-4 votes

Rand Paul Preaches “Peace Through Strength" & Militarism Abroad

The slow, sad reveal of Rand Paul as a Neocon has taken yet another step forward, via the written words of Rand himself in a recent article to ForeignPolicy.com. The article, titled “Peace Through Strength,” virtually sums up Rand Paul in 2013: Half the GOP stooge we never thought he would be (we were wrong), while at the same time peppering in some libertarian thought – however far too much of the former and far too little of the latter.

Rand’s article doesn’t mince words – he lays out very brazenly his views that the United States should apply its “military might” more often, more quickly and more broadly in order to maintain our role as the world’s peacekeepers and assure our safety at home. He begins by using the hackneyed old example of the Cold War to back up his vision, drawing on scare tactics and the threat of nuclear holocaust even though the circumstances then and now are drastically different and it’s absurdly ridiculous to compare a global superpower spanning half a continent to the likes of Iran or Syria. Said Rand:

Peace through strength. It’s a philosophy that guided the United States to victory in the Cold War and a policy that protected us from the calamity of nuclear war. But in the heated debate over Syria, our commitment to this approach has wavered — and it’s time we reasserted its prominence.

Yes, because Syria (which poses no threat to the US in any way) used chemical weapons during its civil war, the US has to reassert our military dominance to dissuade them from…what? How are these related again? They aren’t, in any way. Moving on…

Some say that America’s credibility was threatened when President Barack Obama drew a red line on the use of chemical weapons and then allowed the Syrians to cross it without repercussions. We couldn’t disagree more — that would be a profound misreading of Obama’s response to the Syrian civil war. Our nation’s democratic principles give priority to the voice of individual liberties and freedoms. We will defend them with all of our nation’s might. We will not allow any nation or group to terrorize the free world — now or ever.

Did you see that? Yes, that’s Rand Paul giving his assent and kind recommendation that the US continue to enhance its role as the “World’s Police,” or as the US Navy puts it “A Global Force For Good.”
Continue Reading

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"BY SEN. RAND PAUL, ISAAC APPLBAUM "

There's two names in the authorship of this article. I wouldn't be too quick to assume that every statement made in this article is 100% Rand's position. That being said, am disappointed Rand Paul lent his name to someone's article who is clearly more militarily adventuristic than he has portrayed himself thus far in his political career.

Disappointing

.

which?

Rand or McWilly's depiction of Rand? :D

>

The dissolution of good will in foreign policy, indeed

Rand Paul: Some Evangelicals 'Too Eager for War'

Calling Rand Paul a neocon is really jumping the shark. He constantly speaks against "Republicans who believe any war is a good war." Says McCain, "never saw a war he didn't like."

If you listen to the actual speech, Rand Paul is citing the same stats that Michael Scheuer points out. What I heard was a clever attack on the neocons via the subject of foreign aid.

For some perspective: http://www.christianpost.com/news/rand-paul-some-evangelical...

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

This guy is really

beginning to lose all my trust! He flip-flops back and forth on so many issues in order to try to please all sides, which is definitely not leadership material. You state your conviction and stand by it no matter what, and that conviction should be the Constitution and the Founders intent. The reason I loved Dr Paul so much is, that no matter what, he stood by his conviction and fought the Corporate Collectivists all the way. I assume Rand must believe his father is a liar, when Ron stated 'we built the Maddrasa's to radicalize the Muslims'? Rand could stand out as an independent, and draw in all sides behind him by explaining the fraud the Corporatists have been playing on us for many years. He could tell people to read 'War is a Racket' by the Gen Smedley Butler, who was the most decorated Marine in US history. No, Rand wants to play along with the Corporatists destruction of America through continuous interventions by a falsehoods of fear, that vurtually have zero basis of empirical fact. I know the Randbots will downvote my post, but they can't lie to themselves.

"Randbots"

The term should be "Randroids" (originally used to describe blind followers of Ayn Rand), of which I am not one.

You're on the right track Freedom, and thanks for the help voting up or down. It used to be on this site that even a mild criticism of Rand Paul would evoke overwhelmingly negative response. It's been slowly changing though, as more people realize he is either..

1. A liar. In which case we should not vote for him.

or...

