Posted on 01/03/2020 2:50:37 PM PST by RandFan
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., called into "Your World with Neil Cavuto" Friday to discuss the deadly airstrike that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, saying he fears an "escalation" between the U.S. and Iran.
"I think without a declaration of war, without Congress and the American people behind it, what you get is a messy mission. You get a mission of escalating intermittent violence," Paul told Cavuto. "The president said he didn't want perpetual war in the Middle East. But he's adding more and more troops. If you don't want perpetual war, you don't keep sending more targets over there."
Paul believes it is more likely that "Iran, their militias and their proxies will attack the U.S." following the death of Soleimani.
President Trump accused the Iranian general of planning “imminent and sinister attacks” Friday in his first televised remarks since the airstrike that killed the general at Baghdad's international airport.
"We took action last night to stop a war,” Trump said during brief remarks at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. “We did not take action to start a war.”
Paul argued that that the airstrike signals the "death of diplomacy" with Iran and that they will feel the need to retaliate.
"It's hard to imagine that the Iranians are going to shrink now and say, 'Oh, you killed our leading general, who's been a leader in our country for 20 years, and we're going to do nothing,'" Paul said. "I also think with the death of Soleimani, you have the death of diplomacy. I don't think there's any chance that Iran will speak to us again on diplomacy."
Cavuto asked Paul what his "biggest fear" was about the situation.
"I think, that there will be an escalation, that there will be a war with Iran," Paul responded.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Discussion and diplomacy requires all parties acting in good faith. That seems to be lacking world wide, but particularly lacking in those who wish to kill us. Imagine that.
Scott Adams said something prescient today as usual.
What if this was a set up by the Iranians?
Think about it, it would to get rid of their radical head and the eventual get rid of the El-Quds types and Maybe the Mullahs go into retirement because if you are following Hesmat Alavi on twitter, how can you not see Iran is about to collapse. This clears the way for that Perestroika if you will. Tangent to this all the orgs that this guy had a hand in and Iran funded are the ones causing &h!t aka those at Israel's throat constantly. All these bad actors have less and less options IMHO.
I remain the optimist that a peace deal is coming between the PA and Israel, all that is need is for Iran to usher out the Mullah's, they have had enough, as well as so many others in the region are sick of them, we all our.
Come to think of it if PDJT cleans up this mess he'd be cleaning up the mess left On Isle 39 by Jimma Carter, now if he can do it before he kicks the bucket, that would be delicious, he'd have to see it and deal with it. Good....
All of the FReepers criticizing Rand Paul should remember that he’s a constitutionalist first and foremost. He also sounds a lot like a presidential candidate we knew in 2015 and 2016 ... a guy named Donald J. Trump.
Rand Paul has got this exactly backwards. Now that Iran knows that waging war behind proxies doesn’t work with this President, I think that it may be MORE likely to come to the negotiating table. Obama would give Iran bribes to be good and even when it wasn’t, he would still pay Iran. This President is going to hammer Iran if it misbehaves. Iran probably won’t rush to the negotiating table in order to save face but I think it will ultimately come there. Iran is going to realize that its options are limited.
If we decide to march on Tehran, that’s a declaration of war. If you have a mob trying to take your embassy, or some thug trying to kill your people, you just take care of business.
Diplomacy only actually works when both sides respect the terms agreed to. Iran is notorious for making the agreement, then violating it in almost the same breath.
This was just a good solid fetch upside the head with a white-elm club. Works for attitude adjustment on mules.
Care to take a stab at when he said that? Spoiler Alert! It was on Sept. 10, 2001.
Do you remember what happened the next day?
He says that like it was ever alive to begin with...
But, folks should fear not... The SJWs are already racing to the rescue and, doing what they do best, which is to blame it all on t3h j00000z that are (apparently) holding The Donald’s leash.
/yes, sarc.
Rand can be so right at times and so ridiculously blind stupid the next day. Trump has been doing his best to get us out of that quagmire while taking fire from all sides. Trump didn’t put us in this situation but he damn well is not going to do a Vietnam cut and run or an Obama Benghazi. I assume Rand’s alternative would be more prayers for more dead Americans.
The first prerequisite for diplomacy is they know you mean business. Establish that, and diplomacy can proceed.
This is the Rand Paul I despise.
When we’re Middle Eastern negotiation not morbid?
Rand, STHU
“death of diplomacy”
Depends on how you define diplomacy. With Obama it means Americans embrace servitude. The Iranians may have to adjust to President Trump who is willing to use American power.
Obama never once used American power to enforce its will.
What the hell.
Shut up Rand!
The Iranians dropped a drone out of the sky and attacked the U.S. Embassy. The bad act is done.
Move on to retaliation.
We should drone George Soros next.
In re: post #48, Mark Kevin should be Mark Levin. Thanks for nothing auto-correct.
I suspect Rand wants more Sauds to die against Iran. I think enough Americans have died for sand people to last the end of time. Putting our boys there to protect sand people is not the answer. The rest of the me will never sacrifice themselves for the safety of Americans.
What a disgusting remark from a devout coward.
When the religion of a theocratic society recommends that the leaders lie and dupe their opposites whenever force will not give them sufficient leverage to conquer them, you have a societal collision, not a diplomatic problem.
Deception, Lying
and Taqiyya
Does Islam permit Muslims to lie?
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences” or “gain the upper-hand over an enemy”
There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya (the Shia name). These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
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.