Rand Paul turned into a hawk on Iran and libertarians are burning his stuff

[PierzStyx]

Lol, it's funny to see so called "libertarians" support an entangling alliance with Iran.

Yep, "libertarians" like Dr. Ron Paul.




http://64.147.104.30/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/248414-ron-paul-supports-iran-deal

 

[65fastback2+2]

here's a full list of Israel-US agreements: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/MOUs.html

The security and defense sections are quite long.

 

[PierzStyx]

nice try...so their religion forbids it but up until 2003 they were said to be building one per the IAEA and starting back up in 2007, the IAEA said they were researching it.

But hey, its "forbidden" so we should trust Muslims that will blow themselves up for religion.

None of this matches up, thus rand leaving off the last part of the statement changes nothing.

If the fatwa was between 2003 and now then yes, Rand Paul is being purposefully deceptive to gain ground with the war hawks and you are being purposefully ignorant.

 

[PierzStyx]

Gotta support Obama's foreign policy deals, eh?

Yep, "libertarians" like Dr. Ron Paul support this agreement.




"Ron Paul Supports Iran Deal" http://64.147.104.30/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/248414-ron-paul-supports-iran-deal

 

[HankRicther12]

You cannot uphold our current agreements and revert to trade only.

here is a list of SOME of the US-Israel agreements.



Breaking or upholding are Rands only 2 options because the agreements already exist.

Its the same way when we purchase a property...we have to assume the leases of the tenants and uphold the leases. We cant just change them willy-nilly because we're new landlords and didnt make the original leases.

Same with Rand, as President, he cannot CHANGE our obligations to Israel. He can break them or uphold them.

Would you prefer he campaign on breaking them or upholding them?

I just wouldn't even bring them up, I guarantee that most people are not even remotely aware of any of those things you listed. Frankly I don't care who wrote them, I never agreed to them so no I would not honor them.

Your attempt to relate it to a lease is not valid, if I am buying said lease I would have knowledge of those deals and if I agree to them then yes, I would be obligated to uphold them, but you are suggesting the American people are obligated to deals that they did not make, and Rand is obligated to carry them out for the people who did not agree to them.

Those deals were not made by the American public, no President has any obligation to honor them.

 

[rg17]

I wish Justin Amash and Thomas Massie were running!

 

[PierzStyx]

You cannot uphold our current agreements and revert to trade only.

here is a list of SOME of the US-Israel agreements.



Breaking or upholding are Rands only 2 options because the agreements already exist.

Its the same way when we purchase a property...we have to assume the leases of the tenants and uphold the leases. We cant just change them willy-nilly because we're new landlords and didnt make the original leases.

Same with Rand, as President, he cannot CHANGE our obligations to Israel. He can break them or uphold them.

Would you prefer he campaign on breaking them or upholding them?

Actually the President can do a number of things in regards to treaties. I have seen nothing suggesting the President needs Congressional approval to end a treaty. Though there is some issue of constitutionality, courts have repeatedly refused to rule on the issue when former Presidents have done so.

Further, not all international agreements are treaties as US law understands the term.

Finally, I wish Rand Paul would campaign on a morally consistent platform. Campaigning to fund Israel but to de-fund other nations makes great political sense, it really appeals to those who love Israel and don't care about the atrocious pro-military, socialist, human rights violating policies of Israel. But morally funding Israeli statism and violence while de-funding other nations for responding to violence with violence is incoherent and immoral, it gives tacit approval to the humanitarian nightmare that is the Israeli Palestinian policy. I find the fact that Rand is willing to sacrifice his integrity for votes to be morally repugnant.

The fact that he opposes the Iran deal? Well, to quote Ron Paul; on the Iran deal Dr. Ron Paul said, " It's to our benefit; it's to the benefit of world peace" and that "it does not threaten our national security." http://64.147.104.30/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/248414-ron-paul-supports-iran-deal
He in fact supports it whole heartedly and denounces those who oppose it as neocons. http://www.ronpaul.com/2015-07-20/ron-paul-iran-agreement-boosts-peace-defeats-neocons/

 

[65fastback2+2]

If the fatwa was between 2003 and now then yes, Rand Paul is being purposefully deceptive to gain ground with the war hawks and you are being purposefully ignorant.

Lets examine a couple of things here.

1) There is a fatwa against terrorism.
2) There is a fatwa against suicide bombers.
3) There is a fatwa against Isis.

The fatwa covers any weapons of mass destruction, which Khoemini put in place and Khamenei reissued in 2005.

