Rand Paul, Longtime Foe Of Nation Building, Is Ready Now To Redraw The Middle East

Rand recognizes that the chickenhawk voters in the GOP are getting wary of him, so he has to appeal to their thirst for war somehow. It's really a shame though.... with this and Rands signing of that letter warning Iran, it seems like he's willing to compromise on his foreign policy for a chance at the nomination. The one thing that set him apart from the others:

"Nation-builder" probably isn't a term Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) would use to describe himself. The libertarian-leaning senator has built a reputation on his reluctance to intervene abroad, a point he emphasizes as he travels the country ahead of a likely White House bid in 2016.

But on Wednesday, two weeks after telling a crowd of conservatives that Republicans should give up the concept of nation building abroad, Paul called on the United States to ship arms to the Kurds with a promise to build them a nation: Kurdistan.

“Part of the problem is the Kurds aren’t getting enough arms,” Paul told Breitbart News. “The Kurds are the best fighters. The arms are going through Baghdad to get to the Kurds and they’re being siphoned off and they’re not getting what they need. I think any arms coming from us or coming from any European countries ought to go directly to the Kurds.”

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I still think he's the sanest potential GOP nominee for the 2016 elections, but still this is disappointing. He's falling in line.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I think that's a bit of a stretch, when you take him saying if we're going to arm someone over there arm the kurds. To saying let's invent kurdistan.

This is one of the reasons politics is so ridiculous in the US. Right behind politicians being corrupt scumbags is the media completely being full of crap.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I liked him, he was the only republican I thought competent.

This change though has ruined his image.


Ok I cant vote. But I wonder how many Anerican this flip flop would repel?

Do the warmongers out number the sane Americans?

The ruling elite got their hooks in him. He has probably been compromised for a while.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

He lost all credibility with me when he tried to shut down Abby Martin from rt for asking him some questions he didn't like. From that point on he was just a wolf in sheep clothing.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yah Kurdistan!!

Boo SG hit piece!!

Rand Paul is becoming more of an interventionist than he's ever been, and this certainly does appeal to the controlling arm of the GOP.

Not that I ever considered voting for Rand Paul, but I do keep an eye on the possible nominees on both political "sides". And this isn't the first or second time Paul seems to disregard his previous positions in order to appeal to the far right. He seems to be trying to straddle the fence between Libertarian and Republican. It's an understandable move for a possible nominee, but I think it makes him look weak and unable to stand up for what he really believes in. He'd probably get more support if he did...

Another example:

In 2010, he supported an amendment to prevent same sex marriage.
In 2013, he supported letting states decide on it, but was against "redefining marriage".
Now, he says same sex marriage "offends" him, and he supports a more politically correct way to let straight people get "married" and gays can have the same right, but call it something else. Is that a "libertarian" position?

Source1

Crooks & Liars blogger John Amato wrote of Paul, “When you hear him opine on issues coveted by the religious right, he falls squarely in their camp every time.”

Source2

And

In an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News, the Kentucky Republican, who described himself as a “libertarian conservative,” made the remarks when asked about his views on gay rights.

Source3

I don't trust him at all.

He was always just a blowhard. A "libertarian" in name only, he is and has been part of the Republican/Corporatist ruling elite.

Good luck with his scheme of carving out "Kurdistan" from Turkey. That would be WWIII and IV right there.

We never learn anything do we?

We're awesome at bombing and pummeling an enemy into the ground, invading a country and toppling its government. Our military might is second to none.

But nation building? We're at a complete loss. We simply can't seem to figure out how to rebuild a nation that we've obliterated.

Part of the problem is that people don't really like you after you've destroyed their infrastructure, and thrown their lives into abject poverty and chaos. It's a tough sell to people in countries we've bombed to let us swoop in and "rebuild" their country.

"Nation Building"?

Depends on what some see as a "Nation".

Rand is just being "Flexible".

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Let's be honest though.

Rand is just saying that if you're going to send them weapons, then send them weapons. Don't go via proxy networks that are obviously compromised.

We are right to support the Kurds. They are the only people who could actually run the place after ISIL is dismantled anyway.

I don't like the idea of foreign governments getting involved at all, but at the end of the day, if you are going to, might as well be efficient.

~Tenth

Quite frankly the Middle East borders were an overly contrived relic from the British Colonial Era and may benefit from being altered based on the desires of the indigenous population.

We just need to leave those people in the ME the hell alone. They are not like us, they don't want to be like us, and they never will be.

I don't know what the solution is, but it's certainly not Rand Paul.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Hallelujah. Let the Middle East sort out the Middle East. That's a tactic the USA hasn't tried - leaving the rest of the world the hell alone. We took artificially imposed borders from a bygone era and kept them propped up according to our whims (i.e. those nations with friendly regimes versus those not) then compounded the problems with additional 'nation creating' following WWII and the discovery of ME oil to get us to the point where we are now. A colossal mess that gets worse every time the US gets more involved.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Actually our reasoning might be different. My take most days has come to be that they hate one another. They hate one another more than they hate us. How are we supposed to deal with that? How do we solve that?

Just because multiple countries are engaged in a frenzied hate fest, doesn't mean we have to join in, or help them do it.

(And this thread is about Rand Paul, so I should step off this war soap box).

a reply to: tothetenthpower

The problem is (from what I've read) is that the Kurds want to carve out their own country, Kurdistan. The Kurds are also communists, so we'd sort of be supporting the creation of a new communist country in N. Iraq/Turkey.

The support we give them now may come back to bite us, as they will probably turn against our allies in the region at a later time once the ISIS/ISIL threat has subsided.

I really have no idea what the answers are, it's such a mess over there.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Traditionally, Kurds are far more moderate than the Shia. I have much more faith in them being able to build solid, democratic governance then the others.

And I don't really have a problem with them re-drawing their own borders. It's none of our business really. They don't need IMF or NATO approval to draw some lines on a map and claim territory.

As long as it's done peacefully.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I agree -- but if they start trying to annex parts of Turkey...we're going to find ourselves in a bit of a pickle. Since Turkey is part of NATO and our ally, can we just let the Kurds do that?

I suppose we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it.

The world is a more dangerous place since Obama bungled everything up withdrawing troops from the Middle East.
Even Rand Paul sees this.
This position actually makes him a more legitimate contender.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I agree -- but if they start trying to annex parts of Turkey...we're going to find ourselves in a bit of a pickle. Since Turkey is part of NATO and our ally, can we just let the Kurds do that?

I suppose we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it.

I meant Iraq. The same issue we have with Russia/Ukraine would certainly occur if they did try to Annex any portion of the ME that isn't Iraq or Afghanistan basically.