Rand's hawkish views on Iran causing friction

[spangler]

Can you say sell out?

So much for his Libertarian principles.

Here he is shilling for Zionists, pushing their war-mongering anti-Iran propaganda.

He thinks Iran is a threat to stability in the region and won't rule out a strike on Iran including the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3625-paul-wont-rule-out-preemptive-strike-on-iran

[TheCaliKid]

"........stability of the Middle East"


Read: "the American NWO-hijacked governments trillion dollar war mongering no-bids-contracting profit raping insecurity complex"  is threatened.


Yeah, Rand Paul = the biggest disappointment of 2010........just like the HR1207 and Debra Mendia disappointments of recent memory. One step forwards and ten steps backwards........I'm so done with politics.   

[Rebelitarian]

http://www.believeinamerica.com/index.php
http://www.constitutionparty.org
 


Constitution Party Promotional Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_SobkISNrY

[Xepla]

Oh, God, I really hope these are just "hawkish squawking noises" as alex put it. preemptive wars have got to end.

[InfoArsenal]

It's politics and Rand is proving he isn't a wimp on foreign policy.

That doesn't mean he's singing, "Bomb, bomb, Iran."

[nustada]

Well, there must be "something" good about him considering that the media has been targeting him. I suspect that he is genuinely fooled by the media, and is rebellion against his fathers wisdom by believing the status que. I hope Alex can give this guy some private lessons.

[Damascus]

I really bet most people in the truth movement will ignore this. The NWO seems to be doing Indian wrestling with us, suddenly reversing the force to make you fall over. I.E. they are attacking someone they have influence with(Zionist) to make us think he stands against them. Even Alex blindly says he is against anything that the media attacks. That is really a very dangerous oversimplification in strategy, why don't you see for your self weather the man is standing for something you believe in, rather then testing the wind of media with your finger. This seems to me to be "falling off the other side off the boat".

[spangler]

Spare me the languid apologetics:

It's politics

It's not 'politics'. It's a sell out. And a dangerous one at that. You can play politics without betraying your core principles, without jumping into bed with a particularly loathsome bloodthirsty group of people - Zionists.

Paul's utterances are the kind of perfidy I would expect from a mainstream political whore from the Repubs or Dems NOT someone like Paul who sold himself as the heir to his father's unconditional, long standing commitment to Libertarian principles.

Rand is proving he isn't a wimp on foreign policy.

No he's not. He's proving he's a cynical fraud who's decided to sell his soul for political gain.

And spare me the testosterone. You don't prove your manhood by threatening the (arbitrary) use of nuclear weapons on millions of innocents.

That doesn't mean he's singing, "Bomb, bomb, Iran."

He doesn't have to.  In politics words are everything. You just have to imply or suggest an idea for it to have significant meaning and impact. Paul's message is clear. We ought to keep our nukes pointed at Iran with our finger on the button.

[Xepla]

Spare me the languid apologetics:

It's not 'politics'. It's a sell out. And a dangerous one at that. You can play politics without betraying your core principles, without jumping into bed with a particularly loathsome bloodthirsty group of people - Zionists.

Paul's utterances are the kind of perfidy I would expect from a mainstream political whore from the Repubs or Dems NOT someone like Paul who sold himself as the heir to his father's unconditional, long standing commitment to Libertarian principles.


No he's not. He's proving he's a cynical fraud who's decided to sell his soul for political gain.

And spare me the testosterone. You don't prove your manhood by threatening the (arbitrary) use of nuclear weapons on millions of innocents.


He doesn't have to.  In politics words are everything. You just have to imply or suggest an idea for it to have significant meaning and impact. Paul's message is clear. We ought to keep our nukes pointed at Iran with our finger on the button.

this was a great post. but it made me sad :\
i really hope he comes around.

[rio]

I wonder who is handling Rand Paul. I bet since the homo Lindsey Graham has been outed, Chuck Schumer needs a new puppet.

Another AIPAC-approved shill pretender methinks.

[Brent]

Here the neocons are blasting Rand Paul as a "kook" because he doesn't support preemptive wars against Iran.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2452787/posts

[citizenx]

Maybe, he is trying to turn his message around. He is going to take some flak for doing this. At least, I hope this is what this is.

[rio]

Here the neocons are blasting Rand Paul as a "kook" because he doesn't support preemptive wars against Iran.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2452787/posts

I wonder how many of those traitors are ready to move to Israel and fight war for them.

[Geolibertarian]

My question to Rand Paul is simply this:

Is there any part of the following you disagree with?

If so, what?

--------------------------

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/IranSanctions2194.shtml

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

United States House of Representatives
 
Statement on Motion to Instruct Conferees on HR 2194, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act
  
April 22, 2010

Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct House conferees on HR 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, and I rise in strong opposition again to the underlying bill and to its Senate version as well. I object to this entire push for war on Iran, however it is disguised. Listening to the debate on the Floor on this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002 all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one trillion dollar war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely be an even more disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are astonishing.