2. A neocon. In which case we should not vote for him.

or...

3. Someone who stands for nothing. In which case we should not vote for him.

The only way I would ever vote for Rand would be if he put someone like Amash or Napolitano on the ticket, and I could wait out the eight years of Rand crossing my fingers that he doesn't start WWIII, then finally getting someone in there who would actually reduce government by at least a penny.

And sadly, it is that last paragraph that keeps so many

voting for one of the establishment candidates.

The reality is that even with Napolitano or Amash on the ticket, they'll get no where near the Presidency themselves. It's the chewed bone you are thrown to buy your vote.

He is acquiring the art of

He is acquiring the art of political double talk. (too bad)

Pure pie in the sky nonsense.

This condescending little rant of yours is completely beyond the pale, and a good demonstration of why after 7 years of trying to campaign for the Liberty Movement, Ron Paul and all the affiliates running alongside him (Amash, Massie, et cetera) we've not made any really solid headway. And Randbots? What are you, auditioning for an hour slot on MSNBC?

Running for president in America means appearing to be on both sides of every issue, otherwise you lose. Don't agree with me? When was the last time that a principled person got elected to anything higher than a Representative? And even then, in most cases people like this tend to get purged after a few terms. What is remarkable about all of this is how little stock you put in the blood relation between Rand and Ron, which shouldn't be surprising at all given that America has very little sense of familial awareness left apart from a few conclaves of backwater Fundamentalist Churches. I highly doubt that Rand thinks his father is a liar, but I think he understands quite well that vindictive journalists like James Kirchick and William Krystol will be less able to assail him when he speaks from a position of nuance rather than brazen ideology.

The reason why the Liberty Movement hasn't broken through yet is because it isn't ready for Prime Time yet, and you are a classic example of that. That's my two cents, now go ahead and lecture me about your principles and let's see you get elected to high office with said attitude.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

And what use is headway that goes the wrong direction? That

continues what the traitors have started?

Becoming a traitor yourself doesn't allow you to one day magically be in power and say "SUCKERS, now we're going to do a 180 and do the RIGHT thing all of a sudden."

No. Laughable. Absurd. Without merit or historical example - ever.

What you are witnessing is NOT Rand Paul working the other side so he can slide in under the radar.

What you are witnessing is the education of Rand Paul in the ways of the traitors, and his becoming one of them.

Nope. Grow up.

Traitor to what? Nobody in this country cares about the so-called laws and principles you are yammering about, they are mere words on paper apart from people like you and I, and I promise you that we are not in a position to do anything about it at present. America is an Empire, it has been for at least 150 years, and the time for principled statesmen is long gone.

I can promise you that people like Rand Paul, who maybe don't kowtow to every little demand that Ron Paul's fractured remnant of a political movement still has, are making it far easier for those on the fence to take stands on such issues as Syria and Drones. He was at the forefront of stopping us from launching a military assault on Syria, and you're here whining about a speech that will most likely be forgotten by the average voter.

I long for more reasonable company.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

You are delusional if you think this doesn't show Rand is being

turned if he needed turning at all.

If you have already abandoned Liberty, then there's no point in talking to you further.

Wallow in your own depression and I'll stay out of it, thanks.

I'm delusional?

Sorry, but you speak of Liberty as though it's some sort of mystical charm or magical spell. Liberty is like any other cause, it has a pure definition AND A PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION, which involves gradual introduction to those who need to be weened off an excessive diet of violence and corruption.

I'm not depressed about the sad state of this country per say, I simply have a realistic assessment of what it's going to take to reverse it, and a culture as politically depraved as this one will need something that can appeal to it. Ron Paul's saintly approach was obviously not the answer, so it's time to consider a different approach.

I'm going on the assumption that you're either in your late teens or your early 20s, in which case I understand the unbridled passion with little accounting for critical thought and rational inquiry. I'm an acquired taste, especially insofar as my quasi-cynical realism goes. Seeing a righteous man like Ron Paul dragged through the mud repeatedly by the media with no public opposition apart from a few small conclaves definitely changed my outlook on things, but it hasn't deterred my stake in the liberty cause, it's simply made me more tolerant of those who can weave the dishonest world of politics and practice the art of compromise.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Assumption way off.

