Rand Paul: Are We Going To Send Americans To Die To Force Turkey To Get Along With The Kurds?

Real Clear Politics ^ | Oct 13 2019 | Tim Hains

[arthurus]

Why do we need Turkiye to get along with the syrian Kurds? They are Communists. They are NOT the Kurds in Iran and they are not nearly as beneficient to non Moslem groups. Yes we have allied with inimical groups to fight worse enemies and have fought then our erstwhile allies because they are inimical to our nation and values and their use against other enemies is done.

[wardaddy]

So why are they in nato

[FreedomPoster]

And we were only fully in it for not quite four.

[StAnDeliver]

Agree with Rand on the Kurds, disagree with Rand on the Saudis. Of course we're their mercenary force but without troops there, well, we've seen how easy it was for a bunch of sandrags to disable Aramco. And you don't just send your best intercept defense batteries just laying around for some Saudi prince to find some pinoy to fire for him.

Also given the time of year, I would have liked to have seen Rand demonstrate the blind tackle on Check Fodd. "So Check, you stand over there and you're raking leaves..."

[StAnDeliver]

"I have a feeling this guy would’ve objected to a declaration of war after Pearl Harbor."

Citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973? ... #facepalm

[FLT-bird]

I would expel us from NATO.

Let the Yurps pay for their own defense.

[eartick]

I know a lot of people on this board do not like Paul. This interview shows just how spot on he is about foreign affairs and I would like to see him run for president when Trump is finished. I believe that he would further MAGA

[eartick]

I have a feeling this guy would’ve objected to a declaration of war after Pearl Harbor.

I believe that is overboard just a tad.

Rand Paul in the past says our military should be used to protect our homeland and not to be the police for the world. If we were attacked we would fight back which is what we should be doing.

Not this global nation building that we have been doing for the past 5 decades.

[joma89]

No. Let them kill each other. We should arm the weaker side to ensure more of both sides are killed.

JoMa

[PapaBear3625]

Long-term, the Kurds are better off in an alliance with Assad. They can protect northern Syria from Sunni ISIS terrorists, in exchange for a degree of autonomy.

We can just pull back, and let Assad’s ally, Russia, deal with Turkey’s bad behavior.

[PapaBear3625]

in four years, we went from ostensibly neutral to forcing the unconditional surrender of two major world powers on the other sides of two oceans who had spent over a decade arming up and consolidating their positions.

And the thing that enabled us to win, was our willingness to exterminate the entire population of the other side, if that was going to be necessary to win.

[eartick]

It is simple. After and possibly during WW2, the fat cats and investors found out they could get rich off of wars. That is why we are in an ever ending war somewhere and performing nation building as a bonus. All about the money that our young people have died for.

That is why I am a TEXAN for #TEXIT. Fight the battles that count.

[Chickensoup]

no he would not have, Pearl Harbor was an act against the country.

The motivating factor here and for most libertarians is Is it Constitutional and does it Protect Americans?

[Chickensoup]

WW2 lasted 4plus years for US and about 8 years for everyone in Europe

[Chickensoup]

One of the dozens of reasons to leave NATO.

[Chickensoup]

so we are there to protect EU bound Saud oil>

screw that.

Let the EU protect it.

[Alberta's Child]

And the thing that enabled us to win, was our willingness to exterminate the entire population of the other side, if that was going to be necessary to win.

There's a reason why the U.S. doesn't fight wars to "win" anymore.

We don't fight wars anymore, period.

Instead, for the last 50+ years we have been doing nothing more than sending our military to take sides in civil wars all over the world. And we've been doing that because our elected leaders in Washington have been selling themselves to foreign interests for all that time.

You can't exterminate the entire population of "the other side" when the whole purpose of a military campaign is to help one side in a civil war get control of "the other side" without destroying the place.

[ReformedBeckite]

World War 2 lasted six years

If you count the years Japan was invading other countries like China and Korea it was probably 10 years or more, that's part of the war that's not taught about to much in history books or talked about period as their is alot of tension between the countries that Japan evaded. I think the reason is because of how cruel Japan was against the Chinese, See the book the "Rape of Nanking". Any way I don't think there will be much talking and teaching about that part of WWII until the old folks/leaders/politicians from those two countries are dead and gone, and then people will start talking about the atrocities Japan did too China and Korea and a bunch of other countries, more so then just footnotes in history books that Japan took over these countries.

[VTenigma]

12/7/1941 to 8/15/1945 my math says 3 years 9 months.

[VTenigma]

Oh and 8 days (I didn’t do the hours, minutes, seconds, ect)