Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Rand Paul: The Military Option Should Be On the Table With Regard to Iran

Rand Paul has an op-ed in WaPo, today, where he does a lot of dancing on his position, especially with regard to the containment of Iran:
I am not for containment in Iran. Let me repeat that, since no one seems to be listening closely: I am unequivocally not for containing Iran.

I am also not for announcing that the United States should never contain Iran.
There I hope you have that straight. Rand used the Reagan card to justify his seemingly being on both sides of the issue:
Ronald Reagan was once criticized for not announcing in advance his policy toward particular situations. 
But then, because he has been getting pressure from neocons, he let it all out
I believe all options should be on the table to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, including the military option...False choices between being everywhere all of the time and nowhere any of the time are fodder for debate on Sunday morning shows or newspaper columns. Real foreign policy is made in the middle; with nuance; in the gray area of diplomacy, engagement and reluctantly, if necessary, military action.
Bottom line, Rand is far from the clear speaker and principled that his father is. (SEE: The Most Important 4 Minutes and 34 Seconds for Liberty in the Early Part of the Twenty First Century)

This is Rand's real position: "I want to be president and will say whatever it takes, no matter how logically absurd, as long as it advances me toward the presidency. If elected, I will do whatever it takes to get re-elected."



12 comments:

  1. Bob,

    Thanks for all these articles on Rand. I entertained the idea of voting for Rand should he ever run for higher office; now I can save my time, ignore the debates, and seek out a 3rd party candidate who may have no chance of winning but at least represents my views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't rely on only one source of information to make a decision. Take many different sources and bring them together to formulate your opinion.

      That being said....I did receive an email from Rand Pac stating the same thing. My reply was bounced back. I will not support any military options until they can be quantified with solid evidence. So far we have not seen any evidence other than hearsay. The excuse of "classified" is unacceptable when deciding to go to war. I want to see evidence....or I will not be supporting any candidate who leaves military options "on the table" who is unable to quantify those options.

      Delete
  2. Congressman Ron Paul supported the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear reactors back in the day (of course the deep state dynamics were different then) and as the US security services have stated time and time again that Iran does not have, and is not developing a nuclear weapon, Rand really isn't saying that much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did not "support" them. He refused to endorse a Congressional declaration condemning them. Those are two very different things.

      Delete
  3. Self defense is a natural right, the military option should never be totally off the table. It should be a last resort option.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Self-defense is a natural right of each individual. Not sure a government has any natural rights. But if a government does have a natural right to self-defense, Iran has a right to nuclear weapons for self-defense just as does the US. Or is the US special? Oh yeah, its special in that its the only country to ever drop a nuclear bomb - on civilians. Self defense of course. Seems that Iran would be fully justified in saying it will not rule out the military option unless the US destroys all its nuclear weapons and allows outside investigators to monitor it. After all, its the US that has been the rouge nation on this. Iran does not talk about using military option s to enforce its preferences on other nations. Nor does it export terror thru Drones.

      Delete
    2. That's assuming there is a threat. The only REAL threat to Americans right now is The Imperial City on the Potomac.

      Delete
    3. aka Mordor-on-the-Potomac

      Delete
  4. The Iranian regime immediately reminded us that the Administration is pursuing a fool’s errand, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei promising that these negotiations ‘will not lead anywhere,’ and that Iran is unwilling to disassemble any nuclear facilities. The Obama administration must avoid making the same mistake it made in November, when it peddled away our leverage in the form of much-needed sanctions relief to Iran’s collapsing economy in exchange for only minor cosmetic concessions on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The White House should only accept an agreement that verifiably dismantles Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program. Anything short virtually ensures that the best we can do is contain, not prevent, Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iran does not have an illicit nuclear weapons program. I just read a book-length treatment of the subject, Going To Tehran, by Flynt & Hillary Mann Leverett. Also read anything by Paul Craig Roberts on Iran. Your belief that Iran does have an illicit program is something only put forth by Washington and the US Media. Check out the position of any other country not in the US Axis of Evil, namely US, Britain, and France. And Iran's statements about the futility of negotiating with the US is because the US refuses to even start negotiating unless Iran agrees to essentially all of the US positions from the start. The Ayatollah said something to the effect that it is impossible to negotiate with nothing.

      Delete
    2. And Gareth Porter has 6 hours of Discussions with Scott Horton about how unlikely it is that Iran has nuclear weapons or a program to develop such.
      http://scotthorton.org/stress/2014/04/05/gareth-porter-interview-series-on-his-new-book-manufactured-crisis-the-untold-story-of-the-iran-nuclear-scare/

      http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/scotthortonshow

      Delete
    3. @Heath, Thanks for the links to the Gareth Porter interviews & book about Iran's nuclear program. Simply put, the US regime is making sure that any negotiations with Iran will fail because it wants one thing, and one thing only, which is regime change in Iran.

      Delete