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

[twomp]

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.

Nice try at spinning. Rand Paul deliberately took the comment out of context. That is the reason he DELIBERATELY left out the last part. You being the nut hugger that you are, keep trying to spin it into something else. Hug those nuts!!

 

[Occam's Banana]

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

You were saying?

From the IAEA report

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

Nope. Sorry. There is NO claim in any of the material released by the IAEA that Iran is or ever was building a nuclear bomb. In my reply to your earlier post, I even bolded your assertion that the IAEA had said that Iran was "building one." I did so specifically in order to make it very clear that it was that particular assertion which I was addressing.

Since it apparently did not "take" the first time, I will repeat myself:

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.

Each of these three statements is true, and none of them are refuted by anything to which you have referred in either of your two replies to my rebuttal.

 

[Suzanimal]

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.



Where is he ever against a deal there? He isnt.[/FONT][/COLOR]

It's my understanding that sanctions aren't going to be immediately stopped.

The economic and financial sanctions -- including a U.S. and European Union oil embargo -- will be lifted as Iran complies with the terms of the deal and as U.N. weapons inspectors verify their compliance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-iran-nuclear-deal-lift-sanctions-enrichment-stockpile-centrifuges/

 

[eleganz]

I know that guy personally and from where we are, I can tell you almost all of us who were with Rand are still with Rand. He's the first out of our group in LA to go dark on Rand as of recently.

What the article fails to mention is that the subject of the article was NEVER into partisan politics.


To be honest, 1 super activist is way more effective than 1,000 average online cheerleading Rand supporters combined.

 

[Occam's Banana]

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.

I have "listened" to Rand - and Rand is simply wrong. Sanctions will NOT be "dropped" before compliance.

"Simultaneously with" does NOT mean "before." And "Implementation Day" (when the US is to effect the cessation of "the application of ... statutory nuclear related sanctions") does NOT happen until "the IAEA-verified implementation by Iran of the nuclear-related measures."

From the text of the "Iran deal" (emphasis added): https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf

Sanctions

18. The UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all
provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear
issue - 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929
(2010) and 2224 (2015) – simultaneously with the IAEA-verified
implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran and will establish
specific restrictions, as specified in Annex V.[1]

19. The EU will terminate all provisions of the EU Regulation, as subsequently
amended, implementing all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions,
including related designations, simultaneously with the IAEA-verified
implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran as specified in
Annex V, which cover all sanctions and restrictive measures in the following
areas, as described in Annex II:

[...]

21. The United States will cease the application, and will continue to do so, in
accordance with this JCPOA of the sanctions specified in Annex II to take effect
simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of the agreed nuclear-
related measures by Iran as specified in Annex V. Such sanctions cover the
following areas as described in Annex II:

[...]

Annex V - Implementation Plan

[...] B. Adoption Day [...]

11. The United States, acting pursuant to Presidential authorities, will issue waivers, to take
effect upon Implementation Day, ceasing the application of the statutory nuclear-related
sanctions as specified in Sections 17.1 to 17.2 of this Annex. The President will also
take action to direct that all appropriate additional measures be taken to implement the
cessation of application of sanctions as specified in Sections 17.1 to 17.4 of this Annex,
including the termination of Executive orders as specified in Section 17.4, and the
licensing of activities as specified in Section 17.5.

[...] C. Implementation Day

14. Implementation Day will occur upon the IAEA-verified implementation by Iran of the
nuclear-related measures described in paragraph 15 below, and, simultaneously, the
E3/EU+3 taking the actions described in paragraphs 16 and 17 below, and with the
actions described in paragraph 18 below taking place at the UN level in accordance
with the UN Security Council resolution.

 

[HankRicther12]

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.

You go ahead and do as you please with your own skin, maybe stop trying to tell others what to do with theirs? Probably shouldn't use the word "we", when you do you are presuming to speak for others which you have no right to do.

 

[Occam's Banana]

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.

1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance

Sanctions relief does not precede evidence of compliance (see my previous post above),

2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is entitled to "significant" nuclear capacity. Nevertheless, under the terms of the deal, Iran is going to be restricted to "significantly" less nuclear capacity than other parties to the NNPT (not to mention very "significantly" less than some non-signatories - such as Israel). Given this context, it appears that complaints about Iran being left with "significant" nuclear capacity amount to a complaint that Iran will be left with "any" nuclear capacity ...

3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

Besides the fact that the US has no business forbidding Iran from buying "advanced weapons" (of exactly the sort that the US has hypocritically been happy to sell to other "bad actors"), the whole point of the ban (along with all the rest of the sanctions) was to bring Iran to heel and make them agree to curtail their nuclear program. They have now done so. To object to lifting this part of the sanctions is to effectively say, "We are going to continue sanctioning Iran no matter what they agree to do." That is simply not reasonable.

 

[wizardwatson]

Hank's post #17 in this thread:

How are those the only two options? His dad said let Israel make it's own decisions, we can trade, but that is all.

Would be nice if Ron had Trumps money and assertiveness, or Trump had Ron's integrity and consistency.

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.

You go ahead and do as you please with your own skin, maybe stop trying to tell others what to do with theirs? Probably shouldn't use the word "we", when you do you are presuming to speak for others which you have no right to do.

Hank, please stop going around the board acting intelligent. You're going to end up hurting yourself or someone else.

 

[65fastback2+2]

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

first, he hasnt always: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/03/rand-paul-blocks-iran-sanctions-bill-118887.html

second, he has said several times, they became more dangerous in more recent times.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Nice try at spinning. Rand Paul deliberately took the comment out of context. That is the reason he DELIBERATELY left out the last part. You being the nut hugger that you are, keep trying to spin it into something else. Hug those nuts!!

once again, it is irrelevant that he left it out. it changes nothing to include it.

IF it is true, that religiously they would never build a nuke, WHY ARE WE NEGOTIATING?! What are we negotiating for?!

These are all questions Rand would want answered...but some cant see Rand trying to pin Kerry in a corner and are flipping out for no reason.

If they stopped on their own, Kerry made a bad deal.
If they dont stop, Kerry made a bad deal.
If they never started, Kerry made a bad deal.
If they have decreed they would never do such, Kerry made a bad deal.

It was to paint the obama administration as in the wrong every which way...but some are too worried about falling into some trap of a part of a comment that made not a hill of beans different to rands point.

 

[65fastback2+2]

It's my understanding that sanctions aren't going to be immediately stopped.

Again, to Rand point...We are saying one thing, and they are saying another. Either we're lying or they're lying...if we're lying, uh oh on Kerry, if they're lying, why would you believe a liar to uphold his word, Kerry?

This was all to pin the obama admin in a corner.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Nope. Sorry. There is NO claim in any of the material released by the IAEA that Iran is or ever was building a nuclear bomb. In my reply to your earlier post, I even bolded your assertion that the IAEA had said that Iran was "building one." I did so specifically in order to make it very clear that it was that particular assertion which I was addressing.

Since it apparently did not "take" the first time, I will repeat myself:



Each of these three statements is true, and none of them are refuted by anything to which you have referred in either of your two replies to my rebuttal.

Look, if you have trouble reading...thats your own fault.

The IAEA report is CLEAR, if you can read. If you need me to draw it out for you with some crayons, let me know.

Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing ofcomponents (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

WORK (building) on the development (building) of a design (building) of a nuclear weapon (WEAPON) including the testing (building) of its components (weapon).

There...I slimmed it down to two simple words you can understand...building and weapon. If you still need it in crayon, let me know.

 

[65fastback2+2]

You go ahead and do as you please with your own skin, maybe stop trying to tell others what to do with theirs? Probably shouldn't use the word "we", when you do you are presuming to speak for others which you have no right to do.

Since you're having problems reading like a couple others in here, I'll help you out...hope you're sitting down.

I'll even help you out on how to use context:

We have several of these with Israel.

we have 100% obligation to honor them.

WE have several treaties with Israel. Now, who can have a treaty with Israel in this discussion? My dog. No. My daughter. Still no. How about the state of Texas? Yuppp, no again.

Oh wait, I found it...its in the HUGE LIST I posted prior...The UNITED STATES (we) have treaties with Israel.

I will use WE if I want to. I am sorry you're incapable of understanding a discussion of treaties between COUNTRIES and are worried I am talking about Ron Paul Forums or RPF Members having treaties with Israel LOL.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Hank, please stop going around the board acting intelligent. You're going to end up hurting yourself or someone else.

Well he failed intelligence class if he got upset of using WE to talk about the United States. So yes, he probably hurt himself at some point.

