Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul: No U.S. Interests at Stake in Syria
washingtontimes.com ^ | August 28, 2013 | Stephen Dinan

Posted on 08/28/2013 2:27:49 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday that the U.S. has no direct national security interests at stake in Syria’s civil war, as he cautioned President Obama against ordering military strikes on the Middle East nation.

Mr. Paul, possibly the leading anti-war Republican in the Senate, said the U.S. should condemn use of chemical weapons — an accusation rebels have made against the Syrian regime — but said if a decision to take military action is made, it should come from Congress, not from the White House.

“We should ascertain who used the weapons and we should have an open debate in Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement,” he said.

“The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States,”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; iran; paul; randpaul; randsconcerntrolls; russia; syria; waronterror

1 posted on 08/28/2013 2:27:49 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

They only reason we are going is to save face for the Nobel peace prize winner that holds the red line...


2 posted on 08/28/2013 2:30:11 PM PDT by Caliban (Politics is war conducted by other means...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

I am sure not clear on who it was that used the chemical weapons from the Iraqi stockpile in Syria.


3 posted on 08/28/2013 2:34:51 PM PDT by originalbuckeye (Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caliban
They only reason we are going is to save face for the Nobel peace prize winner that holds the red line...

I strongly suspect that he considers the chance to help Islamists kill Christians an added bonus.

4 posted on 08/28/2013 2:34:55 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo ( Walker 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Not to side with Obama or against Rand Paul, but is this really true? Certainly the situation in Syria affects Israel and other countries in the region friendly to us.


5 posted on 08/28/2013 2:35:04 PM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

“The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States,”

Hard to argue with that.


6 posted on 08/28/2013 2:37:30 PM PDT by McGruff (Strange times are these in which we live...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday that the U.S. has no direct national security interests at stake in Syria’s civil war

no sh*t Sherlock!

7 posted on 08/28/2013 2:38:08 PM PDT by immadashell (The inmates are running the asylum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Israel and Saudi Arabia are friendly to us and have the resources at hand to deal with the mess they are living in.


8 posted on 08/28/2013 2:38:20 PM PDT by CMB_polarization
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CMB_polarization

Saudi Arabia keeps their friends close and their enemies even closer.


9 posted on 08/28/2013 2:39:11 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Caliban
You are wearing your finest tuxedo and walking to a friend's wedding. On the way, you see a rabid pit bull and a mangy wolf begin to fight.

Do you jump in to help, and which wretched beast do you help?

Idiots are in charge.

Obama intervenes in Syria

10 posted on 08/28/2013 2:40:12 PM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Not to side with Obama or against Rand Paul, but is this really true?

Yes, this is really true. Assad is in a fight against al qaeda - the guys who killed 3,000 Amicans on 9/11. For some strange reason *cough, obama is a muslim brotherhood manchurian candidate* our presitard is hellbent on helping al qaeda. As long as the U.S. stays out of it, Syria is a problem for its dicatator and the terrorists to figure out. Once we start bombing and killing civilians in a show of force to punish Syria for killing civilians, we expose Israel to attack, not from Syria, but from Iran.

You have to be pretty stupid to interject yourself into a skunk fight.

11 posted on 08/28/2013 2:43:35 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Obama may want to wait until the paint all around the corner he is in has dried.


12 posted on 08/28/2013 2:44:02 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
No U.S. Interests at Stake in Syria

Not so fast. My guess is the U.S has interests in Syria especially because our ally, Israel, is affected by just about everything that goes on in Syria, not to mention Syria's ties to another dangerous rogue state trying to become nuclear, Iran. However, that is not say we should be somehow going to war against them. The so-called "Bush Doctrine" is stupid and anti-American.

Why do these people, movements, ideologies swing from one extreme to another? I'm a libertarian (small "L" - I'm in the Republican party) and I see no reason to be isolationist and pull the covers over our heads. Reagan had a good perspective in foreign affairs and defense. "We maintain the peace through our strength..." He was loyal to foreign allies and dealt carefully, wisely, circumspectly, but decisively with questionable and non-ally foreign countries. He seems to have been the last president to understand the use of sound verifiable intelligence to influence our interests abroad including stealth and surgical strikes when necessary instead of the mutton-headed baseball-bat diplomacy Bush favored in invading Iraq and setting the table for Obama to continue.

13 posted on 08/28/2013 2:53:38 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
At one time we could have possibly got behind some rebels that would have been friendly to the west and US but that train has long left the station.

