Ron Paul: “I Think Sanctions Give Iran Motivation To Want A Nuclear Weapon”

John F Kennedy III

John F Kennedy III

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
13,839
Ron Paul: “I Think Sanctions Give Iran Motivation To Want A Nuclear Weapon”

Ron Paul: “I Think Sanctions Give Iran Motivation To Want A Nuclear Weapon”

There are those who say that while they agree completely with Ron Paul’s economic policy of fixing the #1 issue that ails America (as a reminder, total US debt/GDP would only decline under a Ron Paul presidency) they disagree with Paul on his foreign policy. We wonder why when all he does is instead of appealing to the jingoism of warmongers and patronizing the basest of herd instincts, he simply tells the truth. Such as on Today’s State of the Union show on CNN when asked if Obama has done “enough” to force Iran to stop its nuclear development via sanctions and others, his reply was spot on: “I think he gets too much involved. I think sanctions gives the motivation for them to want a nuclear weapon. We have 45 bases around them, we can demolish them within hours. And the worst thing the sanctions do, and Republicans and Democrats both support it and the other GOP candidates want war even more, the whole thing is there is a lot of dissension in Iran and we should encourage it by not interfering, once we get involve and threaten to bomb them, it becomes nationalistic – everyone joins the Ayataollah and Ahmedinejad. So there is a blowback – unusual circumstances and unintended consequences. So yes, our people are well-intended, but they don’t realize how much damage they do by not accomplishing what they want and causing more harm to us. So our military personnel right now are very adamant not to be involved in a bombing of Iran, it makes no sense whatsoever to our military personnel, to the CIA, even though they are much more interventionist than I am.”

And probably even more important in light of Obama’s apology for burning down Korans (but not for pictures of torture), Paul had this to say: “I thought McNamara was rather astute when he they asked him about the mess he caused in Vietnam: “don’t you think you should apologize to the American people and to the world” he said: “what good is an apology: if you make mistakes and you see this and you stir enough trouble, why don’t we change our policy. That’s what he said: “we should change our policy.” So if we have a policy going on in the middle east that is begging that we apologize now and then and others condemning it, I think we should reassess our foreign policy, and that is what I think we are not doing, and that is why I am quite different than the other candidates - the American people are sick and tired of the wars going on over there, we are going broke fighting these wars that are not legitimate in that we were not attacked, they were not declared, and the American people in their majority want us out of there.”

original article here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ron-paul-i-think-sanctions-gives-iran-motivation-want-nuclear-weapon
 
Where's the big f**kin speech where Dr. Paul presents this "theory" on sanction in the most coherent, eloquent, rational and persuasive language possible??

Sorry, but if Ron was serious about getting this message heard by the greatest number of americans possible, he'd back up these off-the-cuff soundbites in interviews with a serious "doctrine" speech that would, at the very least, force his opponents (on both the left & right) to PROVE HIS ASSERTIONS WRONG.

As it stands today (and for the entirety of this campaign), Ron has yet to back up most of what he says with either CONCRETE speeches or "blueprints" like the "Plan to Restore America"... and because he offers nothing serious, his opponents don't need to take any of what he says/proposes seriously. They can simply pooh-pooh him with the same level of depth & detail that Ron, himself has offered up (which is very little).
 
WD-NY said:
Where's the big f**kin speech where Dr. Paul presents this "theory" on sanction in the most coherent, eloquent, rational and persuasive language possible??

Sorry, but if Ron was serious about getting this message heard by the greatest number of americans possible, he'd back up these off-the-cuff soundbites in interviews with a serious "doctrine" speech that would, at the very least, force his opponents (on both the left & right) to PROVE HIS ASSERTIONS WRONG.

As it stands today (and for the entirety of this campaign), Ron has yet to back up most of what he says with either CONCRETE speeches or "blueprints" like the "Plan to Restore America"... and because he offers nothing serious, his opponents don't need to take any of what he says/proposes seriously. They can simply pooh-pooh him with the same level of depth & detail that Ron, himself has offered up (which is very little).
Click to expand...

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opt...lly-of-sanctions&catid=62:texas-straight-talk

Many people have the misconception that sanctions are an effective means to encourage a change of behavior in another country without war. However, imposing sanctions and blockades are not only an act of war according to international law, they are most often the first step toward a real war starting with a bombing campaign. Sanctions were the first step in our wars against Iraq and Libya, and now more sanctions planned against Syria and Iran are leading down the same destructive path.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) latest report, just out this month, there is no evidence that Iran has diverted enriched uranium from the peaceful and lawful generation of power toward building a nuclear weapon. According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Unfortunately, US foreign policy has boxed Iran into a corner where they may view development of a nuclear weapon as the only way to maintain sovereignty. They are surrounded by unfriendly nuclear powers and history has shown that having a nuclear weapon is the best way to avoid being bombed or invaded. The unintended consequences of our confrontational policies toward Iran may be to actually encourage them to seek nuclear weapons capabilities. We should be using diplomacy rather than threats and hostility.

Fortunately there is another way. Nothing promotes peace better than free trade. Countries that trade with each other generally do not make war on each other, as both countries gain economic benefits they do not want to jeopardize. China is a massive nuclear power yet it does not seek military confrontation with the United States. Trade is much more profitable. Also trade and friendship applies much more effective persuasion to encourage better behavior, as does leading by example. Alarmingly, tough new sanctions are under consideration that would also punish Iran's trading partners, including China, Russia, and possibly our NATO allies such as Germany.

