Rand Paul explains vote for Iran sanctions

[Brett85]

The thing about it is that pre-emptively bombing Iran would give us $10 a gallon gas, which would be more harmful to our national security than Iran getting a nuclear weapon. There are ways that we can defend ourselves here at home without having to intervene overseas. One example would be to focus on building a missile defense system that's capable of knocking down missiles that carry a nuclear warhead. That would take away any threat of Iran or any other country ever nuking us.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

The thing about it is that pre-emptively bombing Iran would give us $10 a gallon gas, which would be more harmful to our national security than Iran getting a nuclear weapon. There are ways that we can defend ourselves here at home without having to intervene overseas. One example would be to focus on building a missile defense system that's capable of knocking down missiles that carry a nuclear warhead. That would take away any threat of Iran or any other country ever nuking us.

Obviously if Iran has no plans to use the weapon, then 10$ gas would be the worse option. But flip that if they do want to use it.

This is why I am interested in knowing what the Ayatollah actually would do. There is no way I would be against preemptive strikes if they indeed planned to use it(or give it to people who would). But the whole argument rests on that IMO.

If we don't ever find out what the true intentions are, would a war still be worth it? I am leaning towards yes, because in that case it would be a 50/50 chance either way.

 

[Brett85]

Obviously if Iran has no plans to use the weapon, then 10$ gas would be the worse option. But flip that if they do want to use it.

This is why I am interested in knowing what the Ayatollah actually would do. There is no way I would be against preemptive strikes if they indeed planned to use it(or give it to people who would). But the whole argument rests on that IMO.

If we don't ever find out what the true intentions are, would a war still be worth it? I am leaning towards yes, because in that case it would be a 50/50 chance either way.

If they ever used nuclear weapons against us, they would basically be committing suicide as a nation, as we would then wipe out their entire country within a matter of hours. Their country would cease to exist. Why in the world would they do that? Do you also realize that North Korea actually has nuclear weapons and haven't attempted to use their weapons?

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

If they ever used nuclear weapons against us, they would basically be committing suicide as a nation, as we would then wipe out their entire country within a matter of hours. Their country would cease to exist. Why in the world would they do that? Do you also realize that North Korea actually has nuclear weapons and haven't attempted to use their weapons?

And why does any of that matter to them, if they actually are suicidal? Think Islamic car bombers but as a nation. If that is the mindset of the leaders, why should we ignore the situation?

Of course I do not know for sure they are suicidal, but I have started to take this matter very seriously.

 

[Brett85]

And why does any of that matter to them, if they actually are suicidal? Think Islamic car bombers but as a nation. If that is the mindset of the leaders, why should we ignore the situation?

Of course I do not know for sure they are suicidal, but I have started to take this matter very seriously.

I didn't say that we should ignore the situation, but just that we should focus more on deterence than intervention. I take the same view as Pat Buchanan.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I didn't say that we should ignore the situation, but just that we should focus more on deterence than intervention. I take the same view as Pat Buchanan.

Deterrence is a given. I am just saying that if they are suicidal, there should be no hesitation to disarm them.

 

[Brett85]

Deterrence is a given. I am just saying that if they are suicidal, there should be no hesitation to disarm them.

I would say that if we actually have intelligence reports that Iran is planning to attack us or attack Israel within a matter of hours or days, we should use military action against them in that situation. But, all of the other GOP candidates are going well beyond that and are basically saying that we should start an all out war because of the possibility of Iran obtaining one nuclear weapon.

 

[ronpaulhemp]

This really sucks. I was hoping Rand Paul would be just like his dad, just maybe a little more "mainstream."

 

[Brett85]

This really sucks. I was hoping Rand Paul would be just like his dad, just maybe a little more "mainstream."

Nobody is exactly like their dad.

 

[Lishy]

Wait so I'm still confused. What was his explanation?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Wait so I'm still confused. What was his explanation?

Gobbldegook.

No, really, his stated explanation is absolutely dreadful, and the worst reasoning he could have given. It's bulletproof evidence that he is neither non-interventionist in foreign affairs or in the economy.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Here's Ron, refuting the mealy-mouthed "doing something instead of nothing" and "doing this to prevent war" justifications, in November:

I would like to express my concerns over the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 and my opposition to it being brought to the Floor for a vote. Let us be clear on one critical matter: the sanctions against Iran mandated by this legislation are definite steps toward a US attack on Iran. They will also, if actually applied, severely disrupt global trade and undermine the US economy, thereby harming our national security.

I am surprised and disturbed that the committee viewed this aggressive legislation to be so bipartisan and uncontroversial that a recorded vote was not even called.