Yet in 1997, Iran admitted to producing chemical weapons...which was against the fatwa. In 2003, Khamenei said Iran had never produced chemical weapons....which they had already admitted to...which was already against an issued fatwa.

Point being, Iran has broken their fatwa's before, then denied breaking them after breaking them.

Cliff notes: Iran has lied about their weapons before and his broken fatwa's before.

Why on earth would you trust them now?

Which brings us to Khamenei's comments...and Rands comments...Rand has said basically, why would you trust a government and an agreement when the leader turns around the next day and says death to America!

Lets look at some of his recent statements:

"Death to America!"

"Nuclear industry R&D is an issue they spent years trying to stop it, but now they’ve written & signed it. It only means #IRAN’s authority."

"12 years of challenge with Iran made six powers accept spinning of thousands of centrifuges and continuation of R&D in nuclear industry."

You seriously trust this guy's fatwa that they've broken before? I sure dont. Not for an eye-blink.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/27/did-irans-supreme-leader-issue-a-fatwa-against-the-development-of-nuclear-weapons/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ion.2C_stockpiling_and_use_of_nuclear_weapons

 

[William Tell]

I wish Justin Amash and Thomas Massie were running!

Why? They know Rand, and are 100% behind him. They know he's one of us, Ask them yourself. The establishment also knows he's one of us.

 

[65fastback2+2]

I just wouldn't even bring them up, I guarantee that most people are not even remotely aware of any of those things you listed. Frankly I don't care who wrote them, I never agreed to them so no I would not honor them.

Your attempt to relate it to a lease is not valid, if I am buying said lease I would have knowledge of those deals and if I agree to them then yes, I would be obligated to uphold them, but you are suggesting the American people are obligated to deals that they did not make, and Rand is obligated to carry them out for the people who did not agree to them.

Those deals were not made by the American public, no President has any obligation to honor them.

You really should do some research on the constitutionality of a treaty, how it is approved by the senate and signed by the President and its authority. Hint: We have several of these with Israel.

Yes, we have 100% obligation to honor them. Saying otherwise is being foolish.

 

[rg17]

Why? They know Rand, and are 100% behind him. They know he's one of us, Ask them yourself. The establishment also knows he's one of us.

So if Rand doesn't get nominated we would have 2 more liberty candidates.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Actually the President can do a number of things in regards to treaties. I have seen nothing suggesting the President needs Congressional approval to end a treaty. Though there is some issue of constitutionality, courts have repeatedly refused to rule on the issue when former Presidents have done so.

Further, not all international agreements are treaties as US law understands the term.

Finally, I wish Rand Paul would campaign on a morally consistent platform. Campaigning to fund Israel but to de-fund other nations makes great political sense, it really appeals to those who love Israel and don't care about the atrocious pro-military, socialist, human rights violating policies of Israel. But morally funding Israeli statism and violence while de-funding other nations for responding to violence with violence is incoherent and immoral, it gives tacit approval to the humanitarian nightmare that is the Israeli Palestinian policy. I find the fact that Rand is willing to sacrifice his integrity for votes to be morally repugnant.

The fact that he opposes the Iran deal? Well, to quote Ron Paul; on the Iran deal Dr. Ron Paul said, " It's to our benefit; it's to the benefit of world peace" and that "it does not threaten our national security." http://64.147.104.30/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/248414-ron-paul-supports-iran-deal
He in fact supports it whole heartedly and denounces those who oppose it as neocons. http://www.ronpaul.com/2015-07-20/ron-paul-iran-agreement-boosts-peace-defeats-neocons/

I didnt say Rand couldnt end the treaty. I said it was one of his two options, but I believe the far worse position to take while campaigning.

Agreed, not all agreements are treaties. We do have Congress approved and President signed treaties with Israel and those are as US Constitution understands the term.

The only funding he has ever voted for was $225 million for Israel Missile Defense. Again...we have an agreement to defend them as they do us.

He hasnt voted for giving them offensive weapons. his goal has been to fund israel's defense while defunding surrounding nations offense...because as he stated he didnt believe in funding an arms race.

 

[Occam's Banana]

nice try...so their religion forbids it but up until 2003 they were said to be building one per the IAEA [...]

The IAEA did not say any such thing.

According to the IAEA, as of its report of November 2003, there was "no evidence" that Iran was engaged in a nuclear weapons program.

Nor has the IAEA ever said that Iran was "building one" prior to 2003.

 

[65fastback2+2]

The IAEA did not say any such thing.

According to the IAEA, as of its report of November 2003, there was "no evidence" that Iran was engaged in a nuclear weapons program.