Conversely, sanctions allow regimes to blame their shortcomings on foreigners, thereby maintaining a hold on power. They rarely even inconvenience elites in the target countries. They simply provide a common enemy to rally the people against and undermine internal dissent. Consider how well the embargo has worked against Cuba. Fidel Castro and his regime may be annoyed by the inability to trade with their neighbors just 90 miles away, but American businessmen also lose out in the bargain. That means less jobs and less freedom at home.

We should be clear about this: sanctions against Iran are definite steps toward a US attack. Already we see US warships approaching the region, moving dangerously close to Syrian waters. The tougher sanctions currently under consideration would disrupt global trade and undermine the US economy, which in turn harms our national security. Foreign companies or foreign subsidiaries of US companies would be severely punished if they did not submit to the US trade embargo on Iran. We must change our foreign policy to one of economic freedom and diplomacy. That is the only way to promote peace and prosperity. This race to war against Iran and Syria is both foolhardy and dangerous.
Click to expand...

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/07/07/ron-paul-on-belarus-democracy/

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the “Belarus Democracy Act” reauthorization. This title of this bill would have amused George Orwell, as it is in fact a US regime-change bill. Where does the United States Congress derive the moral or legal authority to determine which political parties or organizations in Belarus — or anywhere else — are to be US-funded and which are to be destabilized? How can anyone argue that US support for regime-change in Belarus is somehow “promoting democracy”? We pick the parties who are to be supported and funded and somehow this is supposed to reflect the will of the Belarusian people? How would Americans feel if the tables were turned and a powerful foreign country demanded that only a political party it selected and funded could legitimately reflect the will of the American people?

I would like to know how many millions of taxpayer dollars the US government has wasted trying to overthrow the government in Belarus. I would like to know how much money has been squandered by US government-funded front organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, Freedom House, and others meddling like the old Soviet Union in the internal politics of a country that has neither threatened nor attacked the United States. It the arrogance of our foreign policy establishment that leads to this kind of schizophrenic legislation, where we demand that the rest of the world bend to the will of US foreign policy and we call it “democracy.” We wonder why we are no longer loved and admired overseas.

Finally, I strongly object to the sanctions that this legislation imposes on Belarus. We must keep in mind that sanctions and blockades of foreign countries are considered acts of war. Do we need to continue war-like actions against yet another country? Can we afford it?

I wish to emphasize that I take this position not because I am in support of the regime in Belarus, or anywhere else. I take this position because it is dangerous folly to be the nation that arrogates to itself the right to determine the leadership of the rest of the world. As we teeter closer to bankruptcy, it should be more obvious that we need to change our foreign policy to one of constructive engagement rather than hostile interventionism. And though it scarcely should need to be said, I must remind my colleagues today that we are the U.S. House of Representatives, and not some sort of world congress. We have no constitutional authority to intervene in the wholly domestic affairs of Belarus or any other sovereign nation.
Click to expand...

Both from this cycle, bro. He made the speeches and statements; wanna know why it wasn't heard by tons of Americans?

The media decides what is newsworthy, and decides what they promote.
 
http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/11/04/iran-sanctions-act-definite-step-toward-war/

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.
Click to expand...

Another from this cycle. Should I continue to get more?
 
Another doctrinal foreign policy speech from this cycle, guess how much press this one got (clearly none, since people here are criticizing Ron for not making speeches/statements they were unaware he already made):

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/20...ured-destruction-vs-mutually-assured-respect/

The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two superpowers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.

I well remember the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.

It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the weapons of war.

Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no "beating their swords into plowshares," even though history shows that without weapons and war there’s more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.

Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole superpower. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goal of "making the world safe for democracy" by pursuing a war to end all wars.

The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.

In many ways America had been "exceptional" but in an opposite manner from the neocon driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes, and war.

Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation, and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.

Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture, and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.

To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us — that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.

Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we’re spreading freedom and America’s goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.

The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.

The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned — if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.

My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.

This requires simply tolerance of others’ cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world’s great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.

A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:

Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.

Offering friendship with all who seek it.

Participating in trade with all who are willing.

Refusing to threaten, bribe, or occupy any other nation.

Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.

Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade, and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions, and occupations.

This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony, and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.

Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.
Click to expand...
 
Feeding the Abscess said:
http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/11/04/iran-sanctions-act-definite-step-toward-war/



Another from this cycle. Should I continue to get more?
Click to expand...

Yes please keep them coming.

This is exactly what I'm talking about! It's not a question of Ron not having the material... it's a question of Ron not pushing it out onto the people. Why couldn't Doug Wead & Jack Hunter sit down with this "texas straight talk" messages and everything else Ron has written on the subject and turn it into something that could be delivered at a rally???

I'm going to forward all of these to doug wead and see what he thinks.
 
Last edited:
In other words, Ron was pointing out that Rand Paul is pro-war on the Iran issue. He's also planning on backing Romney for president if he wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Trump Throws Tulsi Under The Bus For 'Regime Change' War On Iran
Replies
0
Views
26
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
PAF
US Imposes More Sanctions on Iran Despite Negotiations
Replies
0
Views
17
PAF
PAF
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Take the Deal, President Trump
Replies
0
Views
39
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
PAF
Gabbard Falls in Line, Claims Iran Close to Nukes
Replies
11
Views
125
CCTelander
C
Snowball
Iran warns it is ready to attack Israel's nuclear facilities
Replies
8
Views
96
nikcers
nikcers
Back
Top