Posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by LSUfan
There is much to commend, and there are some things to question, about Rand Paul’s big foreign policy speech yesterday at Heritage Foundation.
The overall idea of using George Kennan-like “containment” for Iran or for jihadist Islam in general is, well, problematic , although there are plenty of elements of his speech that are at least somewhat sensible. It is a good thing to have discussion of such issues, and there is much value in having people make a thoughtful case against over-eagerness for military intervention. Those of us who tend a little more towards interventionism (”tend” being the key word, rather than “strongly favor”) do need to be challenged about the dangers of using military force.
Nonetheless, a fuller discussion of Paul’s speech would require more space and time than is available for me this morning. One paragraph, however, was so tendentious, so … well, civility requires that I withhold the most accurate words… anyway, so wrong as to demand response.
Here’s the passage at issue:
In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.
Let’s leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase “war caucus” to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
Instead, let’s just look at a little history here — because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing.
(Excerpt) Read more at cfif.org ...
es, if you don’t have the ability to comprehend the written word and you wish to call Reagan a thug.
Go right ahead.
>> “The author does make a rather good point here.” <<
.
If he does, it is sure buried deep.
The war caucus includes those that are “All war all the time.” They have done us massive disservice at every juncture. The foolish nature of our adventure to embarrass the Soviets is certainly evident now, isn’t it?
Nice strawman, jackboot. I didn’t call Reagan anything, and neither did Rand Paul.
Thanks for the information. Never ran into him/her before.
Nasty piece of work/
“Nice strawman, jackboot. I didn’t call Reagan anything, and neither did Rand Paul.
Paul surely did. Thus, your agreeing with his statement equals you did, as well.
“jackboot” lol...watch-out for those black helos.
The bill is “Life begins at conception Act” and is an end-run around the Supreme Court as they have left it to congress to define life. The GOP could have passed a life begins at conception Act and have Bush sign it into law but they didn’t because they don’t really care.
The CIA were supporting the jihadists until 1991 ish (After Soviet union), they even gave them textbooks!
“Look how that turned out” is a reference to the fact that after the soviets left the jihadists in power then targeted Americans, specifically on 9/11
-
In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.
-
“Look how that turned out” is a reference to the fact that after the soviets left the jihadists in power then targeted Americans, specifically on 9/11”
Incorrect. The statement shows ignorance of history by Paul.
First of all, we supported a “Northern Alliance” of Afghans. Afghans being the important word. The Taliban are a group consisting of foreigners, primarily. We never supported the outside jihadists..
In fact, a guy named Massoud, who was the leader of the Afghans we supported was assasinated by either a foreign Taliban or Al Qeada spy, a few months prior to 9-11.
9-11 had nothing to do with the Afgans we supported. Actually, even the Taliban were only indirectly involved in allowing the AQ faction to base and train in Afghanistan.
-
Paul surely did not, and its your Black teeth that worry me. Do you have choppers too?
That is a horrible comeback.
Now, I know you have an IQ problem.
Thanks for sharing.
Talk to you later, Rainman
Horrible to you I’m sure!
Strawman yourself to death if you wish. Maybe your Black Helo will haul your ashes off.
ok
RuPaul
Yep, that’s your level of intellect.
When you cannot deal with the facts, attack the messenger with what you’re made of.
I don’t think so. Abortion itself is not guaranteed in the constitution. We do not need a constitutional amendment. Was it a constitutional amendment that legalized abortion? It can certainly be legislated, and the Republican party has made sure that it has missed every opportunity to seriously do so.
No. It was a Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court.
Recall that, in his opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found "the right to an abortion" lurking within the "penumbra" of the Constitution.
Legislation cannot reverse a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court. So, it will take either a.) Constitutional amendment or b.) a change in the make-up of the Supreme Court that would be willing to reverse Roe v Wade.
They supported the mujahideen, and the mujahideen even sent a small contingent to the 1991 Gulf War. But few in the West were referring to those groups as "Jihadists" from the early '80s during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the early '90s. They were the mujahideen in those days.
Jihadist is a fairly recent term in Western vocabularies used to refer to Islamic fighters, and it still is not used by our State Department. They mostly used specific names like Al Qaeda or other less general terms than "Jihadists". And we still get the PC definition of "Jihadists" as only some inner religious struggle engaged in by Muslims.
To throw the "Jihadists" term back on the mujahideen the US supported against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is getting pretty loose with the facts, or the common use of terms to describe Muslim fighters of various eras.
“When you cannot deal with the facts, attack the messenger with what you’re made of.”
Yeah, good point jackwagagon.
Here is your quote: “its your Black teeth that worry me. Do you have choppers too?”
Here is my quote:
“Incorrect. The statement shows ignorance of history by Paul.
First of all, we supported a “Northern Alliance” of Afghans. Afghans being the important word. The Taliban are a group consisting of foreigners, primarily. We never supported the outside jihadists..
In fact, a guy named Massoud, who was the leader of the Afghans we supported was assasinated by either a foreign Taliban or Al Qeada spy, a few months prior to 9-11.
9-11 had nothing to do with the Afgans we supported. Actually, even the Taliban were only indirectly involved in allowing the AQ faction to base and train in Afghanistan.”
BTTT
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.