Rand Paul: “ISIS exists because of the Republican hawks”

[TheOldSchool]

"GOP hawks" would also get rid of ISIS....

Not really, ISIS would just bomb civilians and kill US soldiers, and another ISIS would just pop up the moment the US leaves.

That's why you don't leave. US will move in again and be there for the long haul next time around.

Only if the lunatics in the GOP get back in power

Obama very likely will move in by the end of his term if Iraq continues to fall, Hilary certainly would as well. At this point, the goal is to undermine the Iranian backed Iraqi governent. Once ISIS closes in on Baghdad, the US has its casus belli to move in and prevent that from happening. They sure as hell won't let Baghdad fall to ISIS. But they want to create as much chaos for the Iranians and their militias at the moment to make the government's position untenable.

I hope that we do NOT move into Iraq for ANY reason. I also don't expect that we will, and I don't expect Baghdad to fall.

 

[jillian]

Rand Paul ISIS Exists And Grows Stronger Because Of GOP Hawks

Arms were given to the Middle East indiscriminately indeed and gone to Islamic State militants. And indeed GOP hawks wanted to eliminate both President Assad and ISIS. But pay attention, he said “They created these people”. So Rand blames his party members for creating Islamic State.

well, if baby bush and the neo-con wackjobs hadn't destabilized the middle east, this situation wouldn't exist. it would certainly be far from good, in fact, I remember a college professor telling us years ago that the greatest single problem of the 21st century would be jihadis. I figure if he knew that, so did our state dept.

but conditions would likely be relatively stable. baby bush knew he would be throwing fuel onto an incendiary situation. His daddy was warned by the state dept during gulf I that if he went to Baghdad, the middle east would become a tinder box. daddy bush, being smarter than his son, listened. baby bush thought he'd go in and do the don't mess with texas thing and (I'd guess) prove himself to mommy and daddy who thought jeb should have been president instead of him.

 

[aaronleland]

Not really, ISIS would just bomb civilians and kill US soldiers, and another ISIS would just pop up the moment the US leaves.

That's why you don't leave. US will move in again and be there for the long haul next time around.

Only if the lunatics in the GOP get back in power

Obama very likely will move in by the end of his term if Iraq continues to fall, Hilary certainly would as well. At this point, the goal is to undermine the Iranian backed Iraqi governent. Once ISIS closes in on Baghdad, the US has its casus belli to move in and prevent that from happening. They sure as hell won't let Baghdad fall to ISIS. But they want to create as much chaos for the Iranians and their militias at the moment to make the government's position untenable.

I'm not going to be presumptuous, so this isn't a direct response to what you wrote...but it just occurred to me how nice it would be to see Iran and ISIS fighting over Iraq, and what would we lose if either one of them won?

Exactly. Have ISIS fight Iran and move in to pick up the pieces afterwards. The Iraqis will be begging the US to stay long term like in Germany after that. And they won't have much of a choice as they will be in no position to dictate terms. The US military will be the only thing keeping that basket case together.

What I want to know is what is the benefit to the US to stay there long term? Are you determined to spend trillions of dollars, and thousands of American lives just to say "I told you so?"

 

[Staidhup]

Rand Paul is your classic politician, attune to media soundbites, opinion polls, willing to say whatever it takes to be liked, all tailored to satisfy his insatiable appetite to be president. His take on ISIS is foolish and naive, the prime demagogue at work.

 

[protectionist]

Good idea. We should never leave. We'll just spend the rest of our country's history getting our soldiers killed in a fight that isn't ours. Meanwhile the GOP can bitch that we are wasting money on education and infrastructure at home.

You're saying ISIS isn't our fight ? I'll remember to bypass your posts from here on out. Maybe you think Afghanistan isn't our fight either, huh ? Sheeeesh!!

 

[Stephanie]

Of course i've heard from many that they took what he said out of CONTEXT. but hey they never let "dishonesty" stop them. after all. it for THE PARTY and it take the HEAT OFF the mess Obama has made in the middle east

 

[Steinlight]

"GOP hawks" would also get rid of ISIS....

