Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 4, 2019 - 10:32am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
islander wrote:
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
steeler wrote:
When did Rand Paul become a toady for Trump â and why? Thought he had Libertarian leanings.
Everyone measures Trump's worth by how much he does for them. Paul is probably thinking Romney or any other GOP president would continue fighting wars, Trump is pulling out. So hey. I'm not a good chess player but my reflexive response to Trump's "we're leaving Syria" wasn't "Oh, no, we must continue the bombing!" like everyone else seemed to be thinking.
I was initially happy about the Syria announcement too. I'm still happy in general, but I do think that the Mattis position of we need a wind down and long term strategy is correct. We do need strategic alliances in sketchy parts of the world, and the Kurds seem like the right ones to align with over there. A rash abandonment will probably have longer term problems for us. That said, I'm still pretty encouraged to be pulling troops out of there. I hope that we can leave enough advisors/tanks around that we can maintain a working relationship with the least dictatorial people in the region. No matter the implications, I do think that less bombs are better, and I don't care who espouses that policy.
Yeah, there's always a better way than Trump's way.
Indeed. Yes, there certainly is an appeal to disengaging from these skirmishes in far-away lands. Stopping the bombing and bringing home our soldiers definitely has appeal. But the underlying rationale here — it seems to me — is not a moral one. Rather, it is part of an isolationist strategy — America First. The same rationale for The Wall and the threats to withdraw from NATO and the United Nations. The rub here is that it is hard to not see this as America deserting the Syrian Kurds — who were the ones who did the actual ground fighting to oust ISIS from its strongholds in Syria. From what I have read, those Kurds may very well soon be the targets of the Turkish forces that have been massing on the border. Syria is still a mess, with Russian and Iranian forces soon to be joined by Turkish forces. Simply not our problem? We were just there to confront ISIS? Forces like ISIS flourish in vacuums.
When did Rand Paul become a toady for Trump â and why? Thought he had Libertarian leanings.
Everyone measures Trump's worth by how much he does for them. Paul is probably thinking Romney or any other GOP president would continue fighting wars, Trump is pulling out. So hey. I'm not a good chess player but my reflexive response to Trump's "we're leaving Syria" wasn't "Oh, no, we must continue the bombing!" like everyone else seemed to be thinking.
Perhaps it is a bigger enchilada thing for Paul, but ignoring some of Trump's authoritarian/ fascist tendencies may also exact a cost if they were left to expand and flower. Seems he could give full-throated support to a policy decision without becoming a defender-in-chief to more than that.
Yeah who knows what machinations are going on in any politician's noggin? Probably thinking 2024.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 4, 2019 - 10:16am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
steeler wrote:
When did Rand Paul become a toady for Trump â and why? Thought he had Libertarian leanings.
Everyone measures Trump's worth by how much he does for them. Paul is probably thinking Romney or any other GOP president would continue fighting wars, Trump is pulling out. So hey. I'm not a good chess player but my reflexive response to Trump's "we're leaving Syria" wasn't "Oh, no, we must continue the bombing!" like everyone else seemed to be thinking.
Perhaps it is a bigger enchilada thing for Paul, but ignoring some of Trump's authoritarian/ fascist tendencies may also exact a cost if they were left to expand and flower. Seems he could give full-throated support to a policy decision without becoming a defender-in-chief to more than that.
"I donât think thereâs an appetite for a Romney run within the Republican party,â (Paul) said. âNor do I think that the Romney type of establishment, big government Republicanism is popular enough to win a general election."
"I had a meeting at the Pentagon with lots of generals — they were like from a movie, better looking than Tom Cruise and stronger — and I had more generals than I've ever seen."
"The problem is it was a tough fight and, literally, they went bankrupt, they went into being called Russia again as opposed to the Soviet Union. You know, lot of — a lot of these places you're reading about now are no longer a part of Russia because of Afghanistan."
When did Rand Paul become a toady for Trump â and why? Thought he had Libertarian leanings.
Everyone measures Trump's worth by how much he does for them. Paul is probably thinking Romney or any other GOP president would continue fighting wars, Trump is pulling out. So hey. I'm not a good chess player but my reflexive response to Trump's "we're leaving Syria" wasn't "Oh, no, we must continue the bombing!" like everyone else seemed to be thinking.
I was initially happy about the Syria announcement too. I'm still happy in general, but I do think that the Mattis position of we need a wind down and long term strategy is correct. We do need strategic alliances in sketchy parts of the world, and the Kurds seem like the right ones to align with over there. A rash abandonment will probably have longer term problems for us. That said, I'm still pretty encouraged to be pulling troops out of there. I hope that we can leave enough advisors/tanks around that we can maintain a working relationship with the least dictatorial people in the region. No matter the implications, I do think that less bombs are better, and I don't care who espouses that policy.
Yeah, there's always a better way than Trump's way.
When did Rand Paul become a toady for Trump â and why? Thought he had Libertarian leanings.
Everyone measures Trump's worth by how much he does for them. Paul is probably thinking Romney or any other GOP president would continue fighting wars, Trump is pulling out. So hey. I'm not a good chess player but my reflexive response to Trump's "we're leaving Syria" wasn't "Oh, no, we must continue the bombing!" like everyone else seemed to be thinking.
I was initially happy about the Syria announcement too. I'm still happy in general, but I do think that the Mattis position of we need a wind down and long term strategy is correct. We do need strategic alliances in sketchy parts of the world, and the Kurds seem like the right ones to align with over there. A rash abandonment will probably have longer term problems for us. That said, I'm still pretty encouraged to be pulling troops out of there. I hope that we can leave enough advisors/tanks around that we can maintain a working relationship with the least dictatorial people in the region. No matter the implications, I do think that less bombs are better, and I don't care who espouses that policy.
Everyone measures Trump's worth by how much he does for them. Paul is probably thinking Romney or any other GOP president would continue fighting wars, Trump is pulling out. So hey. I'm not a good chess player but my reflexive response to Trump's "we're leaving Syria" wasn't "Oh, no, we must continue the bombing!" like everyone else seemed to be thinking.
When did Rand Paul become a toady for Trump â and why? Thought he had Libertarian leanings.
Everyone measures Trump's worth by how much he does for them. Paul is probably thinking Romney or any other GOP president would continue fighting wars, Trump is pulling out. So hey. I'm not a good chess player but my reflexive response to Trump's "we're leaving Syria" wasn't "Oh, no, we must continue the bombing!" like everyone else seemed to be thinking.
