At the RNC, Rand Paul Is Right About the Need To End Wars, but Trump Hasn't Ended Any
Trump even vetoed a bill that would stop him from military action in Iran without congressional approval.

Tonight Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) spoke on behalf of President Donald Trump's reelection. His remarks were heavily influenced by Paul's own longstanding positions against excessive foreign military interventions, but only loosely tied to Trump's actual record.
"I flew with him to Dover Air Force Base to honor two soldiers whose remains were coming home from Afghanistan," Paul said. "I will never forget that evening. I can tell you the president not only felt the pain of these families but the president is committed to ending this war.
"President Trump is the first president in a generation to seek to end war rather than start one. He intends to end the war in Afghanistan. He is bringing our men and women home."
You all may remember that Barack Obama ran for president also promising to end our overseas wars, and it did not happen.
As we approach the end of Trump's first term, we cannot help but notice that the president has not, in fact, ended any wars and has in fact risked escalation of military engagement between the United States and Iran when he approved the drone-strike assassination of an Iranian general.
It's true that Trump is promising to bring thousands of troops home from Afghanistan, and that's wonderful, assuming it all happens and he completes the pullout. The Trump administration is, in reality, resisting any and all attempts by Congress to rescind the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that previously gave President George W. Bush permission to wage war against Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In his speech, Paul railed against Biden for supporting this war. But when Congress, in a rare act of bipartisanship, passed a resolution stopping the president in engaging in any further military action against Iran without congressional approval, Trump vetoed it. Paul voted for this resolution and has consistently voted to rescind the AUMF.
And despite Paul's attempts to insist tonight that Biden and the Democrats will continue overseas wars or start new ones, the congressional record shows that in reality, Democrats have been joining with Paul, agreeing with him in votes to bring the troops back home. It's actually the White House and hawks within the Republican Party who have really been standing in the way.
Now both the Democratic Party 2020 platform and Trump's 50-point plan for his second term promise, yet again, to end the wars and bring the troops home. For those who truly oppose foreign military intervention, the appropriate way to look at Trump's first term is not unlike Obama's. This promise has not been kept.
Watch more about Trump's failed promises to end war:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Democrats have been joining with Paul, agreeing with him in votes to bring the troops back home"
They are out of power in the senate and the white house. Of course they vote that way now in the house. If Biden gets back in expect lots of foreign wars. He along with most democrats voted for the Iraq invasion.
You guys are so credulous. You don't know who you're dealing with on the left. They are violent and love war.
He's not credulous, just dishonest.
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…HBd after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier.
Here’s what I do….......> Click here
Which doesn't really change the fact that, despite all his talk of "bringing home the troops", Trump has brought home damn few of the troops.
He's tried, on many occasions, but the Dem's and Rino's have shit their pants each time.
And look at how even the Reasonistas bitched when Bolton got canned, or how they fluffed his book, and look at all the tears over the troop pullouts from Germany.
Can you link to an example of Reason "bitching" when Bolton was fired?
Such a loyal intern.
I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h…MIc someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…,,,,,,,,,► Click here
Here's reason parroting Bolton. Or a defense of China. Either one im sure you enthusiastically support.
https://reason.com/2020/06/18/bolton-trumps-tough-on-china-stance-was-a-campaign-strategy-not-a-trade-policy/
What the hell kind of logic is that. I thought the reason you guys like Trump is because he stands up to the Democrats. But he is too scared to bring the troops home because the Democrats will shit their pants? And nobody shed any tears for that crazy nutjob Bolton. The only tears I shed was when Trump hired him in the first place.
It is almost like despite your wish for trump to be a dictator, he does try to follow applicable laws and his advisors. He has been trying to get out of Afghanistan for a few years and hopefully completes it next year. He has begun taking troops out of nato aligned countries like Germany. Is your hatred that consuming you can't recognize the good?
Yeah, but Shack's statement is a straight lie. The Democratic House voted to oppose troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria
It's insane that he's just straight up lying
But, I would expect no less. Shack was a big proponent of "Russians under your bed!" and then hand waved away FBI abuse
"They are out of power in the senate and the white house. Of course they vote that way now..."
Any evidence of this theory?
Do you tire of having to pretend you don't support democrats all the time when you get caught supporting them all the time?
Barrack Obama's 8 years in office and two new wars.
They weren't wars, they were "kinetic military actions". Obama even said so himself.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nine-months-in-congress-mute-on-obamas-war-118384131406.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/war-powers-aumf-rand-paul-senate-242662
8 years of Obama?
This is the same group of democrats who impeached trump for not sending weapons fast enough.
Shack is also incorrect as they have not joined with Rand and instead passed bills opposing troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria.
Again, the only way that they can make the case for their inevitable Biden vote is to pretend this is 2006. It's embarrassing at this point
Every month makes more than $18k by just doing very easy and simple online job from homr. Last month i have made and received $19428 from this work by just giving this only 2 to 3 hrs a day. Everybody can now get this job and start earning money online just by follow instructions on this web HERE.............Go To Link
[ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME ]
Start making money this time... Spend more time with your family&relative by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65o to $7oo a month. I've started this job and earn handsome income and now i am exchange it with you, so you can do it too. You can check it out here........USA Online Working
But WWIII started in January, and we're not in WWIII now. Trump at least ended WWIII. But besides WWIII, he also ended our involvement in Syria and he's working to end our involvement in Afghanistan. So something like two and a half wars that Trump ended. That's a little more than none.
Poor Shackford, trying to portray Trump as a warmonger isn't easy.
Especially after the last five presidents.
He didn't portray Trump as a warmonger. He portrayed him as not doing as much as he promised to or claims he has.
