Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul published an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal criticizing the "interventionists" in both the Democratic and Republican parties who seem blind to the role past American interventions have played in the Middle East's current crises.
The piece includes some boilerplate criticisms of the Obama administration ("feckless," "veering," etc), as well as a broadside against Republican Party hawks who warned of catastrophe if the US failed to strike Syria. "What they were advocating for then — striking down Assad's regime — would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat," Paul writes.
"It's disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community.
"Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This week he's blaming the Obama Administration for another nation's civil war. That type of "blame America" rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul's proposals would make America less safe and less secure.
"Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be - The Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World."
From the article:Accusing Rand Paul of blaming America? Sounds like another party's accusation against another Paul in the past. It's almost as if both parties are being pulled by the same strings. Rand Paul must being doing something right.
Terrorism is a problem because the U.S. is so heavily involved in the Middle East in the first place, and the actions Russia has taken in regards to the Ukraine, though vastly inflated by those in the west wanting a return to the Cold War, were in response to the U.S. and the E.U. helping to depose the Ukrainian government in the first place. So the real threat to international peace is the U.S. sticking its nose where it doesn't belong in the first place.The DNC was heavy handed, but the problem with Paul's view is that fundamentalist islam (and imperial Russia) are, and will be, threats to international peace without the US doing anything its done in the past, and ignoring them is not a viable option.
So, every action has unintended consequences, but not in these particular cases?nyet.
Though every action has unintended consequences.
How funny is it that Clinton and the DNC are portraying themselves as hawks in their responses to Rand?How funny is it that a Republican who clearly has his sights set on running for President in 2016 is the dove in this picture, and he is accusing the obvious Democratic opponent (Clinton) of being a hawk?
Ahh yes, historical revisionism, because the U.S. didn't do any of those things.No, Kevin, ALL actions have unintended consequences, but to figure Imperial Russia or Fundamentalist Islam is an exercise of hubris and historical revisionism, but Randian Paul is not lacking in that.
The DNC was heavy handed, but the problem with Paul's view is that fundamentalist islam (and imperial Russia) are, and will be, threats to international peace without the US doing anything its done in the past, and ignoring them is not a viable option.
