Rand Paul explains vote for Iran sanctions

[anaconda]

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)

But these sanctions are intended to cripple their GDP. Crippled GDP means no food and medicine. Possibly no shelter. Possibly sanitation services. Law enforcement. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Even if we send medical supplies they would perhaps be stolen by bureaucrats and thugs. This is ridiculous. Plus, as Ron Paul suggests, sanctions unify the people with their leadership, where before the leadership would be more vulnerable to political discord.

Rand should be making the "evidence" against Iran a very high profile issue in the Senate and in the media. I see where Rand is going with this. I just am worried as hell that that this begins his slippery slope towards political compromise after political compromise, until he is a generic Washington D.C. insider and only a mere shadow of his former self.

 

[muzzled dogg]

Sellout

 

[ryanmkeisling]

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.

I hate to say it but he danced around the question like a neocon in waiting. Can't wait till we get our email answer, will he attempt to justify the vote, or simply state "I took the middle ground?" In fact I am gonna call back on Monday to let him know how disappointed I was by his inability or unwillingness to justify a vote for an act of war against a country that has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO US.

It appears Rand Paul is OK with people dying just because he is afraid of them getting the power to develop a nuclear weapon. A dangerous precedent for a man that has presidential aspirations. Is that the type of president we want? That sounds like the reasons we went into Iraq, preemptive actions based on fear and little else. This is truly a severe disappointment from Rand Paul, IMHO.

 

[Brett85]

Sellout

...

 

[muzzled dogg]

Run it bro I won't hit u back

It's just that rand is undermining us on our biggest hurdle with the GOP right here

 

[Brett85]

Run it bro I won't hit u back

It's just that rand is undermining us on our biggest hurdle with the GOP right here

Yeah, but he still says that he's opposed to pre-emptive war against Iran.

 

[MaxPower]

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.

This is roughly what I had surmised regarding Rand's motivations, as I wrote in the "Explanation..." thread. I still strongly doubt that Rand sincerely believes the sanctions are right; I think he decided it would be "spitting in the wind" to try to wage this battle, and went along with them to position himself as more of a "moderate" and "reasonable" person in the eyes of the mainstream.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

Yeah, but he still says that he's opposed to pre-emptive war against Iran.

Sanctions, while not a strike using weapons, are a preemptive strike. Sanctions=act of war. He is perpetuating the very thing that has brought us so much trouble. Sanctions are not diplomacy.

 

[Paul Fan]

Sanctions aren't always acts of war. It depends what happens. Refusing to do business is just boycotting. Stealing ('freezing assets that pass through US control') is aggressive.

 

[ForLiberty2012]

Hes no Dr Ron Paul! Someone needs to inform the Senator that sanctions are an act of war and ultimately hurt the innocent people of Iran and unite them behind their leaders. He even cited examples of how they dont work... Face palm.

 

[Agorism]

Rand needs more of a -I don't give a f%$# attitude- rather than getting talked into this nonsense.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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)

Food and medicines were exempt from the Iraq sanctions as well. The sanctions we placed on Iran are almost a copy/paste of the Iraq sanctions from the 90s. The sanctions weren't just placed on Iran's central bank. To wit:

1) Prohibit the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account on foreign financial institutions engaged in non-petroleum-related transactions with the Central Bank of Iran after 60 days; 2) Impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions, including central banks, engaged in petroleum-related transactions with the Central Bank of Iran after 180 days with 180-day special exemptions tied to the availability of non-Iranian oil on the market and a country’s significant reduction in purchases of Iranian oil;

 

[sevin]

What's sad to me is that if Rand does run in 2016, a lot of people here will be refuse to support him even though he would be the best chance ever of getting a liberty candidate in office. I admire their principles, but it would be a shame if they supported a libertarian or third party candidate that can't win instead of Rand Paul.

 

[ThePursuitOfLiberty]

This is a marathon, not a sprint...
I can't help but wonder when some of you guys are coming to these conclusions about Rand that you understand that he is Ron's son.

He may not be Ron in the flesh, but the only reason Rand is in politics is because of his father.

He is playing the game right now - the guy is not going to be "convinced by the neocons" (insert tin foil hat here) into anything.

Long term, he will have a huge influence on bringing the GOP back to Dr. Paul's views. Remember, we are the early adapters and the innovators... The "early majority/late majority" and "stragglers" are usually the bigger % of the population and that is where Rand is going to help our cause.

 

[LibertasPraesidium]

So if the Central Banks are horrible corrupt institutions, then Rand voting to put sanctions on them is a bit closer to doing nothing than doing something. Isn't it our fault they have a central bank in the first place? (since we've refused to get rid of our own) (Not to mention the IMF)

 

[cindy25]

this was stupid politically; by 2016 any war will be unpopular, and the sanction vote will be the gulf of Tonkin vote of its day.

he should have just done an Obama and taken the day off

 

[ifthenwouldi]

He is playing the game right now

Oh, the irony of Rand's father roasting Santorum for "playing the game."

Rand gets NO pass from me because of his father. We're all individuals, remember?

 

[green73]

HORRIBLE

 

[trey4sports]

Iran is the furthest thing from a threat.

 

[trey4sports]

This is a marathon, not a sprint...
I can't help but wonder when some of you guys are coming to these conclusions about Rand that you understand that he is Ron's son.

He may not be Ron in the flesh, but the only reason Rand is in politics is because of his father.

He is playing the game right now - the guy is not going to be "convinced by the neocons" (insert tin foil hat here) into anything.

Long term, he will have a huge influence on bringing the GOP back to Dr. Paul's views. Remember, we are the early adapters and the innovators... The "early majority/late majority" and "stragglers" are usually the bigger % of the population and that is where Rand is going to help our cause.

no, but he isn't 100% on the same page with Ron either.

He did not do this vote to be a "team player" he didn't "play the game" he voted for and supports sanctions on Iran.