Rand Paul finds his inner Neo CON
” And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy. The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately, Obama’s decisions—from disengaging diplomatically in Iraq and the region and fomenting chaos in Libya and Syria—leaves few good options. A more realistic and effective foreign policy would protect the vital interests of the nation without the unrealistic notion of nation-building.
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfWTp8qbWEE” Rand Paul is anathema to Ron Paul…
Somebody tell the amateur that airstrikes destabilize the regime and create a power vacuum that invites militants to take control precisely because they are armed with lethal force. You have to restore Assad to save Syria. NOT remove him. The people we install are only capable of projecting influence for as long as we are there. When we leave, the people rise up and remove them. Or the people we armed rise up and assert power. See Iraq. Ron is right. Rand is NOT… But one wants power, the other wanted freedom and peace. There is a difference. I stand with Ron. Not the Neo CONS… But then I don’t get briefed by Bill Kristol(nacht)
^ This was the beginning of the Ron Paul movement for many… Rand just turned it full circle to accommodate, not just Mitch McConnell, but Rudy Giuliani. All this time… all this money… just to go back to “Ground Zero-style-jingoism.”