Posted on 10/13/2019 10:34:33 PM PDT by rintintin
Sen. Rand Paul told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the situation with the Syrian Kurds is much more complex than it appears at first glance and detailed some of the history involved.
CHUCK TODD: Joining me now is Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. He also sits on the Foreign Relations Committee senate side. Senator Paul is also the author of the new book "The Case Against Socialists." Senator Paul, welcome back to Meet the Press, sir.
SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: Thanks, Chuck. Thanks for having me.
TODD: Let me start with the news of the morning. I hope you caught our report from Richard Engel and what he's seen on the ground.
I know where your views are philosophically, and I want to get to that in a minute. But are you concerned that this decision was too hasty and it sort of created a more chaotic situation than necessary?
PAUL: Well, I think one of the things about the Arab militias that Turkey is using that your reporter reported on, it's interesting that some are from the Free Syrian Army, which was our ally for seven years, which just shows how messy this is. Turkey is an ally, the Free Syrian Army was an ally for seven years, and the Kurds have been allies in Syria, so it's a very complicated, messy situation.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
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.
So why are they in nato
And we were only fully in it for not quite four.
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..."
Citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973? ... #facepalm
I would expel us from NATO.
Let the Yurps pay for their own defense.
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
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.
No. Let them kill each other. We should arm the weaker side to ensure more of both sides are killed.
JoMa
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.
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.
That is why I am a TEXAN for #TEXIT. Fight the battles that count.
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?
WW2 lasted 4plus years for US and about 8 years for everyone in Europe
One of the dozens of reasons to leave NATO.
so we are there to protect EU bound Saud oil>
screw that.
Let the EU protect it.
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.
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.
12/7/1941 to 8/15/1945 my math says 3 years 9 months.
Oh and 8 days (I didn’t do the hours, minutes, seconds, ect)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.