Damn him for not being the dictator you accused him of.
I'm never ceased to be amazed by the logical contortions that TDS victims can make.
Trump didn't started any new wars, didn't escalate any ongoing wars, and he tried his best to bring back troops and limit military involvements of the USA worldwide. But then again, for those with TDS this still isn't enough. But how would it be, when everything they ever claim and argue is either blatantly disingenuous or outright false?
I hope Shackford didn't pull a muscle with this stretch of a position.
Killing Solemani did not start a war, and it was the right thing to do. Solemani made mischief in the middle east for decades, he oversaw the killing of hundreds of US troops in Iraq and thousands of Iraqis.
What was the outcome of hitting Solemani in the forehead with a warhead? Iran shook their fists and were highly annoyed.
Trump has not started any wars and has, in fact, deescalated some.
You might not like Trump but you must vote for him.
This is deceptive. Trump beat ISIS. They're utterly defeated. If the war against ISIS isn't ended, no war is ever ended.
Trump also signed a peace agreement with the Taliban. Not a complete end to that, but it’s more than Obama did to end it in 8 years. (Meanwhile Obama brought the US into several new armed conflicts and let ISIS get going.)
How can you Reason when you don't care to be honest?
If Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, Trump should win at least two.
"If Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, Trump should win at least two."
Trump doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, and Obama didn't deserve one times two.
OT:
Tim Pool- "Republican Convention Got SIX TIMES More Livestream Viewers Than Democrats"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv7gbZrhMxI&pbjreload=101
Foreign policy was definitely on my mind when I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Her record consists of one smart decision after another, and she would have made a terrific Commander in Chief.
All is not lost, however. Biden has built a similarly impressive foreign policy record during his decades in government service. As President he will secure a decisive victory in Afghanistan, then turn his attention to the real threat — Russia.
#LibertariansForBiden
#LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia
Smart decision to not go to Wisconsin?
Ugh, that sexist trope again?
Look, nothing about the 2016 election was Clinton's fault. She ran a great campaign. Unfortunately there were factors beyond her control:
(1) Russian hacking
(2) The Comey letter
(3) Media bias, especially regarding her minor fainting incident
(4) GamerGate
#StillWithHer
(5) People remembered that she got a U.S. ambassador murdered and tried to cover it up.
(6) Cankles!
Tony has finally been beaten up enough to quit lying about the media being biased against that hag; only took three years.
Of course her losing the election was her fault. SHE didn't win. No one else lost the election for her. She missed opportunities and clearly did not run as great a campaign as her opponent; can't blame anyone else but her. I'm glad she lost because she'd have been far worse than anything we can complain about Trump. But my personal view aside, she continued the Obama divisiveness ("basket of deplorables" to describe half the population), accused middle America of racism that wasn't there, lied repeatedly about important things like Benghazi (not just crowd sizes or other horn-tooting exaggerations), actively breached security, lied about it, "lost" tens of thousands of emails, more lying, and while running and after losing, she still had no idea why she lost. And to this day, the [shellshocked] left still can't understand that the country just did not, and does not want anymore of the left's policies and politics. Not nuanced or complicated.
This Chicago Tribune article does a great job of explaining it. https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-lost-white-voters-20170914-story.html
I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i'm hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink... strive it, you HERE? click here
Shack, you are by far the shittiest writer here on foreign policy and that's a high bar to clear. You also straight-up lied in your article pretending as if the Democratic house didn't vote to oppose troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria.
Enjoy your HuffPo gig
Huh? How about not starting any new ones? How about taking the sane course and avoiding war with Iran? Trying to take the sane course and smooth things out with North Korea (for a while at least)? How about not escalating involvement in Syria? How about ramping down deployments in Afghanistan?
Trump is bad on spending and trade and immigration, but he's practically Ron Paul on foreign policy.
Who posted this? Because who ever did is clearly not Rand Paul or cleared it with him. Reason has jumped the track. Rand's whole speech tonight was contrary to what this hit piece implied and it falsely [IMO] used Rand Paul's name to give it weight. I'm still waiting for Reason to write a reasonable argument to the threat of China.... I've asked/posted on over 30 Libertarians leaders and NOT ONE has responded to my request. Libertarians.... effeminate men.
HERE► Brilliant article. I had wondered how future generations would view the mind boggling hysteria that is currently gripping the whole world, especially Europe and the USA. We look back at past centurhysteria can be – like a stampede. Thought the writer was a historian, his analysis is so sharpies and wonder how they could have been so stupid. I guess it shows how powerful mass . He has seen through the Emperor’s new clothes!Check my site.
>>Trump even vetoed a bill that would stop him from military action in Iran without congressional approval.
every president would veto this on grounds of ludicrosity.
Making extra salary every month from home more than $15k just by doing simple copy and paste like online job. I have received $18635 from this easy home job and now I am a good online earner like others. This job is super easy and its earnings are great. fdc..Everybody can now makes extra cash online easily
….USA JOBES
.
Is Shackford too stoopid to realize that bipartisan Congressional actions these days are designed to either 1) get Trump, or 2) expand the state). Change your name to Hackford.
As long as Americans have off shore investments that depend on the US Empire's troops, foreigners will be invaded, killed, and US troops will die "fighting for freedom". Meanwhile, the opium crop, 75% of which grows in Afghanistan, is controlled by US special interests, conspiring with the biggest gang of thugs in the world.
"...Meanwhile, the opium crop, 75% of which grows in Afghanistan, is controlled by US special interests, conspiring with the biggest gang of thugs in the world."
Haven't you kept up? It's controlled by Elvis' alien love child!!!!
Other than Syria, of course, but we all know libertarians don't know what the fuck Aleppo is.