Some may argue that we are pursuing sanctions so as to avoid war with Iran, but recent history teaches us otherwise. For how many years were sanctions placed on Iraq while we were told they were necessary to avoid war? Thousands of innocent Iraqis suffered and died under US sanctions and still the US invaded, further destroying the country. Are we safer after spending a trillion dollars or more to destroy Iraq and then rebuild it?

These new sanctions against Iran increasingly target other countries that seek to trade with Iran. The legislation will severely punish foreign companies or foreign subsidiaries of US companies if they do not submit to the US trade embargo on Iran. Some 15 years after the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 failed to bring Iran to its knees, it is now to be US foreign policy to threaten foreign countries and companies.

During this mark-up one of my colleagues argued that if Mercedes-Benz wants to sell trucks to Iran, they should not be allowed to do business in the United States. Does anyone believe this is a good idea? I wonder how the Americans working at the Mercedes-Benz factory in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama would feel about banning Mercedes from the United States. Or perhaps we might ask the 7,600 Americans who work in the BMW factory in Spartanburg, SC how they would feel. Should the American consumer be denied the right to purchase these products? Is the United States really prepared to take such aggressive and radical action against its NATO ally Germany?

Likewise, the application of the sanctions in this legislation would have a dramatic impact on US commercial and diplomatic relations with Russia and China, who both do business with Iran. It would impose strong sanctions on these countries and would prohibit foreign business leaders – and their spouses and children – from entering the United States. Do we want to start a trade war – or worse – with Russia and China?

The Iran Threat Reduction Act authorizes what will no doubt be massive amounts of US taxpayer money to undermine the Iranian government and foment another "Green Revolution" there. We will establish and prop up certain factions over others, send them enormous amounts of money, and attempt to fix any resulting elections so that our preferred candidates win. Considering the disturbing aftermath of our "democracy promotion" operations in places like Egypt, Iraq, Libya, where radical forces have apparently come out on top, it may be fair to conclude that such actions actually undermine US national security rather than bolster it.

Sanctions do not work. They are precursors to war and usually lead to war. They undermine our economy and our national security. They result in terrible, unnecessary suffering among the civilian population in the target countries and rarely even inconvenience their leaders. We must change our foreign policy from one of interventionism and confrontation to cooperation and diplomacy. This race to war against Iran is foolhardy and dangerous. As with the war on Iraq, the arguments for further aggression and war on Iran are based on manipulations and untruths. We need to learn our lesson and reject this legislation and the push for war.

 

[muzzled dogg]

^yeah

it's no wonder we haven't enlightened the neocons yet on foreign policy...
when so many of us are closet interventionists...
as evident from all the the rand apologists in this thread

disgusting

 

[kylejack]

Obviously if Iran has no plans to use the weapon, then 10$ gas would be the worse option. But flip that if they do want to use it.

This is why I am interested in knowing what the Ayatollah actually would do. There is no way I would be against preemptive strikes if they indeed planned to use it(or give it to people who would). But the whole argument rests on that IMO.

If we don't ever find out what the true intentions are, would a war still be worth it? I am leaning towards yes, because in that case it would be a 50/50 chance either way.

Unbelievable the jingoism I'm hearing in here. Who has attacked more nations in the past 60 years, the United States or Iran? Who was backing Iraq when they attacked Iran? Who has more credibility here, the US or Iran?

The United States is the world's most prolific war-monger.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I am disappoint, Randall.

 

[anaconda]

Wait so I'm still confused. What was his explanation?

I am a huge fan of Rand. However, the title of this thread should be changed to "Rand Paul dodges explanation of sanctions vote and insults everyone's intelligence in the process."

 

[kylejack]

Props to the guy who asked the question. He did a good job of summarizing previous sanctions and how they killed many innocent children.

 

[Brett85]

^yeah

it's no wonder we haven't enlightened the neocons yet on foreign policy...
when so many of us are closet interventionists...
as evident from all the the rand apologists in this thread

disgusting

I'm not trying to excuse Rand's vote, as I disagree with it. I would've voted against this bill. It's just that I don't have to agree with a politician on every single issue in order to support him or her, so this one vote doesn't make Rand lose my support.

 

[jmdrake]

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

Anti-Iran hawk Rick Santorum disagrees with you. At least when he's not talking in front of the national media.

 

[jmdrake]

Deterrence is a given. I am just saying that if they are suicidal, there should be no hesitation to disarm them.

They aren't suicidal. The reason they want weapons is for their protection. Even Rick Santorum (when not in the national spotlight) understands this.