Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Well, I mean, you are asking my opinion about trust, treaties, and WMDs. I would trust Iran over the USA. I have history to back up my opinion. The USA stockpiles WMDs and violates treaties more often than Iran does. I was just talking to some Indians this past weekend about treaties...

God made the Earth in 7 days, and the world's empires can end it in 70 minutes

 

[devil21]

Outside of economic issues, I''m honestly closer aligned to Obama than Rand Paul's rhetoric of the past couple years. What a serious disappointment.

Didn't you have a "Statist" tag for a long time and admit to voting for Obama in 2008? Sorry but no real RPF member cares what you think.

 

[nikcers]

Well, I mean, you are asking my opinion about trust, treaties, and WMDs. I would trust Iran over the USA. I have history to back up my opinion. The USA stockpiles WMDs and violates treaties more often than Iran does. I was just talking to some Indians this past weekend about treaties...

Entirely my point, prohibition doesn't work. This deal is entirely based on a intellectually dishonest argument. The argument that we are either for this or for war is a false dilemma. This is an information war and if it was such a good deal then why do they have to sell it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Why does such an oil rich nation with so much cheap energy need nuclear power plants?

Iran may be "oil rich," but it has inadequate domestic refining capacity (e.g., as of several years ago at least, Iran had to import a third of its gasoline).

It's great abundance of oil has also resulted in horrifically inefficient & spendthrifty (and typically stupid-crappy-cronyist) energy policies related to its oil production and usage. (File under "too much of a good thing" ...)

Why are they willing to risk the starvation of their people under crippling sanctions for decades, just to get a couple powerplants built? Explain the logic here

Obstinate defiance of a power (the United States) that has serially fucked Iran over for more than half a century and that has NO business dictating Iran's energy policies in the first place?

And if nothing else, a viable civilian nuclear power program would significantly reduce Iran's exposure to the vicissitudes of international "petro-politics" ...

 

[Occam's Banana]

Well, I mean, you are asking my opinion about trust, treaties, and WMDs. I would trust Iran over the USA. I have history to back up my opinion. The USA stockpiles WMDs and violates treaties more often than Iran does. I was just talking to some Indians this past weekend about treaties...

IIRC, Iran has never been found to be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Furthermore, sixteen US intelligence agencies have conceded that they have NO evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, we have been told repeatedly for many years now that Iran is only "months away" from having nukes ...

The "Iranian bomb" is a pink unicorn - and everything predicated upon it (such as sanctions or opposition to this new "Iran deal") is based on a bunch of boogity-boogity bullshit. The objection I have to this new deal is that no one has any business forbidding Iran from doing things like producing medical-grade isotopes. But if Iran is willing to put up with things like that in exchange for things like ending sanctions, then who the hell am I to gainsay them?

 

[cindy25]

Why does such an oil rich nation with so much cheap energy need nuclear power plants? Why are they willing to risk the starvation of their people under crippling sanctions for decades, just to get a couple powerplants built? Explain the logic here

the USA tried to sell nuclear plants to the Shah in the 70s, so they must have seen logic in it then

 

[Occam's Banana]

the USA tried to sell nuclear plants to the Shah in the 70s, so they must have seen logic in it then

Indeed. And it's not at all difficult to understand what that "logic" was.

Iran under the Shah was a client state of the American Empire. As such, it was "logical" to expect Iran to pay tribute in the form of buying stuff from us - stuff like nuclear power plants. (And after all, given that they're swimming in oil, expecting Iran to buy oil from us would have taxed the "logic" of even the most ardent of US energy-sector mercantilists).

But of course, now that Iran is no longer under a US puppet regime, they can't possibly have any legitimate use for nuclear power plants, can they? ...

 

[brandon]

Finally have a preisdent with the balls to stand up to the Israel lobby and bring in a new era of peace negotiations. Paul comes out against it and a seeming majority of this board support him. Is this bizzaro world or what?

The reason I worked so hard to make Ron Paul president is so he would do something exactly like what Obama is doing.

 

[surf]

He can't sneak himself into the nomination. Especially not in a field so large. He needed to win hearts and minds, in order to grow his support.

living in a Sanders state, I could have gotten a bunch of people enthused about Rand - but his foreign policy and perceived deepthroating of Israel has made that impossible in a general and a primary. oh well, way to blend in.

 

[surf]

Why does such an oil rich nation with so much cheap energy need nuclear power plants? Why are they willing to risk the starvation of their people under crippling sanctions for decades, just to get a couple powerplants built? Explain the logic here

look up "atoms for peace" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace

 

[nikcers]

Finally have a preisdent with the balls to stand up to the Israel lobby and bring in a new era of peace negotiations. Paul comes out against it and a seeming majority of this board support him. Is this bizzaro world or what?

The reason I worked so hard to make Ron Paul president is so he would do something exactly like what Obama is doing.

I'll put this in liberal terms for you since you seem to lean that way, Hillary is campaigning for Hispanics, she says she will go BEYOND what Obama did for immigration reform, but then says that she will do everything that she can legally do as a president. Now think about what she is saying, Obama already says he had dispatched his war chest of lawyers to do everything they can legally do.