If King Obama would actually ask congress or present an argument to the American people, he was two possible positions:

1.) Secure or destroy the Chemical weapon so not to be use against the US or our Allies. Unfortunately, this strategy takes a lot of Balls with boots on the ground. We do not have Panetta or Hillary to send Obama to the gulf course, start the attack, then pull him off the golf course to "oversee" the operation.

2.) Obama could make the Hitler vs Stalin argument. Although the rebels will not support the US and will be a threat, it is better than Assad as an agent of Iran and the Shia Crescent. No way would the King admit to this.

However, after Syria turns into a terrorist day camp, the apologist for the King will spin the lesser of two evils and Obama knew this all along.

14 posted on 08/28/2013 2:56:52 PM PDT by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

Tend to agree with Dr. Paul on this one.


15 posted on 08/28/2013 2:58:15 PM PDT by oldsicilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Rand is absolutely correct.


16 posted on 08/28/2013 2:59:24 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

Yes but Assad is aligned with Iran.

I’d have taken Assad out when we had our whole army in Iraq and he was supporting attacks on our troops. And we should have put a moderate government in power, not the al queda factions.


17 posted on 08/28/2013 3:03:19 PM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Williams
And we should have put a moderate government in power, not the al queda factions.

It doesn't work that way in that part of the world.

18 posted on 08/28/2013 3:04:22 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Williams
I’d have taken Assad out when we had our whole army in Iraq and he was supporting attacks on our troops. And we should have put a moderate government in power, not the al queda factions.

Woulda, shoulda, here we are in the real world. You either back Assad, or you back al qaeda, or you stay out of it. Choose.

19 posted on 08/28/2013 3:05:38 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Maybe not US interests but hussein has interests in those ill winds blowing against his bros.


20 posted on 08/28/2013 3:11:10 PM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

“Woulda, shoulda, here we are in the real world. You either back Assad, or you back al qaeda, or you stay out of it. Choose. “


Really no contest. No matter which side we tried to support or if we do nothing we will be hated. History proves this statement to be 100% correct.

Therefore, stay the hell out of it, let them kill as many of each other as possible and don’t put at risk a single American or waste a single dollar over that land of perpetual clan warfare.

The Prophet Obunghole, lobbying a few missiles into that cesspool can not, will not, ever stop the centuries of clan warfare. No honest, rational person can claim otherwise.


21 posted on 08/28/2013 3:14:34 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam! 969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots

Superb analogy


22 posted on 08/28/2013 3:17:45 PM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

Alternately, we could kill everyone over there...


23 posted on 08/28/2013 3:38:51 PM PDT by Hugh the Scot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

“Yes, this is really true. Assad is in a fight against al qaeda - the guys who killed 3,000 Amicans on 9/11. For some strange reason *cough, obama is a muslim brotherhood manchurian candidate* our presitard is hellbent on helping al qaeda. As long as the U.S. stays out of it, Syria is a problem for its dicatator and the terrorists to figure out. Once we start bombing and killing civilians in a show of force to punish Syria for killing civilians, we expose Israel to attack, not from Syria, but from Iran.”

Al Qaeda linked groups, behind the Benghazi killings of Americans including our ambassador, train jihadists for Syrian rebel groups! http://freebeacon.com/u-s-al-qaeda-linked-group-behind-benghazi-attack-trains-jihadists-for-syrian-rebel-groups/

When Obozo Liar decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qaeda or any enemy, who has killed thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11 or in the past.

Quite an alliance! The al Qaeda Islamic thugs/serial killers, who slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, will then be fighting alongside the very nation, whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. The same killing thugs, who killed our ambassador and 3 others in Benghazi last September. He refused to send our military to help those Americans and allowed them to be slaughtered in Benghazi. Yet, he will use our military to fight against Syria’s enemies, al Qaeda.

What would have happen to FDR if he had ordered our Flying Tigers to attack the army of China instead of Japan’s air force and troops in China? The same evil Japanese military that killed our sailors and others on December 7, 1941. The same evil Japanese military which slaughtered millions of innocent Chinese with their cruel aerial bombings and on the ground military slaughter and rape of innocent Chinese.


24 posted on 08/28/2013 3:40:46 PM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Obozoliar and his thugs in his outhouse lie 24/7/365. They are unable to tell the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
AMAZING how quiet the Anti-War liberal left is on yet another pending undeclared war by the Peace Prize President Obozo Liar, isn't it??

