Ron And Rand Paul At Odds About How To Handle ISIS


Rand Paul has created controversy again with his comments on foreign policy, speaking in favor of a deeper war in Iraq.  The controversy began afew weeks ago, when Rand Paul published an editorial in Time Magazine, saying that he supported “destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily.

Many have accused Rand of “flip-flopping” on the issue, but Rand has responded by saying that he never claimed to have the same anti-war positions that his father did.

This week, when asked if he had changed his mind about ISIS in favor of interventionism, Rand replied by saying that, “nobody seems to get this, is that I spent the past five years in public life telling everyone that “hey, I’m not an isolationist” … and when they find out I’m not, they say I’ve switched positions, because I’m not the position they were saying I was. You know what I mean? So for five years they’ve been accusing me of being something that I say I’m not. And then when they find out I’m really not, they say I’ve changed my position. You can see how it’s a little bit frustrating for me.”

Ron Paul feels differently, his comments on the subject have been vehemently against intervention.

If we weren’t there nobody would be getting killed,” Ron Paul said. “If ISIS still existed without us being there, maybe [Syrian President Bashar] Assad and maybe Iran would take care of them.”

“They hate each other and we hate ‘em all – except for the Free Syrian Army, those moderates who made $50,000 handing over the journalist to ISIS – if that isn’t an insane foreign policy I don’t know what the definition of insanity is,” He added.

More from Ron Paul on ISIS: