Rand Paul Supports War In Afghanistan?

and bringing freedom to Afghans. That's what makes a neo-con.

Supporting a foreign intervention or war for purposes other than nation building and democratizing other countries does not make one a neo-conservative, as much as people like to twist or ignore the meaning of "neo-conservative." After all, Ron Paul supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

Guess who said it?

RON PAUL and not his son.

it is looking like he does support it, and has many other unconstitutional views on other issues. i for one will never turn neo con, no matter what famous person with the last name paul supports unconstitutional losses of liberty.

Emergency powers in secret that seems dangerous at best. No checks no balances, no consequences. Basically a free hand to do whatever.

If it so important let them sacrifice their Presidency as an automatic consequence unless a consesus (everyone) in Congress votes their approval.

All for freedom? Freedom for all!

He might not be able to pass he puritanical Lbertarian test that some of you like to administer but I cant pass the puritanical test either !l

Rand's statement must be taken in the context of the time he was referring to.

Al-Qaeda blew up the towers (again, thinking late Sept. 2001)
Al-Qaeda was/is closely associated with the Taliban
the Taliban ran/runs Afghanistan

If the Congress would have held a vote at the time to declare war on Afghanistan then RP may have voted for it as well, though the Letters of Marque and Reprisal was a better idea of RP's. (The reference to Letters of Marque may have been substituted for a war declaration to get the point across to those who are not educated on the difference) A few things to remember please:

Reactionary comments articles like this, and inferring he is FOR the CONTINUED occupation of Afghanistan are totally out of line with the statement. However, the OP at least has taken a position many Americans with mental tunnel vision would share. No offense meant, but you left out very key components of the argument.

"And if I had been in the US senate I would have stopped them and said no more, we will have a vote. We will declare war with Afghanistan. We will declare war with Iraq. I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR A DECLARATION OF WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN but I would have voted against a declaration of war with Iraq. But I would have made them vote. And that's the problem, they no longer pay attention to the rules."
~ Rand Paul

Yep, that's what he said.

******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people.
~ Sherman H. Skolnick

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

and drop the incognito card? Maybe he is making a political move by BSing the GOP. I would prefer not to speculate, and cause Rand any harm by judging his character and calling him out in front of many of his supporters on here, without him having a chance to defend his remarks. Speculation could cause his good name a lot of harm, and this post no offense is not going to do anything good for us right now. I think you know Rand's intentions are good, and well thought out. Let's question the real scumbags out there.

First and foremost people need to watch Re-Thinking Afghanistan before they make any further comments. Ron Paul was right to target the terror cells and not attack an entire nation. That was his platform. At those that attack us. You don't have to believe in anything further to understand that concept. I'm not sure Rand is solid in terms of non-intervention or the fact that we are waging war primarily on innocent civilians in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan are not terrorists. With the evidence against the war that we have now, it is time for Rand to update his position. I've sent my formal comments to the Rand Paul campaign on this subject. I suggest everyone else do the same. This is key to the root problem of the warfare/welfare state. Declaring wars on innocent countries should not be supported by any candidate.

Watch over 400 Activist-Issue Films Online, www.filmsforaction.org

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29007/...

BECK: I disagree with your father on a few things, but I will tell you that I am becoming more and more libertarian on things like defense. I have always been a guy who believes in fight big, fight hard, and then come home. But I have also believed in a big footprint of the United States, because somebody's got to hold this thing together. That was a mistaken belief of mine. I have grown past that and I'm growing past it quickly. For instance, Germany, protect your own self. I could see us pulling everybody back. I'd like to see putting people who are currently serving in Germany on the border. But what do I know? Where do you stand on foreign policies?

PAUL: I think it is sort of the tough love. And we talked about welfare reform. We talked about people having a certain period of time and then going back to work. It's kind of like has there been a certain period of time since World War II that the Germans couldn't go back to work to pay for their own defense. So I would say, yes, there needs to be a little bit of tough love. Even in Iraq it's like when do we turn things over? It's been seven years. Finally we are turning things back over to their country. So the sooner the better. With regard to foreign policy, I say that I believe in going by the enumerated rights from the Constitution, the enumerated powers and I think the primary enumerated power is defense. I think it's the primary function of the national government. But then we need to go further and define what that is. I believe, kind of like you said, that when we go to war, we go all out. We go to win. But we declare war formally. We haven't declared war since World War II. And if I had been in the US senate I would have stopped them and said no more, we will have a vote. We will declare war with Afghanistan. We will declare war with Iraq. I would have voted for a declaration of war with Afghanistan but I would have voted against a declaration of war with Iraq. But I would have made them vote. And that's the problem, they no longer pay attention to the rules.

What Rand meant was he supported sending troops into afghanistan immediately after 9/11, not the occupation that is currently going on and increasing under obama. Thought that was pretty obvious and Ron Paul stated the same thing.