LBJ went from being a so called great president with the liberals with his war on poverty, which is still being lost, to one of the worse presidents ever after he deepened the Nam War because of the so called Gulf of Tonkin event.

Now, Obozo Liar appears to be following in the footsteps of LBJ with his lies about Assad and Syria, while covering for the Muslim Brotherhood Thugs and al Queda in Syria.

"Obozo Liar is drawing us in and he will go with or without the consent of the Congress and the Consent of the Governed. This could be an impeachable act if he botches it and was not legally covered. What's it to him if a few US pilots get shot down, some guys get seriously injured in the cruise missile prep on our ships, Americans citizens are kidnapped by Hezbollah in Beirut,, US Embassy and consulates across the Middle East are MANPAD-ed with major strikes, and otherwise all hell breaks loose. Domestically, he can get NSA, Obozo care, Fox News wiretap-gate, IRS-gate and Benghazi off the front pages."

If Obozo Liar decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qaeda. Quite an alliance! The Islamic thugs/serial killers, who slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago.

25 posted on 08/28/2013 3:43:52 PM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Obozoliar and his thugs in his outhouse lie 24/7/365. They are unable to tell the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I disagree with Paul on aid to the Egypt military. The Egypt military deals with the illegal aliens in the Sinai. Israel would not get away with those methods.

The chemical attack was not directed by Assad. It could be an angry soldier whose family was killed, a double agent or the FSA.


26 posted on 08/28/2013 3:56:59 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion; LucyT; null and void
Joe Biden Has No Problem Impeaching Obama at All If He Crosses The Line with Unjustified Syria Attack...
27 posted on 08/28/2013 4:01:27 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Now will Republicans rally around Rand or are they all brainwashed like Robert King and John McCain?


28 posted on 08/28/2013 4:13:32 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt’s Generals:
‘How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?’
Foreign Policy | 15 Aug 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3055253/posts

Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt’s military — even as Cairo’s security forces massacre anti-government activists.

[by “anti-government activists” is meant church-burning jihadists]


29 posted on 08/28/2013 4:29:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

President Joe Biden. That does sound like an improvement...


30 posted on 08/28/2013 4:31:48 PM PDT by null and void (Frequent terrorist attacks OR endless government snooping and oppression? We can have both!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
Follow the money.


31 posted on 08/28/2013 4:35:37 PM PDT by CMB_polarization
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion; Lancey Howard; jazusamo

Every retired military officer I’ve seen on TV has stated that there are no US security interests at stake regarding Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

I agree that the conflict between al Qaeda and Assad is not a US security interest.

I do think, though, that al Qaeda potentially possessing chemical weapons is an issue of US security due to terrorist delivery systems and the willingness of terrorists to suicide while killing hundreds/thousands of people.

An aerosol can similar to a bug bomb released at a sporting venue in the US could be devastating.

Obama is not talking about doing anything to capture/destroy WMDs, so my concern will not be the motive behind any action he might take.


32 posted on 08/28/2013 4:48:45 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Bob Corker is supporting the strikes against Syria. Another McCain-wannabe RINO.


33 posted on 08/28/2013 4:55:46 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Governor Sarah Heath Palin for President of the United States in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Of course not. They’re Iran’s interests, and Iran needs them to finish its nuclear weapons buildup in order to work for Libertarian interests.


34 posted on 08/28/2013 5:24:36 PM PDT by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Which Libertarian interests are those? I’m curious.


35 posted on 08/28/2013 6:03:30 PM PDT by Hugh the Scot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hugh the Scot

Anything for cheap freight fuel, titles and benefits of royalty for lawyers, open borders, legalized prostitution, legalized abortion, legalized drug cartels, contracts with foreign communist nations against the U.S.A., slavery, etc. Funny, though, that’s a list of desires of all political parties now.


36 posted on 08/28/2013 6:34:00 PM PDT by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hugh the Scot

I was trying to summarize demands of various types and shadows of L(l)ibetarians, because like feminists, various liberaltarians have stated support for every side of every argument, each depending on the group their trying to persuade. The official Libertarian Party has its official platform on the Net, BTW, for those who don’t mind spending much time divining the meaning of every word and implications.


37 posted on 08/28/2013 6:38:30 PM PDT by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Williams

“I’d have taken Assad out when we had our whole army in Iraq and he was supporting attacks on our troops. And we should have put a moderate government in power, not the al queda factions.”

I respectfully disagree.

The USA shouldn’t be “putting” any more governments in power. We need to stop it!