And it's precisely my jaded optimism tempered with a cynicism built from experience that while I had hopes for Rand, those are dashed entirely now.

I will jump for joy if you turn out to be right and me wrong.

But I have zero reason to think that is even possible on this topic.

Sorry.

There is something to be said about how to speak diplomatically.

But there IS a line that can be crossed into actually thinking and believing and acting like your enemy. You CAN get inside their head too much, or walk too long in their shoes.

I really never thought Rand won on his own.

He was gaining steam, then began dropping like a rock and was getting pummeled.

Then the "insiders" came to his rescue.

He hasn't been the same since.

He may not believe himself that he has been turned.

But that's why they are so good at it.

He won't know until it is too late.

He played with fire and is still doing it. And he will lose if he hasn't lost already.

You don't get to publish in Foreign Affairs unless you've already become one of them.

You just don't.

More Proof

Criticism of Rand is to be dealt with harshly, mostly via passive down-voting.

Down vote away, but who cares to defend his words?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Mindless and Blind Worship is the order then?

Kind of like we can't criticize that "country that shall not be named" no matter what horrible, evil and despicable thing they do?

So when Rand is President and he starts a war, or drone bombs some wedding half a world away, shredding women and children into little bits, you still won't "let us" criticize him then either will you?

No, YOUR attitude and behavior should "be dealt with harshly, mostly via passive down-voting."

No more proof is needed then the man's own words. Does his publicly and loudly disavow those words? No? There's your proof.

What's to defend?

Rand is running for president, this is what wins you the office. If you want to hear someone preach the non-aggression principle and rake in 1% of the vote the way Gary Johnson did, I suggest going to a website geared towards that stuff. America's voting public is loaded with uninformed, apathetic morons who want to hear certain things, end of story.

And yes, I down-voted this article. I don't believe in promoting counterproductive, childish nonsense from people who don't understand the actual cultural state of this declining empire we live in. Sue me. *rolls eyes*

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Thanks

for explaining your vote. That's all I ask - if we aren't talking about this stuff then what's the point of this site?

"Rand is running for President. this is what wins you the office"

And that's the problem, or perhaps the difference among many of us. Some see salvation in politics, and see making Rand president - at any cost to principle at all- will usher in the Golden Age of Liberty.

There are those of us that see this differently. They see politics as corrupting, and at best as a platform for spreading the ideas of liberty. But Rand muddies that message, so for those who find importance in spreading ideas, his muddling of them is both troubling and counter productive.

I encourage those who feel compelled to support Rand to do so, if that's where their heart takes them. But at least do so with a critical eye, and attempt to push him towards the right positions. Let him know he doesn't need to appease neocons, and that the message of *liberty* is the right message to convey.

If anyone think you can *con* your way to liberty, I've got some U.S. Treasures to sell you.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

If you think Rand is really just being deceptive to the neo-cons

you are seriously delusional.

Rand is becoming a neo-con, if he isn't one already.

Him being elected President will be for naught.

High on assertions, low on content.

Sorry, your grandstanding is quite unimpressive, not to mention a tired exercise in preaching to the choir. This is all the same idealistic nonsense that I foolishly used to blurt out every time I didn't get everything I wanted. If you want to sink the whole ship because you don't like a few token votes on sanctions against Iran (I don't support them any more than you do, but I have this nagging "Big Picture" thing going on in my case) and a few other peace meal pieces of legislation that keeps rapid attack dogs like Krauthammer and Krystol off his back, you stand alone on that one as far as I'm concerned.

When you don't temper your rhetoric with nuance and accommodate the sentiments of the overwhelming majority (which is Neo-con/Progressive), you lose, and we have two glorious examples of this with Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, to speak nothing for the continually glorious failures of the Libertarian Party at literally every turn at the Federal Level.

As I said in another post, this movement will never be ready for prime time if it's run by immature hotheads. End of story.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

You can stand on your principles and not be hot-headed.

The idea that those two are mutually exclusive is what is a serious threat to this nation already.

It is why "moderates" or shall I say "the passive-aggressive" politicians seem to be the "majority."