Nor has the IAEA ever said that Iran was "building one" prior to 2003.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSTRE7AG0RP20111118

Almost unanimously, the agency's 35-nation board passed a resolution expressing "increasing concern" about Iran's nuclear program, after a U.N. report last week said the Islamic state appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb.

"The whole world now knows that Iran not only sought to hide its uranium enrichment program from the world for more than two decades, but also engaged in covert research and development related to activities that can have only one application: building a nuclear warhead," he said.

Last week's IAEA report presented a stash of intelligence indicating that Iran has undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability. It has stoked tensions in the Middle East and redoubled calls in Western capitals for stiffer sanctions against Tehran.

You were saying?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Lets examine a couple of things here.

1) There is a fatwa against terrorism.
2) There is a fatwa against suicide bombers.
3) There is a fatwa against Isis.

The fatwa covers any weapons of mass destruction, which Khoemini put in place and Khamenei reissued in 2005.

Yet in 1997, Iran admitted to producing chemical weapons...which was against the fatwa. In 2003, Khamenei said Iran had never produced chemical weapons....which they had already admitted to...which was already against an issued fatwa.

Point being, Iran has broken their fatwa's before, then denied breaking them after breaking them.

Cliff notes: Iran has lied about their weapons before and his broken fatwa's before.

Why on earth would you trust them now?

Which brings us to Khamenei's comments...and Rands comments...Rand has said basically, why would you trust a government and an agreement when the leader turns around the next day and says death to America!

Lets look at some of his recent statements:

"Death to America!"

"Nuclear industry R&D is an issue they spent years trying to stop it, but now they’ve written & signed it. It only means #IRAN’s authority."

"12 years of challenge with Iran made six powers accept spinning of thousands of centrifuges and continuation of R&D in nuclear industry."

You seriously trust this guy's fatwa that they've broken before? I sure dont. Not for an eye-blink.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/27/did-irans-supreme-leader-issue-a-fatwa-against-the-development-of-nuclear-weapons/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ion.2C_stockpiling_and_use_of_nuclear_weapons

There is no need to "trust" Iran. That is the whole point of the unprecedentedly stringent inspections & compliance regime incorporated into the "Iran deal" - which is the most draconian ever imposed upon any nation's nuclear power program. For that very reason, anyone who does not "trust" Iran - and who is not being deliberately obstructive - ought to be very much in favor of the deal.

 

[phill4paul]

The only funding he has ever voted for was $225 million for Israel Missile Defense. Again...we have an agreement to defend them as they do us.

 

[65fastback2+2]

The IAEA did not say any such thing.

According to the IAEA, as of its report of November 2003, there was "no evidence" that Iran was engaged in a nuclear weapons program.

Nor has the IAEA ever said that Iran was "building one" prior to 2003.

From the IAEA report

43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to thedevelopment of a nuclear explosive device:
• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials bymilitary related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex,Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from aclandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing ofcomponents (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

Full report here: http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_8Nov2011.pdf

 

[65fastback2+2]

There is no need to "trust" Iran. That is the whole point of the unprecedentedly stringent inspections & compliance regime incorporated into the "Iran deal" - which is the most draconian ever imposed upon any nation's nuclear power program. For that very reason, anyone who does not "trust" Iran - and who is not being deliberately obstructive - ought to be very much in favor of the deal.

Rand is not against the deal...he has explicitly said it FALLS SHORT. For example, he doesnt like that sanctions are dropped BEFORE Iran has proven anything through inspections and compliance.

That is not saying he doesnt want a deal at all...its saying he wants proof before dropping sanctions...not the other way around.

People just dont listen to Rand...they hear one like excerpt somewhere and flip out.

Paul said Friday the support for negotiations is where "I differ from some Republicans," and said he doesn't think they need to be immediately stopped."I think they need to keep the sanctions in place but I think keeping the door open, continuing conversations, is better than war," he said.

Where is he ever against a deal there? He isnt.

 

[65fastback2+2]

here is explicitly what Rand wanted in the agreement

the Kentucky senator said his three concerns were: “1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran.”

He would have gladly voted for the agreement had those 3 been included. And as with most Rand votes "Doesnt go far enough" usually gets a no-vote.

 

[robert68]

here is explicitly what Rand wanted in the agreement



He would have gladly voted for the agreement had those 3 been included. And as with most Rand votes "Doesnt go far enough" usually gets a no-vote.[/FONT][/COLOR]

"Except for that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" The sanctions on Iran are evil in themselves, and Rand supports them.