Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He candidly showed his disagreement with any type of intervention in Syria. Most of the top guys in Washington support the rebels. Rand isn't oblivious to the connections the rebels have in Syria.
Assad isn't an angel, but the rebels want to institute Sharia in the country.
In all fairness, American foreign policy in the Middle East is not exactly the best. I would say Jimmy Carter actually has the best track record on this, and he is saying we should not strike. I might not agree with Rand on his domestic policy ideas of cutting things as much as he wants to do, but he actually is right about how we should not get involved. What Rand Paul probably is not saying that Alan Grayson will say is many people in this country want our tax payer dollars spent on roads, education, and things here. States such as Hawaii can only afford to have a four day school week, and our country is already in debt to China. It is not our job to police the world anymore, and just because we did that in years past, does not mean we can afford to do it now. That does not mean Paul is condoning what Assad did, it simply means we should let the Middle East sort out their own problems. Why the president and Congress are not more worried about the situation in cities like Detroit, San Bernardino, and Chicago should be the question we are asking. Our own people need to come first for a change.
He said that Assad protected Christians. So that is the reason we should back this dictator?
No he never said THAT is the reason we should back him at all. He simply made a statement(that's true, as wrong as it may be) and once again the liberal media have found a way to distort something. Guess they find him as a threat for their next great one.
He candidly showed his disagreement with any type of intervention in Syria. Most of the top guys in Washington support the rebels. Rand isn't oblivious to the connections the rebels have in Syria.
Assad isn't an angel, but the rebels want to institute Sharia in the country.
They don't care. They dislike him just because he's Rand Paul. The liberal media love to distort and twist things and that's where they get there "facts" from.
In all fairness, American foreign policy in the Middle East is not exactly the best. I would say Jimmy Carter actually has the best track record on this, and he is saying we should not strike. I might not agree with Rand on his domestic policy ideas of cutting things as much as he wants to do, but he actually is right about how we should not get involved. What Rand Paul probably is not saying that Alan Grayson will say is many people in this country want our tax payer dollars spent on roads, education, and things here. States such as Hawaii can only afford to have a four day school week, and our country is already in debt to China. It is not our job to police the world anymore, and just because we did that in years past, does not mean we can afford to do it now. That does not mean Paul is condoning what Assad did, it simply means we should let the Middle East sort out their own problems. Why the president and Congress are not more worried about the situation in cities like Detroit, San Bernardino, and Chicago should be the question we are asking. Our own people need to come first for a change.
Exactly. But they can't accept this because their media outlets did not report it like this.
As per the bold. Just because he has those ideas, doesn't mean they will actually happen and get cut. He would still have to go through congress on those and they will never let it get cut.
Not all the liberal media, just the mainstream. Actually a lot of liberals and conservatives are now going to the independent media where you will find Americans have more common ground. We need to stop having this liberal conservative debate in the country. We need to start being Americans again and thinking about what is in the best interest of our country. And I am a liberal, but actually agree with what Paul says. I see a lot of conservative and liberal war horses that like conflict though. Maybe some of us are for the peace movement, but people always look down upon us. That is okay because recent history has shown none of these interventions in the Middle East go down well. History will look better on Rand Paul in the end.
Not all the liberal media, just the mainstream. Actually a lot of liberals and conservatives are now going to the independent media where you will find Americans have more common ground. We need to stop having this liberal conservative debate in the country. We need to start being Americans again and thinking about what is in the best interest of our country. And I am a liberal, but actually agree with what Paul says. I see a lot of conservative and liberal war horses that like conflict though. Maybe some of us are for the peace movement, but people always look down upon us. That is okay because recent history has shown none of these interventions in the Middle East go down well. History will look better on Rand Paul in the end.
No he never said THAT is the reason we should back him at all. He simply made a statement(that's true, as wrong as it may be) and once again the liberal media have found a way to distort something. Guess they find him as a threat for their next great one.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades,"
See what I meant in my other post?
I sure would dislike him handling US foreign affairs, he has not a clue.
Stop with the liberal media bit, he's on camera saying what he did say.
People should seriously consider not sticking up for either of the Pauls, they both couldn't be the worst politicians ever if they even tried.
Never once did Rand say he endorsed Assad. In fact, on many occasions I have heard him state how evil he thinks Assad is. But facts are facts, and under Assad most religious groups have generally been left alone. A simple Google search on Syrian rebel attacks on Christians turns up many articles. There are 2.5 Millions Christians living in Syria, the largest group outside of Israel. As bad as Assad is, the alternative is helping his opposition take power. Who is his opposition? El Nusra and the FSA, both groups have large elements of Al Quieda and are full of radical Jihadists. The AUMF that Obama is proposing is totally vague and open ended, similar to the AUMF used for Afghanistan, and we know where that got us.
As for Rand not having foreign policy experience, he is on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate.
All this sounds eerily similar to "You're either with us, or you're with the enemy" garbage we got from Bush. Turns out, we basically handed Iraq over to our enemy and it's far worse than before.
I sure would dislike him handling US foreign affairs, he has not a clue.
Stop with the liberal media bit, he's on camera saying what he did say.
There are 2.5 Million Christians in Syria, the largest group outside Israel. Most Christians in Iraq fled to Syria after we helped Al Queda take over that country. The bottom line is the alternative to Assad is assisting El Nusra or the FSA, both radical groups, take over the country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
