13 votes

Neocons Go Mudslinging Against “Isolationist” Rand Paul Over Iraq

Rand Paul started a war of words when he defended (in a way) Obama’s withdrawing of American troops from Iraq and the Presidents continued refusal to put boots on the ground in that country again to attempt to staunch the uprising of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

In a series of television interviews, Rand took the stance that the US involvement, unconstitutional wars, overthrow of government and occupation of Iraq were strong factors leading up to the country’s current state of affairs. This is a point which I full agree with. He also stated that the ISIS faction was using the US’s own arms (and training) against the Iraqi government, which would appear to be true seeing as ISIS is allied with the Syrian rebels battling Assad, supported by the US. I’ve discussed the problems with the US arming other uprising factions previously, and cited the return on that investment, which typically is paid out in the blood of Americans. We just started shipping over brand new F-16s to Iraq, which we can look forward to ISIS pilots flying any day now.

Of course the Neocons and the government are tap dancing around the Syrian rebel issue, and noted Neocon Dick Cheney has loudly been slamming Rand’s (current) stance that the US should keep its nose out of Middle Eastern affairs.

Continue to Full Article

Comment viewing options

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

Here's hoping people don't take the bait

like with Ron Paul.

Non-Interventionist...I think that word offends these war mongers.

No personal financial gain to be made with a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

SteveMT's picture

How dare Rand assault the sacred war cow of the neocons!

War is the neocon's golden calf, their Rosetta stone. Synchronicity and solidarity occurs among their ranks when the subject turns to war. Anyone talking against this most holy of their beliefs will be attacked.

Rand must have something up his sleeve in reply for he should have anticipated this mudslinging. The fact that they are attempting to justify continued war exposes their warmongering and is already a victory.

I'm glad he's against it

But Rand's ulilitarian arguments rub me the wrong way. The entire conception of involvement in the middle east completely ignores the issues of individual rights. Both sides seem to view things in the oollective, whether it's the US government or the ISIS or "Iraq."

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

What are the objectionable Utilitarian arguements?

Point them out so I can agree with you.

I'll take my Liberty, it's not yours to give.

You have to tailor your

You have to tailor your message to the crowd. That requires trying to argue from the point of view of your audience. Trying to argue solely from our own point of view limits the potential persuasiveness. Not to say that having a core philosophy is not important. One should always try to lead the audience in that direction. But that tends to work if you know how your audience thinks.

People that insist on only their way tend to lack empathy. Without empathy there is no way any progress can be made in converting people to the cause.

I don't have to

But maybe he thinks he does. Or he is just a utilitarian and doesn't really hold strong principles. Hard to say, since his position tends to shift back and forth so much.

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

We have to be realistic here.

We have to be realistic here. Politicians are in the business of persuasion. Without persuasive skills that requires tailoring, they fail as someone that can advance ANY cause. So, it's not that he thinks he needs to tailor. It's pretty much a requirement for the job. RP's message was persuasive, but it only managed to convert a small segment of the population and even he did some tailoring to his message. RP is very empathic, so he was pretty good at it IMO.

We also need to realize that Rand has given his philosophical views before in other interviews and these views are too expansive to speak about in the limited time space he gets on air. Considering the time limit, he must choose arguments with the greatest persuasive power. Often that involves using arguments OTHER than the philosophical arguments. Let´s face it, if philosophical arguments were the best arguments in any given situation, no neocon would exist today. But they do exist. The neocons have already shot down the philosophical arguments. Reiterating the same arguments they have shot down is not a winning strategy. You need to weaken their position on the edges first. It takes time before people are receptive to the philosophical argument and most of the time it was achieved through a gateway argument.

Not to say that I like everything Rand does. But we need to keep a clear head here, attempting to keep bias (for or against) at bay. People often forget that it wasn´t the initial philosophy that won them over. Each of us had some back story to how we came to embrace the freedom movement. Some of us were even neocons. And from those stories, it was always the stuff around the philosophy that managed to convince in the end, not the philosophy itself (examples like the failed drug war, the honesty of RP, etc.).

Rand Philosophizing?

I haven't seen this. Can you send me a link to an interview where Rand delves into his full philosophy? Not being sarcastic, but I have literally never seen him do this in any substantive way.

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

They have been scattered here

They have been scattered here and there in various youtube videos. People criticise him on being here and there, but from my view, he hasn´t actually deviated much from his viewpoints. But people nonetheless felt that he did.

Take the airstrikes for example. When he stated that he didn´t rule out airstrikes, people here felt that this once again proved that he was not to be trusted and that he flipflopped. But they ignored the context that statement was given. He stated that ultimately congres must decide, not the president and that one must follow the constitution where such an action was concerned. His airstrike statement was not a contradiction, but it was interpreted in that way anyways. And I´ve seen many examples like this.

In the end, it comes down to trust. Any statement given by either Rand or Ron (or anyone else for that matter), can be twisted in a negative way. And when a lot of people do this and you read their viewpoints, one starts becoming overly critical to the point of having unrealistic expectations.

Not to say that this negative attitude is entirely unwarranted. He pretty much asked for this when he endorsed Romney. That´s where all the negativity began in the first place. And forever dit it sour his destiny (in the eyes of RP supporters).

What do you mean?

The U.S. government an ISIS are collectives. What's wrong with referring to them as such?

Defend Liberty!

I'll clarify

And it's not just Rand's statements but more how the overall foreign policy is viewed. We never speak in terms of individual rights, just in terms of "we" and "them".

This concept that the surged "worked" is beyond bonkers. The surge was nothing more than paying off some tribes, and supporting genocide upon others.

Sure, that "works".

I'll admit to being nitpicky here, I support Rand's position on this. It's just not consistent with some of his others views on involvement in the middle east.

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Because this is Rand Paul,

Because this is Rand Paul, that's why. He is incapable of pleasing some.

Some people don't like him because he's not his dad

Others like him because he's not his dad.


The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

Nothing, not my problem. I

Nothing, not my problem. I agree with Rand's dad, on most things of political nature. Including on the subject of his sons: Ronnie, Robert, and Randal are 3 great guys in my opinion. As is their dad, Ron Paul!

I wish some of our other champions were more well known, those not named Paul.