Well, I think the Senator has a better grasp on foreign policy than you.

Yet here's the thing: He's wrong. 1. We're not arming ISIS in Syria. We're not arming their so-called allies. We're not doing anything to bolster ISIS in Syria. Like I mentioned above, one of the groups we fund inside Syria is the SRF. They were designed to specifically fight ISIS inside Syria. We are also funding several groups within the FSA and a group called Harakat al-Hazm; none of these groups fight alongside ISIS. Shit, barely any group fights alongside ISIS anymore inside Syria. They have a lost a great deal of support among the Syrian opposition (hence my statement of them being only nominally affiliated with them) since they mainly fight the opposition and Kurds now. I also want to elaborate on this aspect: Before their blitzkrieg, the Assad regime barely targeted ISIS. They barely targeted them. There some reports and accusations out there that the Assad regime left ISIS alone (not really supporting them, but leaving them be for the time being) because they were derailing the opposition. They were forcing many groups to stop fighting Assad and fight them. There are also reports that ISIS and Assad have an agreement on oil wells and refineries in Dier az-Zour. 2. He is oversimplifying the situation by saying that us funding groups inside Syria is what caused the chaos in Iraq to happen. This is pretty flat out false. He is completely leaving out the fact that Maliki has pursued largely sectarian policies inside Iraq; policies that deeply disenfranchised the Sunni's inside Iraq. When ISIS took over Ramadi and Fallujah earlier this year, a lot of the former Sahwa groups did nothing to stop them. Why? Because they didn't trust the government. When ISIS started this blitzkrieg, they were welcomed in Anbar and Nineveh provinces by the Sunni's. Again, the reason being is that with ISIS the Sunni's knew that they would be able to get better services and representation (there is a nice VICE news report out now with an interview of a Mosul Sunni that essentially says this). Likewise, the largely Shi'ite military left their posts in part due to not caring about protecting Sunni areas--since, you know, sectarianism isn't a one-way street. Him saying that Maliki is an ally isn't that accurate. Is he friendly towards us? Mainly, but he's more of an ally to Iran. If we wish to see a unified Iraq rally behind the government and military to beat back ISIS, Maliki and his sectarian policies and cabinet will have to go. There will have to be a better representative government of all of Iraq's religious and ethnic sects; this is something we can help them accomplish. But saying that he needs to stay is the wrong thing here. Likewise, working with Iran will only further a sectarian divide. 3. Libya is a shithole because of our inaction post-intervention. He did not mention that we have barely helped them establish a new government, a new military, better social services, etc. after we disposed of Qaddafi. This is less involvement after we intervened. With a lot of experience in uprooting governments, we should have known better than let them handle that. We didn't have to send troops to help, but doing more to put them in the right direction in regards to forming a new government, regrouping and reorganizing the military, etc. should have happened. I can almost guarantee you that we wouldn't be seeing the levels of violence Libya is seeing right now. For one, a reorganization of their military would have enabled them to start incorporating and/or disarming many of the same militia groups plaguing Libya with violence right now. More involvement in helping their government probably would have hastened the formation of a new one; something they've yet to really accomplish. 4. He is right we don't have to nor need to send troops back to Iraq. However, ISIS does pose more of a threat to the United States than what he's saying. They have stated their intention of attacking us and our interests in the region. It should be noted that historically speaking, almost every single al-Qaeda organization has focused more funds and attention on local or regional conflicts. Yet, AQAP, AQ Central, and the TTP have all attempted (Central has succeeded) attacking us in the mainland. They have always been more concerned with the near enemy than the far enemy, with diverting funds and attention to attacking the far enemy when needed. For instance, a good portion of the 9/11 hijackers were being trained in Afghanistan to go to Chechnya. So, while ISIS is indeed focused on Syria and Iraq right now, that doesn't mean that they aren't a threat to us. 5. [quote]Well, I think the Senator has a better grasp on foreign policy than you.[/quote]I doubt this. See, he is probably just repeating what one of his foreign policy staffers told him prior to this interview. Paul, himself, did not go to school for IR or foreign policy. That's why he, and so many other congressmen and women have staffers for various aspects of politics. They have an education staffer, a tax policy staffer, an economics staffer, a foreign policy staffer, an intelligence staffer, a domestic policy staffer, etc. As far as this is concerned, I would say that I have a pretty solid foundation in foreign policy. This is what I am going to school for, this is what I study, this is what I like to do. I think I would be able to handle myself in a debate with the staffer that gave him this information. EDIT: 5.5: I am also getting really frustrated at all these new "experts" on the Flood, Reddit, and elsewhere that since the blitz they have became these so-called "experts" on ISIS. Despite sounding like a goddamn hipster, I have followed the group since they took on the moniker ISIS earlier this year and before that I followed al-Qaeda in Iraq. It is really disheartening and frustrating when someone in my position gets ignored or gets called "wrong" by one of these "experts".

Yeah, you're repeating political rhetoric and intention, whereas Rand imo, is acknowledging what's actually happened. I believe the chaos in the middle east is a direct result of our involvement, and caused destabilization giving radical Islam a foothold and an opening in the power vacuum. I think arming rebels tied to ISIS and Al Qaeda is a terrible idea, I think he's absolutely correct, and I think the Senator has more credibility than you. Sorry.

I'm not repeating political rhetoric; I am telling you what happened and what is happening. You can disagree with me, I don't care. That is your right. Doesn't make you correct in some aspects of the topic at hand, but it's your right.

I do disagree. I don't buy anything you're saying. Don't take offense to this, but I don't think war mongerers(citizens and politicians alike) will ever realize the devastation their policies cause, because their intentions don't necessarily reflect the results.

[quote]I do disagree. I don't buy anything you're saying. [/quote] You're talking to the guy who studies these wars. Again, what do you do?

I study these wars too. Except I acknowledge the results of the policy, instead of repeating intention. It's no conspiracy, that our weapons aren't being applied in ways wished.

[quote]I study these wars too.[/quote] Of course kid. Sure you do.