Hotair: Rand Paul differentiates foreign policy from his father’s brand

[klamath]

The issue arises when we force other countries not to sell to said sanctioned country (this case being Iran) with the threat of sanctions towards them should they violate our bullyish whims, which everytime we get on the subject of sanctions you conveniently leave out. The analogy with the car salesman quickly falls apart as well when we determine that we aren't talking about cars and other petty materialistic shit but necessities such as medicine, oil, food etc. We can argue semantics all day long on whether sanctions are or are not an act of war. When it all boils down would you concede that sanctions are aggressive, that they stregthen the internal power structure of said sanctioned country by way of a sense of obligatory nationalism, that they effect the poorer citizenry a hell of a lot more than the leaders of said sanctioned countries, that they breed hatred towards the United States, that they often times lead to war, and that they are foolish in terms of a far sighted peaceful foreign policy approach? Because if we can agree on those simple facts, then the issue of whether or not they are an act of war becomes moot.

Also what you are forgeting is the government of Iran is using the money to build a nuclear weapon at the expense of their own people for their own short sightedness in a quest to build a weapon that indiscriminately incinerates 100,000 people at a time.

 

[Brett85]

The FBI could find NO connection between OBL and 9/11,, and they were trying.
They could not connect him to it at all.

Osama Bin Laden claimed credit for the 9-11 attacks.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Nobody is forcing anybody else through an act of violence to NOT sell. Every country has the right to sell but they don't have the right to expect to continue to be our trade partner because they sell to what we consider our enemy.

Acts of violence? No, I guess I'll concede to that. Acts of aggression? Meh, we can dance all night. Semantics be damned, are you willing to concede to my points above? (The last two sentences of the post you quoted)

 

[bolil]

Osama Bin Laden claimed credit for the 9-11 attacks.

So it seems.

 

[klamath]

Three words: Marque and reprisal. He eventually made them vote on going into Afghanistan. While the bill was vague and open-ended (and he should not have voted for it, I might add) he has since apologized a number of times and has realized his mistake. The days after Sept. 11 cannot be compared to relative peace time votes for sanctions against a country who was only acting in terms of predicatble disobedience. i.e. threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. A bad vote yes. But apples to oranges. And Rand Paul has never apologized for his mistake, but rather seems to stand firmly behind it, I might add.

Stating that Pakistan obviously knew UBL was in Abbottabad is a very real concern. Ron Paul is arguing over precedent. A precedent he voted Yay on, I'm sure you will mention, but a precedent nonetheless. We should have brought UBL to trial. Whether or not going into Pakistan at the specific time was what should have been done is another thing we could around and around on. I see both sides of the coin and am personally not troubled to see that POS dead. (Though I'd much rather have seen the firing squad commencing or gallows being built after evidence was exhausted in a court of law) Was there other ways it could have happened? Of course.

If all RP would have said was we should not have given the kill order on sight but bring him out alive I would have been with RP but he didn't and I think he is wrong. What ron said is he would have worked with Pakistan and I think that is out right ignorant.

 

[sailingaway]

If all RP would have said was we should not have given the kill order on sight but bring him out alive I would have been with RP but he didn't and I think he is wrong. What ron said is he would have worked with Pakistan and I think that is out right ignorant.

Ron was concerned with rendition and no trial, particularly given how it was spreading to the US, I'm sure. He wanted people following procedures, and there was never any authorization of force in Pakistan. Obama knew OBL was there six months earlier, and OBL didn't have a gun when taken. I think his main point was trial and procedure, however, this seems to be your pattern to attack Ron to deflect conversation to Ron, when Rand does something people don't like.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Also what you are forgeting is the government of Iran is using the money to build a nuclear weapon at the expense of their own people for their own short sightedness in a quest to build a weapon that indiscriminately incinerates 100,000 people at a time.

Three words again: Yellow cake Uranium. I would like to point out that you can't prove a negative. As in, they say they don't have them. We say they do. How do they prove they do not? Enriching Uranium 235 to 20% for medical radioisotopes is not the same thing as enriching Uranium 235 to weapons grade 90%+.

Please watch this video.

 

[klamath]

Acts of violence? No, I guess I'll concede to that. Acts of aggression? Meh, we can dance all night. Semantics be damned, are you willing to concede to my points above? (The last two sentences of the post you quoted)

I actually I have said before I don't think sanctions are going to work. However I can't fully condeme someones belief that sanctions might be the only and last hope of stopping or delaying a war they in the end will not have any way of stopping.

