as the first chairman of the organization. "CSE received almost $5 million from various Koch foundations between 1986 and 1990, and David Koch and several Koch Industries employees serve[d] as directors of CSE and the CSE Foundation


Bought and paid for political mouthpieces.

 

[LoneLaugher]

My issue is campaign finance reform. I want the money taken out of politics. And your asshole Rand takes plenty.

You got it. Like father like son.

Citizens for a Sound Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) was established in 1984 by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch of Koch Industries. Ron Paul was appointed as the first chairman of the organization. "CSE received almost $5 million from various Koch foundations between 1986 and 1990, and David Koch and several Koch Industries employees serve[d] as directors of CSE and the CSE Foundation


Bought and paid for political mouthpieces.

Oh shit! That is fucked up. Did you see that link Paulie? Did you know that shit?

That will blow a dummy's mind.

Ron Paul was the first chairman of the group that split into Freedomworks and Americans For Prosperity? No fucking way!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Hitler would enjoy you non-interventionist.

Then YOU go over there.

 

[thereisnospoon]

GOOD....Syria's civil war is none of our business. As with all of these sectarian clashes, neither side wants our help.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

"...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.

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

No, you managed that all by yourself.

Apparently isolationist has evolved into meaning anyone who doesn't care to interfere in sovereign nations' internal affairs and kill their citizens with impunity.

The Constitution charges the federal government with providing the nation's defense, not gadding about the world playing James Bond.

 

[Kondor3]

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

"No, you managed that all by yourself."

Incorrect. But I don't do Automatic Gainsay, and I don't try to put words in my colleagues' mouths to advance my own arguments. The observation stands.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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

"No, you managed that all by yourself."

Incorrect. But I don't do Automatic Gainsay, and I don't try to put words in my colleagues' mouths to advance my own arguments. The observation stands.

What possible business do we have interfering in a civil war in Syria? How would that, in any way, benefit the American people?

Yes, your basic premise is flawed. We have no mandate, no business, and no public interest in Syrian squabbles. Why would you assume that we do?

Assad is not Hitler. A civil war is not aggression against an ally. Even that tired argument is not valid in this case.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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


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:"

.

The CIA has been running AL Qaeda for decades, that's why they planned 9/11, to strip us of our Bill of Rights.

 

[Kondor3]

"...What possible business do we have interfering in a civil war in Syria? How would that, in any way, benefit the American people?..."

Don't look now, but those are the very questions that I originally posed.

Every such situation needs to be examined for its own risks and benefits and merits and pitfalls, so the questions should be asked each and every time.

If the answer is "No - we shouldn't do this - that's fine - so long as we actually ask the questions and don't settle for 'canned' or 'pre-fab' answers.

"...Yes, your basic premise is flawed..."

I'm not sure which 'premise' you're referring to, other than believing that we should ask ourselves such questions each-and-every time, rather than relying on 'canned' answers.

"...We have no mandate, no business, and no public interest in Syrian squabbles..."

We don't know those things with any certainty in connection with this particular struggle until we ask ourselves those questions and arrive at a viable majority consensus.

"...Why would you assume that we do?..."

Whatever in the world leads you to believe that I am making such an assumption?

I merely wanted the questions asked before jumping on the Help Syria bandwagon or in rejecting the idea, because each-and-every case is different in its complexities and subtleties and short- and long-term implications.

"...Assad is not Hitler. A civil war is not aggression against an ally. Even that tired argument is not valid in this case."

That sounds like good subject material in support of a particular position, once the questions are asked.

We simply differ about whether various Assumptions even exist, never mind whether they're silly or a waste of time.

Asking and answering such questions prevents a knee-jerk reaction in EITHER direction (and it IS possible to jump too quickly in EITHER direction).

Interfering with the asking of such important questions or attempting to relegate them to the realm of the ridiculous is not good - nor healthy - political process, as we prepare to stick our noses into this - possibly, without thinking-it-through or talking-it-through beforehand.

That's how we screwed-up in the run-up to invading Iraq - by not talking-it-through well enough beforehand - and such questions strike me as an integral part of such discussions - but that's just me.

 

[Katzndogz]

What interest could our government have in supporting al quaeda? What benefit does obama see?

I guarantee that he sees one.

 

[Antares]

"...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?

LOL, considering the "rebels" are Al Qaeda affiliates....

 

[High_Gravity]

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

I agree with this.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama wants to arm al quaeda BECAUSE they present a danger to our interests. Assad has been dictator in Syria for decades, and his father before him. Our interests were never threatened. obama intends to see that they are.

 

[Kondor3]

"...LOL, considering the 'rebels' are Al Qaeda affiliates..."

Yes, I've heard that several times.

Last I heard, some - not all, but some - of the rebel combat-groups or factions had close or lesser ties to al-Qaeda, but that others did not, and that we (The West) were picking the biggest NON-al-Qaeda faction that we could find, to act as a Receiver for our arms, and with whom we will be dealing.

I could have read or heard that wrong in the first place, or wasn't paying close enough attention or something, and even if it was accurate - subsequent revelations might have obsoleted or disproven such an understanding, and the revisions simply never came up on my scope for whatever reason.

But that's the understanding that I've been operating from for some weeks - that we are dealing with a NON-al-Qaeda faction of this Rebel Ghoulash-Stew.

Of course, who's to guarantee that arms we sent to a NON-al-Qaeda faction today won't wind-up in al-Qaeda hands tomorrow, right?

I really don't know - which is part of any worthwhile exploration on the subject, I'm sure.

 

[Kondor3]

obama wants to arm al quaeda BECAUSE they present a danger to our interests. Assad has been dictator in Syria for decades, and his father before him. Our interests were never threatened. obama intends to see that they are.

That's a bit over-the-top, isn't it?

What benefit could Obama POSSIBLY obtain by harming America's interests, through the arming al-Qaeda combat groups?

 

[Antares]

"...LOL, considering the 'rebels' are Al Qaeda affiliates..."

Yes, I've heard that several times.

Last I heard, some - not all, but some - of the rebel combat-groups or factions had close or lesser ties to al-Qaeda, but that others did not, and that we (The West) were picking the biggest NON-al-Qaeda faction that we could find, to act as a Receiver for our arms, and with whom we will be dealing.

I could have read or heard that wrong in the first place, or wasn't paying close enough attention or something, and even if it was accurate - subsequent revelations might have obsoleted or disproven such an understanding, and the revisions simply never came up on my scope for whatever reason.

But that's the understanding that I've been operating from for some weeks - that we are dealing with a NON-al-Qaeda faction of this Rebel Ghoulash-Stew.

Of course, who's to guarantee that arms we sent to a NON-al-Qaeda faction today won't wind-up in al-Qaeda hands tomorrow, right?

I really don't know - which is part of any worthwhile exploration on the subject, I'm sure.

The last time we armed Al Qaeda it went REALLY well for us (rolling eyes)

 

[Contumacious]

obama wants to arm al quaeda BECAUSE they present a danger to our interests. Assad has been dictator in Syria for decades, and his father before him. Our interests were never threatened. obama intends to see that they are.

That's a bit over-the-top, isn't it?

What benefit could Obama POSSIBLY obtain by harming America's interests, through the arming al-Qaeda combat groups?

That's besides the point.

Politicians act based upon what is good for their parties.

Their responsibility is to attract powerful political factions. The major parasites are the war profiteers and the welfare queens.

If there is a blowback, well, that's something the new president will have to handle.


.
.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The last time we armed Al Qaeda it went REALLY well for us (rolling eyes)"

The Big Question is really: If we supply arms to the Syrian rebel faction that we'd identified earlier as trustworthy, ARE we actually arming al-Qaeda?