LP VP's opinions of Ron Paul (Listen Up)

[SeanEdwards]

What is "economic" pressure? Why not just say diplomacy?

Diplomacy is all the tools of power of the state, short of physical violence. And war is diplomacy by other means.

 

[familydog]

Diplomacy is all the tools of power of the state, short of physical violence. And war is diplomacy by other means.

Okay...but what about Barr's position?

 

[SeanEdwards]

Okay...but what about Barr's position?

Economic pressure is a potential diplomatic tool. I'm not speaking on behalf of Barr, but I'm guessing he explicitly spelled out that policy position just to be clear. It's apparent just from reading this thread that there are widely divergent understanding of what diplomacy means. Some people apparently think diplomacy consists only of strongly worded letters. These people are misinformed. I imagine Barr was just trying to be clear that his concept of diplomacy included something more than speeches.

 

[familydog]

Economic pressure is a potential diplomatic tool. I'm not speaking on behalf of Barr, but I'm guessing he explicitly spelled out that policy position just to be clear. It's apparent just from reading this thread that there are widely divergent understanding of what diplomacy means. Some people apparently think diplomacy consists only of strongly worded letters. These people are misinformed. I imagine Barr was just trying to be clear that his concept of diplomacy included something more than speeches.

Okay...but what is more than speeches? In that blog, he says that Washington should not leave Iran alone. That's explicit. Moving on, he then used the words strengthening economic pressure. He also used the words strengthening political pressure implying that political pressure and economic pressure are different. So, can you give me examples of what can constitute political pressure and what constitututes economic pressure? It seems to me, strengthening economic pressure means strenghtening economic sanctions? What else could it mean? Iran is not the only country he supports sanctions against. So, is it fair to consider him an interventionist?

 

[N13]

Good Read.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Okay...but what is more than speeches? In that blog, he says that Washington should not leave Iran alone. That's explicit. Moving on, he then used the words strengthening economic pressure. He also used the words strengthening political pressure implying that political pressure and economic pressure are different. So, can you give me examples of what can constitute political pressure and what constitututes economic pressure? It seems to me, strengthening economic pressure means strenghtening economic sanctions? What else could it mean? Iran is not the only country he supports sanctions against. So, is it fair to consider him an interventionist?

Economic pressure could include barriers to trade, freezing international assets, etc.

Political pressure could include such things as rhetoric, barring travel of individuals, attempting to convince other international entities to shun the state, barring the targeted state from participation in international organizations.

I think that "strengthening economic pressure" sounds like economic sanctions to me. If you think such acts are "interventionism" then I suppose you could call him an interventionist. Personally, I think there is a distinction between non-violent intervention and violent intervention that is not adequately communicated by simply calling someone an interventionist. I don't think a trade barrier is equivalent to facilitating a coup d'etat, so I don't think both acts should be described with the same word.

 

[BKom]

What this discussion ignores is the high correlation between trade embargoes and protectionism, and war.

Historically, the two go hand in hand so often that it's hard not to equate them to some degree.

We need to face it. The libertarian candidate was Ron Paul. The candidates of the Libertarian Party this year are neither libertarian nor are they very appealing. Barr is a fraud. He was a fraud as a conservative, although closer to that mark. And Root is at tool, and not a sharp one. Sad that my former party has so degenerated.

 

[familydog]

Economic pressure could include barriers to trade, freezing international assets, etc.

Political pressure could include such things as rhetoric, barring travel of individuals, attempting to convince other international entities to shun the state, barring the targeted state from participation in international organizations.

I think that "strengthening economic pressure" sounds like economic sanctions to me. If you think such acts are "interventionism" then I suppose you could call him an interventionist. Personally, I think there is a distinction between non-violent intervention and violent intervention that is not adequately communicated by simply calling someone an interventionist. I don't think a trade barrier is equivalent to facilitating a coup d'etat, so I don't think both acts should be described with the same word.

Ahh ok. Makes sense. Thanks for the examples.

I'd argue that indeed sanctions are a form of interventionism. All the controversy surrounding Iran is basically about them acquiring nuclear technology. That is something that only affects the internal affairs of their nation. Now, one could argue that they could develope nuclear weapons, and then use them. However, that is pure speculation and is a case of pre-emption. If his policy is pre-emption, count me out. Also, take a look at Barr's record. While in Congress, he supported whole-heartidly trade sanctions against Cuba. Why? I'm assuming it was for the same reason that everyone else who supported those sanctions gave. We don't like Castro and he is a communist. That is an internal affair of Cuba and had nothing to do with us. But is saying we don't want to trade with Cuba messing with their internal affairs? While on the surface, certainly it appears that it has nothing to do with their internal affairs. However, the people inside Cuba are being punished by the United States government (the same is said for the Iranian people). Does our government have to affect their government in order for it to be intervention? I'd say no. Ron Paul argues that the US government spending millions of dollars in propaganda in Iran is intervention. That directly affects the people, not the government.

At the same time, one could argue that economic sanctions can be violent. Didn't sanctions on Iraq in the 90s result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children?

 

[yaz]

Ahh ok. Makes sense. Thanks for the examples.

I'd argue that indeed sanctions are a form of interventionism. All the controversy surrounding Iran is basically about them acquiring nuclear technology. That is something that only affects the internal affairs of their nation. Now, one could argue that they could develope nuclear weapons, and then use them. However, that is pure speculation and is a case of pre-emption. If his policy is pre-emption, count me out. Also, take a look at Barr's record. While in Congress, he supported whole-heartidly trade sanctions against Cuba. Why? I'm assuming it was for the same reason that everyone else who supported those sanctions gave. We don't like Castro and he is a communist. That is an internal affair of Cuba and had nothing to do with us. But is saying we don't want to trade with Cuba messing with their internal affairs? While on the surface, certainly it appears that it has nothing to do with their internal affairs. However, the people inside Cuba are being punished by the United States government (the same is said for the Iranian people). Does our government have to affect their government in order for it to be intervention? I'd say no. Ron Paul argues that the US government spending millions of dollars in propaganda in Iran is intervention. That directly affects the people, not the government.

At the same time, one could argue that economic sanctions can be violent. Didn't sanctions on Iraq in the 90s result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children?

Sanctions are a part of interventionism. Those people are not "evil" like you said, but have motives. There are people that are evil but those few people are taken care of through their own police actions. Free trade is the best way to spread democracy. Sanctions are useless. As I said earlier, we don't hurt governments through sanctions only innocent people in the country. I hate arguing with interventionists. I can point out some good books for you to read so I won't have to type books worth of information, Sean.