Rand Paul's Common Sense Response to Barack Obama's War Mongering Speech

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Mar 28, 2011.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816


    Sep 28, 2007
    Take 5 minutes and watch this outstanding response to Obama's speech by Freshman Senator Rand Paul:

    What did you think of Obama's speech? Of Paul's? Which one more reflects your own worldview?

    For me personally, this really emphasizes to me that 'change' isn't just a slogan; its an ideology, it's a worldview. It's time to start standing up for smaller government, less foreign entanglements, less debt, less stimulus, less handouts, less, less, less. Obama won't get you there, he's just more of the same... only worse. People like Rand Paul and his father represent real change, beyond what either two major parties have been able to offer during the past 100 years.

    Complete Transcript:
  2. flopticalcube macrumors G4


    Sep 7, 2006
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    Not being an American, I won't wade into Constitutional issues but I wish our PM would have stayed out of this as well. It's a very dangerous precedent to meddle in another nation's civil war. Perhaps if the West had stopped playing nurse maid to these dictators in the past the problem wouldn't exist.
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Obama is quite within his rights according to the War Powers Resolution ...

    The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
  4. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Sep 16, 2007
    Indiana, US
    Honestly, I do think it is within the power of the Commander in Chief to go to war within the 60 days. Everyone always gets into a power-hungry fit whenever it happens, but I think it is quite clear that the President has those 60 days.

    Whether we should be in Libya or not, I really don't think so. Meddling with that area of the world has proven costly before, and I do think it is a big waste of money. But electing someone who thinks that discrimination is a right among small businesses, and that the department of education should be cut, is totally moving backwards as a society IMO.
  5. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2010
    I was fully on board until the god bless part. Oh well, nobody's perfect but I am starting to like this Paul fellow.
  6. KingYaba macrumors 68040


    Aug 7, 2005
    Up the irons
    Stand by and watch, what? What would Gaddafi do to the protesters? They're all armed now so it wouldn't end pleasantly.

    It's being led by NATO and the US is not committing ground troops. It's a no-fly zone and I would have done the same if I were Obama.
  7. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Sep 23, 2005
    That is if America is under immediate threat, hence Bush's big case about WMDs before invading Iraq. America was under no threat from Libya. The President cannot simply go to war because he feels like it. That is definitely not a power he has by the Constitution but it is a power he'll take nonetheless. The Executive branch has taken more and more power away from the legislature and, most of all, the people and I don't think it'll stop until things get much worse.

    I really hope he isn't under the Keynesian impression that war is good for one's economy. This is the mark of an empire in decline.
  8. bobber205 macrumors 68020


    Nov 15, 2005
    I agree. I don't really mind what's going on in Libya.
  9. mgguy macrumors 6502


    Dec 26, 2006
    Haven't heard much from Obama about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS lately ...
  10. CaptMurdock Suspended


    Jan 2, 2009
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    Haven't heard from Boehner about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS either.

    Anybody who thinks this is anywhere near what Dubya got us into with Iraq has the reading comprehension of a head of cabbage.

    That said, I hope we don't get much deeper into this.
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010

    I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...

    § 1543. Reporting requirement

    (a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported

    In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

    (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

    (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

    (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;​

    the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

    (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

    (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

    (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.​

    If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?

    I think the War Powers Act reaches beyond there needing to be an immediate threat.

    But please, correct me if I am wrong.
  12. Sam Yikin macrumors regular

    Oct 28, 2007
    Agreed, this is nothing like Iraq. That said, the role of the US-led coalition now extends fairly far beyond a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians, as authorized by the U.N. Resolution. According to this, they're actively targeting Gadhafi's forces with both military might and propaganda in order to cause Gadhafi to lose support.

    I'm not saying I'm opposed to this, this seems like a much smarter way to fight a war than full-scale invasion/nation building.
  13. sysiphus macrumors 6502a


    May 7, 2006
    This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.

    That said, if the President does have the authority to call for such action irrespective of a clear and present danger to the security of the USA, then more power to him.
  14. Sam Yikin macrumors regular

    Oct 28, 2007
    This Constitutional issue is something of a moot point... Congress has only declared war FIVE times in the history of the country (the War of 1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, WWs I&II). There are 125 occasions where the President has acted with no approval from Congress. Also, the War Powers Resolution is essentially valid, as it has never been tested by courts.

    In my personal view, I'm fine with the president being able to enact a limited amount of military action, as long as there are no long-term liabilities for the country. Congress is so juvenile, inefficient, and bitchy that I'm fine with not having to rely on them every time there is a clear humanitarian need to act.

  15. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Jul 27, 2010
    We aren't waging a war, merely dropping tons of bombs
  16. Pachang macrumors regular

    Dec 17, 2009
    I dislike Rand's implication that the libyans fighting could be "terrorists". It's unesscessary given the situation they are in. But I see no reason why the US gov should be in involved. There are always people that could be saved from death whether it's by massacre or disease or whatever it doesn't mean that it falls on the us tax payers to fix it. People who want the US to become entrenched in another war this should pick up a gun and go fight it themselves. It's only a no fly zone now but time will tell.....
  17. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Jul 4, 2004

    Perhaps if you started paying attention... only nine or so days ago:

    and wrote a piece in USAToday just a few days beforehand:

    Do try to keep up.


    As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.

    This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.

    As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:

    The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
  18. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Sep 23, 2005
    I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
  19. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Jul 4, 2004

    So farfetched. May I remind you of a little matter called a Security Council resolution at the instigation of the Arab League? Bush and the neo-cons have no regard for international law.

    To suggest that President Obama represents some new nadir in presidential overreach is pure baloney.

    Check out all US military engagements since the 1940s. None of them with congressional approval. You can argue that these many dozens, including Vietnam, all represent unconstitutional actions... but you can't argue that Obama represents some kind of new and dangerous deviation from the history of the last 70 years.
  20. itcheroni, Mar 29, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2011

    itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Sep 23, 2005
    I think all of them represent unconstitutional actions...although I didn't bother checking the list. Some of them might of passed the congressional test if they had been forced to go that route. It would have saved us a lot of money not to have engaged in so many military activities.

    And I think Obama's actions concerning Libya, in regards to overreaching of Executive powers, are worse than Bush's concerning Iraq. And Bush was probably the worse up until now. Jesus, now I'm depressed.
  21. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.

    We're heard quite enough about KILLING JOBS, KILLING JOBS, KILLING JOBS from the Republican governors. :D
  22. likemyorbs macrumors 68000


    Jul 20, 2008
    I think Jobs is having some health issues right now. But seriously, would you like him to pull them out of his ass? Isn't job creation something that's supposed to happen naturally in the private sector? I really don't see what the president can do to change it. As for Libya, Obama is not out of line, anyone would have done the same thing. At first he was criticized for dragging his feet on it, then he was criticized for doing it. he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. This guy can never catch a break.
  23. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816


    Sep 28, 2007
    It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.

    The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...

    We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.



    I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.

    Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
  24. skunk macrumors G4


    Jun 29, 2002
    Republic of Ukistan
    May I quote your precious Constitution?
    Perhaps you missed that bit.
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    A couple of points, 5P ...

    1. I have never supported this latest military action. All I did in my posts was to point to the law that allows Obama to do what he did. It's the same law that's been used to justify numerous military actions since it's passing by both Democrats and Republicans alike. Pointing to a law and saying "this" is why something is allowed is not the same as endorsing either the law or the action that it permits.

    2. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton are proof that Democrats have long been willing and able to use the military. The unfortunate truth is that both parties have been "parties of war" to this very day.

Share This Page