That rhetoric is classic passive-aggressive strategy and fits right in with the practice of foisting false dichotomies.

A Man can stand his ground and defend his principles in a cool, calm, collected, and resolute manner.

A quiet but firm and sure constitution can do wonders to inspire others to follow your lead.

Hotheadedness is not the answer and rarely needed or successful.

If you are going to defeat passive-aggressive jerks, the way to do it is AVOID being hotheaded, temper your anger, and remember to focus on the goal, and above all - educate.

Humor helps as well.

The failure of the LP has nothing to do with standing on principle and everything to do with the basic mechanics of politics.

The LP is effectively NOT organized to win elections save in a few enclaves.

THAT is why they don't win.

The libertarian philosophy, even at its extremes is still palatable for about 20% of the population. Their problem isn't marketability, it is actual marketing.

Their problem isn't their ideas, it's that they aren't set up to gather the resources, or have the manpower to get votes.

They still think you can just be loud and get your message out and people will vote for you. Few if any in the LP understand you need "boots on the ground" to win an election. So they don't bother putting boots on the ground.

They don't bother to organize locally.

That is why they lose.

If ideas alone were the issue, or the way they present those ideas, then the Dems and GOP would have never seen an electoral victory.

You win minds (and ultimately votes)

by inspiring people, the way Ron did and does. Rand does not inspire. Lying (assuming that he is lying) will never win any type of long term good. If you can't see that then you're morally blind. Ron could have easily won it in 2016, if he were young enough to try again. The growth in the liberty movement we saw in 2008 and 2012 would be exceeded due to synergy. Rand will never win it, even if he wins the nomination, because he does not inspire libertarian leaning people, especially those on the left. Downvote me if you wish, but a tarnished penny is still tarnished, even if his last name is Paul.

Sure Rand inspires, just not you.

While unfortunately Ron is not young enough try again in 2016, I will state affirmatively and without a single doubt that Ron Paul would not have gotten anywhere near the White House. If he ran as a Republican, he would have been purged at the convention in a similar fashion as his delegates were in 2012, and if he ran via 3rd party he would have gotten about as far as he did in 1988. I didn't see him win any of the straw votes in the primary states in 2008 or 2012, and he was crucified by the media for his principles. All of this becomes 100% crystal clear once you step out of the echo-chamber. If he were young enough to run in 2032, you might be on to something.

Libertarian leaning people don't decide elections in this country, they haven't since its founding, unless you want to argue that the same Founding Fathers that expanded American territory via force of the state were libertarians, which is doubtful. Lysander Spooner was not a deciding factor in who was elected president in his lifetime, and his range of influence, along with that of the current Liberty Movement does not top the 10% threshold nationwide.

Do you want to know who inspires libertarian leaning people on the left? Barack Obama, because they voted for him twice. Did you look at Jill Stein's returns in 2012? They were down right abysmal even next to the scant 1% that Gary Johnson raked in. All you need to do is point at the scary Neo-Con running on the Republican side and all of these weekend libertarians who love Kucinich will fall in line like good little sheep come election day.

And for the record, I'm not morally blind, I simply understand that about 90% of the people who vote in this country are, and thus you need someone who can communicate with them using political braille. You say Rand is tarnished, I say he's savvy, and as this unfolds we'll see who is right about this. And for the record, I'm not saying that Ron Paul hasn't accomplished much, he's the reason why I don't believe all the nonsense I hear on Neal Boortz's radio show anymore (including the War On Terror nonsense), but in the short-term a politician like him isn't even on the radar of the entitlement and war addicted masses.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

I don't know

I don't know if Rand *is* a "Neocon" ,but that's the problem. He attemps to walk the line and appease both neocons and libertarians in the same breath. The result is that both sides get pissed off.

I'm also curious as to what Rand feels are "our" interests abroad. I have none, personally - at least none that I desire to use the stolen funds of others to fund a military operation against.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

^

.

Yes, no one clearly, and unequivocally, defines "our interests"

abroad.

Sorry, but "our interests" lie squarely and solely HERE AT HOME.

Did you remove and repost

Did you remove and repost this story? I thought I commented on this thread yesterday.

No, maybe someone else?

Had posted it? I didn't get around to it until today.