38 posted on 08/28/2013 7:45:27 PM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Clear & concise. Thank you.


39 posted on 08/29/2013 2:11:13 AM PDT by Hugh the Scot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Yes but Assad is aligned with Iran.

Yes, it is true that Assad is aligned with Iran. The problem though is this - when it comes to geopolitics and trying to distil probable ramifications going forward, things are never black and white. Syria has been another Alawite minority leadership for decades, and while they have been a constant thorn in the side of the West/Israel it has been largely a stable situation. Just like Iraq under Saddam, or Egypt under Mubarrak, or even Libya under Gaddafi (once he stopped financing terrorists taking down planes and decided to focus on simply being mad), radical Islam was more or less kept firmly under control. Those strongmen were definitely not saintly, and every now and then you'd hear of Israel sending some F-16s to bomb some random site in Syria or Gaddafi threatening to expose some financial dealings with Sarkozy, etc. But generally it is a stable relationship in the vein of how cops sometimes have a 'relationship' with a criminal gang ...where the gang is operating, but they know not to shoot a cop or to do certain types of crimes, and the cops arrest the gang members but generally don't do a huge operation to get the gang's leadership. Not the best of situations, but a situation that can create a 'stable relationship' for a very long time.

Now, change that. Since Assad is aligned with Iran, let's take him out.

The first (probably the main) question that should be asked is WHO WILL BE THE REPLACEMENT. I think that is the problem that has plagued a lot of Western influence in other countries, where certain leaders are replaced without careful thought on who will fill the power vacuum created.

Now, let's look at this particular situation. The groups seeking to replace Assad are aligned with Jihadi organizations, and are already executing attacks on minority groups (Alawites, Christians, etc) in the parts of Syria that they control. Those groups are unlikely to be friendly towards Israel if the problem was Assad's relationship with Israel. Or take Egypt. Egypt some decades back was one of the main adversaries to Israel, engaging in serious war with the Jewish state. With Mubarrak, Egypt not only had normal relations with Israel, but it became the USA's main ally in the region. When Mubarrak was taken out, the Muslim Brotherhood started rattling sabres against Israel, and it is only with the new revolution (coup?) weeks back that they were taken out. Or look at Libya ...Gaddafi was not a nice guy, but are the people running the place now better than he was or far dangerous?

I cannot predict the future, but I can assure you that if Assad is removed in a year or so people will be wishing that hadn't happened.

40 posted on 08/29/2013 4:29:32 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

It’s fine to say there is no US interest at stake in a certain situation. It costs nothing to say so. But if you’re gonna do it, then tell us where there IS a US interest at stake.

Five seconds before Flight 10 hit the tower the US didn’t have much interest at stake in Afghanistan. Then, all of a sudden, people in NYC had to choose whether to burn to death or jump 89 stories.

When I hear Rand Paul address all that I’ll have some reason to imagine that a do-nothing foreign policy might work.


41 posted on 08/29/2013 4:29:50 AM PDT by PaleoBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaleoBob

Check post 31 above for the reason why we had very little at stake in Afghanistan, even after the planes hit the towers.


42 posted on 08/29/2013 4:44:28 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi tio es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]



Only Three Days until September!
Please Contribute Today!

43 posted on 08/29/2013 7:22:29 AM PDT by RedMDer (http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Williams
Not to side with Obama or against Rand Paul, but is this really true? Certainly the situation in Syria affects Israel and other countries in the region friendly to us.

Given Obama's track record I think whoever takes over in Syria would be even less friendly than the current regime, you know, dragging our dead Ambassador in the streets and all.

I hope you don't think Obama's doing this for the sake of Israel. Everything Obama has done in the last 5 years has been negative for both Israel AND the United States.

I have more faith in Netanyahu as a leader than I do our current Commander In Chief. I doubt Netanyahu will strike Syria with "just enough muscle as to not be mocked".

That Obama statement there says a lot.

44 posted on 08/29/2013 11:09:22 AM PDT by tsowellfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PaleoBob
Five seconds before Flight 10 hit the tower the US didn’t have much interest at stake in Afghanistan. Then, all of a sudden, people in NYC had to choose whether to burn to death or jump 89 stories.

True! But you are comparing apples to oranges. You see, those terrorists we chased out of Afghanistan are the opposition to the very regime we are thinking about bombing in Syria.

Why would we want to help them yet again?


45 posted on 08/29/2013 11:14:33 AM PDT by tsowellfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson