paulitician
Platinum Member
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,162
- 1,130
I supported the decision to go to war with Afghanistan after our nation was attacked on 9/11. Colin Powell wrote in his autobiography: War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support. I believe that he had it right. America should only go to war to win.
War should occur only when America is attacked, when it is threatened or when American interests are attacked or threatened. I dont think the situation in Syria passes that test. Even the State Department argues that theres no military solution here thats good for the Syrian people, and that the best path forward is a political solution.
The U.S. should not fight a war to save face. I will not vote to send young men and women to sacrifice life and limb for stalemate. I will not vote to send our nations best and brightest to fight for anything less than victory. If American interests are at stake, then our goal should not be stalemate.
If American interests are at stake, then it is incumbent upon those advocating for military action to convince Congress and the American people of that threat. Too often, the debate begins and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake without any evidence of that assertion. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to engage in war.
Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage instability?
Are the Islamic rebels our allies? Will they defend American interests? Will they acknowledge Israels right to exist? Will they impose Sharia? Will they tolerate Christians, or will they pillage and destroy ancient Christian churches and people?...
Read more: Senator Rand Paul: Why I'm Voting No on Syria | TIME.com
DRUDGE REPORT 2013®
War should occur only when America is attacked, when it is threatened or when American interests are attacked or threatened. I dont think the situation in Syria passes that test. Even the State Department argues that theres no military solution here thats good for the Syrian people, and that the best path forward is a political solution.
The U.S. should not fight a war to save face. I will not vote to send young men and women to sacrifice life and limb for stalemate. I will not vote to send our nations best and brightest to fight for anything less than victory. If American interests are at stake, then our goal should not be stalemate.
If American interests are at stake, then it is incumbent upon those advocating for military action to convince Congress and the American people of that threat. Too often, the debate begins and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake without any evidence of that assertion. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to engage in war.
Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage instability?
Are the Islamic rebels our allies? Will they defend American interests? Will they acknowledge Israels right to exist? Will they impose Sharia? Will they tolerate Christians, or will they pillage and destroy ancient Christian churches and people?...
Read more: Senator Rand Paul: Why I'm Voting No on Syria | TIME.com
DRUDGE REPORT 2013®