So in short Rand is saying he would one up Obama and do a "better" job, when the astro turf campaign has already started saying that this is the absolute best that we as a nation can possibly accomplish. His no vote in spirit only just means that they cant run Rand is the same as Obama on Iran ads; and wont have any effect on the president vetoing anything that they try to pass. I'll jump ship with you when he says some on day 1 i will start war with Iran BS.

 

[T.hill]

I'll put this in liberal terms for you since you seem to lean that way, Hillary is campaigning for Hispanics, she says she will go BEYOND what Obama did for immigration reform, but then says that she will do everything that she can legally do as a president. Now think about what she is saying, Obama already says he had dispatched his war chest of lawyers to do everything they can legally do.

So in short Rand is saying he would one up Obama and do a "better" job, when the astro turf campaign has already started saying that this is the absolute best that we as a nation can possibly accomplish. His no vote in spirit only just means that they cant run Rand is the same as Obama on Iran ads; and wont have any effect on the president vetoing anything that they try to pass. I'll jump ship with you when he says some on day 1 i will start war with Iran BS.

Also, is it simply a coincidence that Rand has yet to vote in favor of any war throughout his tenure as a senator? Even when it comes to ISIS, which he publicly has stated should be militarily addressed, he has yet to actually vote for any bill that would involve us in war. Rand has extremely strict pre-requisites for going to war that he has explicitly laid out (formal declaration of war with congressional approval, codified temporal limits, concrete goals directed towards a specified enemy), so strict in fact that he is unlikely to ever vote for a war that isn't a response to an imminent threat to the United States.

I choose to believe that Rand has set these requirements so high precisely because he knows it will give him cover to vote against preemptive wars on conservative and constitutional grounds.

 

[Massachusetts]

So much stupid in this thread. Sigh. How many of you have even read the "Deal"? Just because there is a diplomatic deal on the table doesn't mean it is good for America. It's good we're likely going to avoid a war, but it doesn't mean we have to bow down to the rest of the world either.

 

[Jan2017]

"Take a Stand, Rand" was what I thought the proponents of a present/non-vote in the Senate might need to hear.
Any US Senator not voting on this in the future when it comes up - after due consideration - will and should be looked on unfavorably by his/her constituents imho.

Ron Paul is already critical of the neocons - and he used the term radical neocons - who think allowing Iran any weapons
to be sold to them is reason to deny the lifting of sanctions as per the agreement. But, it is Rand's reason #3 nonetheless.

Rand's first reason is that there should be compliance before sanctions removal.
It seems with the 10-year time structure which the agreement could be rescinded if Iran chooses non-compliance
is what they did come up with in negotiations.

Now, reports are that Putin likes the deal. which seems odd, especially with it economically hurting Moscow to have the nation with the second largest natural gas reserves - Iran - back on the market in competition with them.

Which brings me to discussing Rands reason #2 to not support the deal - leaving Iran with substantial nuclear capability.
In looking for what he meant exactly - which no one else explicitly mentioned - I ran across this seemingly odd provision.

Annex I Nuclear-related measures
59. Russian designed, fabricated and licensed fuel assemblies for use in Russian supplied reactors in Iran
do not count against the 300 kg UF6 (Uranium Hexafloride) stockpile limit.

OMG - am I reading that right ?

 

[erowe1]

So much stupid in this thread. Sigh. How many of you have even read the "Deal"? Just because there is a diplomatic deal on the table doesn't mean it is good for America. It's good we're likely going to avoid a war, but it doesn't mean we have to bow down to the rest of the world either.

I haven't read the deal. I admit. But I did read the OP. And I can't see any way to defend Rand's own words in it.

 

[brandon]

How many of you have even read the "Deal"?

I'm sure none of us have including you. It's a 160 page technical legal document. I feel fine forming an opinion on the general gist of it. I don't do this for a living.


If anyone wants to read a few pages.... http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/


I skimmed it and page 64 might peak some interest... talks about ending the sanction on Iran's gold and precious metals trade.

 

[surf]

Also, is it simply a coincidence that Rand has yet to vote in favor of any war throughout his tenure as a senator?...

I choose to believe that Rand has set these requirements so high precisely because he knows it will give him cover to vote against preemptive wars on conservative and constitutional grounds.

not snide, but have there been any real war votes? Libya maybe?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I've been wondering lately. My neighbor is building a lot of stuff. I saw a pile of dirt near my border, so I think they may be building a swimming pool. I don't have one, and it's not really threatening, but, ya never know.

We had a zero turn radius mower, but they were using a tractor with a belly mower for years. Our ZTR mower was definitely superior, but recently they purchased an EXMark commercial ZTR. I'm concerned. Really concerned. But, it would cost me at least 4k to upgrade to a used commercial ZTR mower. Damn.

Then, I thought, WTF am I doing even looking at my neighbor to see what he has or doesn't. We could work together, if there anything common, but I'm not sure what that would be execpt to defend one another in a SHTF scenario. So, I offered to teach him about weapons. I hope he never uses them on me...wow life is complicated.

 

[nikcers]

not snide, but have there been any real war votes? Libya maybe?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-joint-resolution/124

 

[cindy25]

Rand has to stand up to Israel at some point-not on this issue, as its not a great deal anyway. but Rand will never be able to do enough to please Adelson and Israel. so better off to be contrarian and stand up at some point. abolishing all foreign aid, no exceptions, would be a good start. force Graham and Walker to defend aid to Pakistan and Gaza and Ukraine. BB would scream and beg-so be it.