We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and attack us? These “drones” ended up being pure propaganda – the UN chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on enemy targets. Of course by then the propagandists had gotten their war so the truth did not matter much.

We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s oft-repeated quip about Iraq: that we cannot wait for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud.

We need to see all this for what it is: Propaganda to speed us to war against Iran for the benefit of special interests.

Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of that treaty. Iran is not capable of enriching uranium to the necessary level to manufacture nuclear weapons. According to the entire US Intelligence Community, Iran is not currently working on a nuclear weapons program. These are facts, and to point them out does not make one a supporter or fan of the Iranian regime. Those pushing war on Iran will ignore or distort these facts to serve their agenda, though, so it is important and necessary to point them out.

Some of my well-intentioned colleagues may be tempted to vote for sanctions on Iran because they view this as a way to avoid war on Iran. I will ask them whether the sanctions on Iraq satisfied those pushing for war at that time. Or whether the application of ever-stronger sanctions in fact helped war advocates make their case for war on Iraq: as each round of new sanctions failed to “work” – to change the regime – war became the only remaining regime-change option.

This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to war on Iran. The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war according to international law. A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war against Iran. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to turn back from this unnecessary and counterproductive march to war.

--------------------------

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=166935.0

[prolifematthew]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgWRatbbOZM

[Rebelitarian]

Look Rand Paul may not take an invasion option off the table but it doesn't mean he's going to false-flag America, take on war powers and shut down congress declaring himself emperor.

REMEBER ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR !!!!

[citizenx]

Which however doesn't prevent the Executive from initiating police actions and other military operations these days.

But, yes, that is the way it should be.

That is the way it was, pre-Korean "War"(1950-1951) and pre-War Powers Act (1973).

[Damascus]

wow,wondering if Ron is thinking, "There's no way, no way that you came from my loins. Soon as I get home, first thing I'm gonna do is punch yo mamma in da mouth!". ;p

[Geolibertarian]

wow,wondering if Ron is thinking, "There's no way, no way that you came from my loins. Soon as I get home, first thing I'm gonna do is punch yo mamma in da mouth!". ;p

[chris jones]

Well WTF have we got here?
              LiL Randy let the cat out of the bag. I beleive it would be a positive move if he shed some light on this statement, expandd upon it a bit..
             He is not following in the footsteps of his dad..........




I think Iran destabilizes the Middle East a little more now that Iraq has become a Shiite country. But the interesting thing about whether or not you want to use military force — recently, you know, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances and I think that's a mistake. I think it's reckless to take them out of the equation. But I think it's also equally reckless to say, well, if they get a nuclear weapon, I'll drop a nuclear weapon on Teheran. I think there is a certain uncertainty that is there from the unknown and throughout the Cold War we didn't announce what we would do in every circumstance.

[citizenx]

When Soetroro said he would take nuclear weapons off the table, did you believe him, Chris?

I don't believe anything he says at this point.

[chris jones]

When Soetroro said he would take nuclear weapons off the table, did you believe him, Chris?

I don't believe anything he says at this point.

             CX, I haven't beleived in any commander and chief for some time.
 But tell me CX, in you oppinion, why would Rand make this statment..
   But I think it's also equally reckless to say, well, if they get a nuclear weapon, I'll drop a nuclear weapon on Teheran. I think there is a certain uncertainty that is there from the unknown and throughout the Cold War we didn't announce what we would do in every circumstance.
   Is there  contradiction among his wording here, seems to me he is declaring Nukes should be  on the table,,BUT,,he backs off with the above phrase.
   I admit to being pizzed when I first saw this, after examining the entire discussion there is room for doubt as to what exactly he's on about here. I thik he should expand and calrify his statment.

[citizenx]

Oh, I quite agree about Rand.

I am hoping he matures a bit and grows into something about the dimensions of his father's shoes.

I don't get the hawkishness that is redolent of the Zionist-extremist neocons.  I hope he sees the light on foreign policy and starts listening to his father who doesn't buy any of that b.s. for one moment.

Sometimes sons distance themsleves from their fathers.  Viz. W. and Poppy Bush.  In Rand's case he should move a little closer to his father and his positions on these issues IMO.

[citizenx]

I should add:

Calling for a cut off in aid to Israel, though, is an excellent start.  Next: Egypt and Lebanon and all the rest of the Middle Eastern regimes we have been supposrting with our tax dollars.

He is starting to go down the right track maybe.

[Geolibertarian]

Well WTF have we got here?
              LiL Randy let the cat out of the bag. I beleive it would be a positive move if he shed some light on this statement, expandd upon it a bit..
             He is not following in the footsteps of his dad..........

I think Iran destabilizes the Middle East a little more now that Iraq has become a Shiite country. But the interesting thing about whether or not you want to use military force — recently, you know, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances and I think that's a mistake. I think it's reckless to take them out of the equation.

Rand's dad apparently needs to strap him to a chair, duct tape his mouth shut, slap him upside the head a few times, and make him read the following:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=166935.0