 

[65fastback2+2]

1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance

Sanctions relief does not precede evidence of compliance (see my previous post above),

2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is entitled to "significant" nuclear capacity. Nevertheless, under the terms of the deal, Iran is going to be restricted to "significantly" less nuclear capacity than other parties to the NNPT (not to mention very "significantly" less than some non-signatories - such as Israel). Given this context, it appears that complaints about Iran being left with "significant" nuclear capacity amount to a complaint that Iran will be left with "any" nuclear capacity ...

3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

Besides the fact that the US has no business forbidding Iran from buying "advanced weapons" (of exactly the sort that the US has hypocritically been happy to sell to other "bad actors"), the whole point of the ban (along with all the rest of the sanctions) was to bring Iran to heel and make them agree to curtail their nuclear program. They have now done so. To object to lifting this part of the sanctions is to effectively say, "We are going to continue sanctioning Iran no matter what they agree to do." That is simply not reasonable.

His problem, as stated, is Iran is saying opposite from the above.

Who is lying and why? Thats what He wants to know.

Some of Khoemenei's words that refute the above:

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

 

[cindy25]

I took down Rands photo on FB. He lost my support by not supporting the deal. He is way too hawkish and pro Israel for me.

Rand is not Ron, but he is still the best of the 17.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Rand is not Ron, but he is still the best of the 17.

He is. That's still true. But I've stopped voting for the one who is the best of the lot just because he's the least among the evils. What I'll do when decision time comes will be determined be how far Rand has moved away from Ron by then. For me, staying home on Election Day (or voting third party) is an option.

 

[HankRicther12]

Since you're having problems reading like a couple others in here, I'll help you out...hope you're sitting down.

I'll even help you out on how to use context:





WE have several treaties with Israel. Now, who can have a treaty with Israel in this discussion? My dog. No. My daughter. Still no. How about the state of Texas? Yuppp, no again.

Oh wait, I found it...its in the HUGE LIST I posted prior...The UNITED STATES (we) have treaties with Israel.

I will use WE if I want to. I am sorry you're incapable of understanding a discussion of treaties between COUNTRIES and are worried I am talking about Ron Paul Forums or RPF Members having treaties with Israel LOL.

Members of the US Govt made treaties with Israel, "we" did not, and you're silly sarcasm does not negate the fact that words do have meaning. It's this same bullshit when NeoCons or Progressives go around saying "we" need to be a force of good the world, "we" need to care for the most vulnerable in society, "we" need to do this, "we" need to do that, and naturally "we" always means someone else.

I don't give a damn about any treaty with Israel that I never signed and never agreed to and since it's obvious Presidents do as they please anyhow, I see no reason for Rand or anyone else to honor them.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Members of the US Govt made treaties with Israel, "we" did not, and you're silly sarcasm does not negate the fact that words do have meaning. It's this same bullshit when NeoCons or Progressives go around saying "we" need to be a force of good the world, "we" need to care for the most vulnerable in society, "we" need to do this, "we" need to do that, and naturally "we" always means someone else.

I don't give a damn about any treaty with Israel that I never signed and never agreed to and since it's obvious Presidents do as they please anyhow, I see no reason for Rand or anyone else to honor them.

Well, then move to another country, because WE fought off the British and WE declared independence and WE put in place the constitution.

Since you never were a part of those negotiations or war and your signature is not found on the document, then according to you, they're rubbish and have no power.

So take your happy rear to north Korea or something.

Until then, WE have a treaty with Israel that WE should uphold.

I am actually aghast that you want to take this STUPID position. We have a WWII treaty with Japan, We have the Geneva Convention documents...etc. etc. etc. So, basically...you want to just ignore our agreements, tell everyone to take a hike and let a President do whatever he wants irrelevant of legally and constitutionally approved past agreements. L O L...thats one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard in my life.

 

[65fastback2+2]

He is. That's still true. But I've stopped voting for the one who is the best of the lot just because he's the least among the evils. What I'll do when decision time comes will be determined be how far Rand has moved away from Ron by then. For me, staying home on Election Day (or voting third party) is an option.

I think this is what many are doing here that are flipping out, and its sad. The measure shouldnt be Ron Paul...the measure should be truthfulness and willingness to uphold the constitution and the bill of rights.

Rand scores like a 98% if you look at it like that...thats not voting for the best of the lot, thats voting for liberty.

There were many positions Ron took that I dont agree with. I dont agree with his approval of the whole Iran agreement. His previous stance was that what another country does is of no concern of ours. Yet now he's for some agreement? Thats a flip flop there for Ron.