 

[klamath]

Three words again: Yellow cake Uranium. I would like to point out that you can't prove a negative. As in, they say they don't have them. We say they do. How do they prove they do not? Enriching Uranium 235 to 20% for medical radioisotopes is not the same thing as enriching Uranium 235 to weapons grade 90%+.

Please watch this video.

They are a oil rich country, it is a lot cheaper to build oil based electric plants versus Nuclear. Something isn't adding up.

 

[sailingaway]

They are a oil rich country, it is a lot cheaper to build oil based electric plants versus Nuclear. Something isn't adding up.

Until very recently they didn't have the capability to refine their own oil. I think they can to some extent, but not enough to nearly meet domestic needs. They are a big importer of refined oil/gasoline.

 

[klamath]

Ron was concerned with rendition and no trial, particularly given how it was spreading to the US, I'm sure. He wanted people following procedures, and there was never any authorization of force in Pakistan. Obama knew OBL was there six months earlier, and OBL didn't have a gun when taken. I think his main point was trial and procedure, however, this seems to be your pattern to attack Ron to deflect conversation to Ron, when Rand does something people don't like.

I am not even going to go over that same ground with you. The AUMF limited it to NO single country. ANY country that had OBL was a target.

 

[sailingaway]

I am not even going to go over that same ground with you. The AUMF limited it to NO single country. ANY country that had OBL was a target.

If people had read it that way they would never have needed authorization to go into Iraq. If you research it it is very clear when the Bush administration first started hinting they were planning to read it that way and it was long after we were in Iraq.

Regardless RON always said that was never what it meant, and the idea that it was being used that way made him very angry.

The point here is why he didn't like the way Obama killed OBL out of hand in Pakistan.

Ron himself had sought letters of marque within weeks of 9/11 in order to go after OBL. It wasn't getting him that was the issue, it was the way it was done.

 

[klamath]

Until very recently they didn't have the capability to refine their own oil. I think they now have one refinery.

and they would have a lot more if they weren't spending all their resources trying to perfect the hi tech of nuclear fission. Their government is playing a playing a game too. They are not blameless in this.

 

[sailingaway]

I never said they were blameless, I'm speaking of their capability.

 

[klamath]

If people had read it that way they would never have needed authorization to go into Iraq. If you research it it is very clear when the Bush administration first started hinting they were planning to read it that way and it was long after we were in Iraq.

Regardless RON always said that was never what it meant, and the idea that it was being used that way made him very angry.

The point here is why he didn't like the way Obama killed OBL out of hand in Pakistan.


Ron himself had sought letters of marque within weeks of 9/11 in order to go after OBL. It wasn't getting him that was the issue, it was the way it was done.

No that is what people thought it meant if they didn't read the damned Authorization. It is extremely clear. In fact it is one of the more clear laws written.

 

[sailingaway]

No that is what people thought it meant if they didn't read the damned Authorization. It is extremely clear. In fact it is one of the more clear laws written.

NO ONE thought it meant that, and they DID get a separate authorization to go into Iraq, because people did NOT read it that way. Remember, Bush had just run on a 'modest foreign policy' as compared to Clinton's.

When Bush started HINTING he read it that way the House passed an amendment Ron sponsored with others to a bill CLARIFYING it did NOT mean that, but Pelosi had it yanked in conference committee.

 

[klamath]

Ron was concerned with rendition and no trial, particularly given how it was spreading to the US, I'm sure. He wanted people following procedures, and there was never any authorization of force in Pakistan. Obama knew OBL was there six months earlier, and OBL didn't have a gun when taken. I think his main point was trial and procedure, however, this seems to be your pattern to attack Ron to deflect conversation to Ron, when Rand does something people don't like.

And I call bullshit, I didn't bring Ron into to this. I agreed with amash on sanctions and someone tried to bring the ultimate weapon in, what RP said on sanctions. I disagree with RP. I know you don't want to allow ANYONE to disagree with RP but some of us supported him and still disagreed with some of his ideas.

 

[sailingaway]

You can disagree with him and disagree with what I said, but that is what I believe from watching Ron closely on this at the time. You did bring Ron in about OBL, no one else broached that subject. However, we can disagree.

 

[klamath]

NO ONE thought it meant that, and they DID get a separate authorization to go into Iraq, because people did NOT read it that way. Remember, Bush had just run on a 'modest foreign policy' as compared to Clinton's.

When Bush started HINTING he read it that way the House passed an amendment Ron sponsored with others to a bill CLARIFYING it did NOT mean that, but Pelosi had it yanked in conference committee.

I don't care how many times you try and say that. The bill says ANY COUNTRY.

 

[sailingaway]

It says ANY COUNTRY THAT AIDED IN THE ATTACK ON 9/11.