Not really, ISIS would just bomb civilians and kill US soldiers, and another ISIS would just pop up the moment the US leaves.

That's why you don't leave. US will move in again and be there for the long haul next time around.

Good idea. We should never leave. We'll just spend the rest of our country's history getting our soldiers killed in a fight that isn't ours. Meanwhile the GOP can bitch that we are wasting money on education and infrastructure at home.

Soldiers aren't getting killed in Germany or Japan, nor were they getting killed post surge. The point is not to have a war but a long term military occupation, won't be nearly as expensive as having to go back there every ten years.

Whether you like it or not. No US President will not allow a geopolitical rival like Iran to assume power in the middle east. Steady flow of natural resources must also be secured and the dollar's world reserve status must be protected. It would be threatened by Iran and by extension Russia forming a bloc with Iraq, a top oil producing nation in the middle east.

 

[irosie91]

Isis exists because Isis is ISLAM ----Muhummad invented islam -----his followers wrote the Koran to
establish the filth

 

[irosie91]

Of course i've heard from many that they took what he said out of CONTEXT. but hey they never let "dishonesty" stop them. after all. it for THE PARTY and it take the HEAT OFF the mess Obama has made in the middle east

the only mess that American politicians make in the Levant-----is THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND ISLAAAAAAM

 

[Porker]

Rand Paul is your classic politician, attune to media soundbites, opinion polls, willing to say whatever it takes to be liked, all tailored to satisfy his insatiable appetite to be president. His take on ISIS is foolish and naive, the prime demagogue at work.

Besides all that, he's a weak minded little asshole. Very similar to the president...Obama.

 

[Steinlight]

"GOP hawks" would also get rid of ISIS....

Not really, ISIS would just bomb civilians and kill US soldiers, and another ISIS would just pop up the moment the US leaves.

That's why you don't leave. US will move in again and be there for the long haul next time around.

Only if the lunatics in the GOP get back in power

Obama very likely will move in by the end of his term if Iraq continues to fall, Hilary certainly would as well. At this point, the goal is to undermine the Iranian backed Iraqi governent. Once ISIS closes in on Baghdad, the US has its casus belli to move in and prevent that from happening. They sure as hell won't let Baghdad fall to ISIS. But they want to create as much chaos for the Iranians and their militias at the moment to make the government's position untenable.

I hope that we do NOT move into Iraq for ANY reason. I also don't expect that we will, and I don't expect Baghdad to fall.

ISIS just took Ramadi, odds are good. Iranian backed forces don't have the will to fight at the moment.

 

[aaronleland]

"GOP hawks" would also get rid of ISIS....

Not really, ISIS would just bomb civilians and kill US soldiers, and another ISIS would just pop up the moment the US leaves.

That's why you don't leave. US will move in again and be there for the long haul next time around.

Good idea. We should never leave. We'll just spend the rest of our country's history getting our soldiers killed in a fight that isn't ours. Meanwhile the GOP can bitch that we are wasting money on education and infrastructure at home.

You're saying ISIS isn't our fight ? I'll remember to bypass you posts from here on out. Maybe you think Afghanistan isn't our fight either, huh ? Sheeeesh!!

We spent over a decade in Iraq helping to establish a stable government. If the Iraqis can't survive without a dictator in power then they are hopeless. No matter what we do they will fall apart once we leave. Our only option would be to stay in Iraq indefinitely, getting thousands more of our soldiers killed for a country that is incapable of standing on their own two feet.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Not really, ISIS would just bomb civilians and kill US soldiers, and another ISIS would just pop up the moment the US leaves.

That's why you don't leave. US will move in again and be there for the long haul next time around.

Only if the lunatics in the GOP get back in power

Obama very likely will move in by the end of his term if Iraq continues to fall, Hilary certainly would as well. At this point, the goal is to undermine the Iranian backed Iraqi governent. Once ISIS closes in on Baghdad, the US has its casus belli to move in and prevent that from happening. They sure as hell won't let Baghdad fall to ISIS. But they want to create as much chaos for the Iranians and their militias at the moment to make the government's position untenable.

I hope that we do NOT move into Iraq for ANY reason. I also don't expect that we will, and I don't expect Baghdad to fall.

ISIS just took Ramadi, odds are good. Iranian backed forces don't have the will to fight at the moment.

ISIS is now more spread out, and the Iraqi's now retreat to fortify the already well fortified Baghdad.

 

[Staidhup]

ISIS was already in its infancy as a lessor faction and sidekick to al-Qaeda awaiting for the opportunity to succeed. Once the US and Europe capitulated the vacuum was quickly filled by ISIS. It was just a question of time.

 

[Steinlight]

That's why you don't leave. US will move in again and be there for the long haul next time around.

Only if the lunatics in the GOP get back in power

Obama very likely will move in by the end of his term if Iraq continues to fall, Hilary certainly would as well. At this point, the goal is to undermine the Iranian backed Iraqi governent. Once ISIS closes in on Baghdad, the US has its casus belli to move in and prevent that from happening. They sure as hell won't let Baghdad fall to ISIS. But they want to create as much chaos for the Iranians and their militias at the moment to make the government's position untenable.

I'm not going to be presumptuous, so this isn't a direct response to what you wrote...but it just occurred to me how nice it would be to see Iran and ISIS fighting over Iraq, and what would we lose if either one of them won?

Exactly. Have ISIS fight Iran and move in to pick up the pieces afterwards. The Iraqis will be begging the US to stay long term like in Germany after that. And they won't have much of a choice as they will be in no position to dictate terms. The US military will be the only thing keeping that basket case together.

What I want to know is what is the benefit to the US to stay there long term? Are you determined to spend trillions of dollars, and thousands of American lives just to say "I told you so?"

Keep Iraq from moving towards Iran and Russia for one. I don't think you would like it if iran, iraq and Russia moved to not trade oil in the dollar. Oil prices would shoot up and the credit average Americans have come to rely on for their standard of living would be that much more expensive. Also, keeping a base doesn't cost a trillion dollars.no where near that much.

 

[protectionist]

We spent over a decade in Iraq helping to establish a stable government. If the Iraqis can't survive without a dictator in power then they are hopeless. No matter what we do they will fall apart once we leave. Our only option would be to stay in Iraq indefinitely, getting thousands more of our soldiers killed for a country that is incapable of standing on their own two feet.

Iraq is not why US soldiers fight ISIS. You are lost, except that you are right that our only option would be to stay in Iraq indefinitely (as well as other countries)

 

[aaronleland]

Soldiers aren't getting killed in Germany or Japan, nor were they getting killed post surge.

The difference is that the governments of Japan and Germany surrendered unconditionally. There was no surrender in Iraq. There was a power vacuum.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So we should of did nothing after 9-11 and just all converted to islam.

I hate Rand Paul.

 

[Rocko]

The quickest way to create a terrorist, is to invade his country for no reason and blow up his neighbors and family.

Yeah that summarizes the liberal point of view perfectly....and it's fucking retarded. We didn't create these Islamist fanatic terrorists, they were there long before invaded Iraq. That's who these people are. You don't grab a Koran and decide to start killing in the name of Allah because the US invaded your country. These people were always Islamic terrorists before Syria and part of Iraq fell, the only difference is the terrorists are in power now. Again America never created a single Muslim Terrorist, the shitty culture in the Middle East is what produces the Islamic terrorists.

 

[aaronleland]

We spent over a decade in Iraq helping to establish a stable government. If the Iraqis can't survive without a dictator in power then they are hopeless. No matter what we do they will fall apart once we leave. Our only option would be to stay in Iraq indefinitely, getting thousands more of our soldiers killed for a country that is incapable of standing on their own two feet.

Iraq is not why US soldiers fight ISIS. You are lost, except that you are right that our only option would be to stay in Iraq indefinitely (as well as other countries)

You make perfect sense. Why didn't I think about it like that?