Rand Paul explains vote for Iran sanctions

[Brett85]

http://www.dailypaul.com/216460/sen-rand-paul-explain-his-vote-in-favor-of-sanctions-on-iran

 

[bluesc]

Well I'm glad that's cleared up.

Of course, I couldn't disagree with him more, but at least the speculation will stop.

 

[specsaregood]

Can't sum it up for us?

 

[tsai3904]

at least the speculation will stop.

I think the speculation now is whether he truly believes it will do some good or whether he did it to be a team player.

 

[Brett85]

Can't sum it up for us?

He said that he supports sanctions because he wants to do "something" rather than "nothing." He basically said that he takes a middle position of supporting sanctions against Iran but not war.

 

[bluesc]

I think the speculation now is whether he truly believes it will do some good or whether he did it to be a team player.

Good point. I'll guess team player judging by the way he answered.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

He said that he supports sanctions because he wants to do "something" rather than "nothing." He basically said that he takes a middle position of supporting sanctions against Iran but not war.

Yes, that's his explanation. I, for one, accept it.

On the other hand, I would urge Rand to always consider the economic and crony capitalist motivations that also come into play. In other words, this specific sanction strengthens the Fed.

 

[Agorism]

Seems like a political move more than an ideological one. Democrats do this stuff all the time on "national defense" as de call it.

 

[Brett85]

Seems like a political move more than an ideological one. Democrats do this stuff all the time on "national defense" as de call it.

Yeah, every single Democrat in the Senate voted for the sanctions as well. And they're supposed to be the "anti war" party.

 

[JuicyG]

Rand has the right idea about the danger Iran poses once they obtain nuclear weapons.

 

[doctor jones]

I've been told by people who work in his office that he voted for sanctions (on their central bank not on medical supplies and things of that nature) so that if it comes down to him having to stop the war by himself with a filibuster (or at least force a declaration) then he will have the political capital to say that he's been going through the "diplomatic" steps (because even though we know sanctions lead to war -- in the media they are portrayed as ways to prevent war). If he doesn't vote for any sanctions the perception is that, "oh well you tried to sit by and ignore it and because of that now we have to go in."

Again you may not agree with his tactics but his ultimate goal of preventing war and the fact that he's not voting for sanctions on medical supplies and food, etc. are what we want in a U.S. Senator.

 

[Brett85]

Rand has the right idea about the danger Iran poses once they obtain nuclear weapons.

You're certainly in the minority here.

 

[Brett85]

I've been told by people who work in his office that he voted for sanctions (on their central bank not on medical supplies and things of that nature) so that if it comes down to him having to stop the war by himself with a filibuster (or at least force a declaration) then he will have the political capital to say that he's been going through the "diplomatic" steps (because even though we know sanctions lead to war -- in the media they are portrayed as ways to prevent war). If he doesn't vote for any sanctions the perception is that, "oh well you tried to sit by and ignore it and because of that now we have to go in."

Again you may not agree with his tactics but his ultimate goal of preventing war and the fact that he's not voting for sanctions on medical supplies and food, etc. are what we want in a U.S. Senator.

Thanks for that information.

 

[anaconda]

He said that he supports sanctions because he wants to do "something" rather than "nothing." He basically said that he takes a middle position of supporting sanctions against Iran but not war.

If we listen to his explanation, however, one would guess that of his three options (doing nothing, doing a little, and doing a lot) "doing nothing" would be the proper choice, based upon his four minute explanation. Since when is killing thousands of children and others with sanctions "doing a little...?" And, were I in that audience, I would have asked what his evidence is for Iran's nuclear weapons program? Since my understanding is the evidence has zero credibility (alleged English Power Point files off some lab worker's laptop PC...Rand..you're kidding, right???). And, since they have never attacked anyone, why is it, exactly, that they cannot have a nuclear weapon? Like the U.S., Pakistan, and Israel? Rand evaded the critical issues here. Very disappointing answer. Well, Rand is clearly playing politics. Hopefully with some bigger plan in mind.

 

[Jeremy]

I like his answer. He spoke against war and even said sanctions might not work.

 

[Jeremy]

You're certainly in the minority here.

I'm a little confused- what is he in the minority about? Rand even brought up the Mossad saying Iran having nukes isn't an existential thread.

 

[Brett85]

Since when is killing thousands of children and others with sanctions "doing a little...?" .

The particular sanctions that Rand voted for aren't the same as the sanctions that killed thousands of children in Iraq. Those sanctions actually targeted food and medical supplies. This particular sanction simply targeted Iran's central bank. (Refer to the post by Doctor Jones above)

 

[bluesc]

I'm a little confused- what is he in the minority about? Rand even brought up the Mossad saying Iran having nukes isn't an existential thread.

JuicyG sees Iran as a threat and supports a preemptive strike.

 

[anaconda]

Rand has the right idea about the danger Iran poses once they obtain nuclear weapons.

What is your evidence that they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon?

 

[Brett85]

I'm a little confused- what is he in the minority about? Rand even brought up the Mossad saying Iran having nukes isn't an existential thread.

I was referring to JuicyG who said that Iran will pose a dangerous threat if they ever get nuclear weapons.