Ron Paul on the Iran Deal

[Occam's Banana]

Iran Deal: Peace Opportunity or 'Historic Mistake'

Now that a deal between the P5+1 and Iran has been agreed, the fight will be harder than ever in the US. Neocons are ready for battle, with Sen. Tom Cotton calling the agreement an "historic mistake." What's next, war or peace?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP7jJNnTIwE

 

[Nolan]

Then there's this disgrace:

 

[juleswin]

When Ron said the deal was bad, I was like "what? " and then he explained why it can be bad. We shouldn't be meddling with their internal affairs to begin with, so any solution other than dismantling the sanctions, returning their money and going home is still very interventionist.

This is what Rand should be saying but you say that and you have ZERO chance in the republican primaries

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Lots of pros and cons identified by Ron. Complex issue. A "no" vote is the purest ancap vote.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Lots of pros and cons identified by Ron. Complex issue. A "no" vote is the purest ancap vote.

'Present' or 'not voting' would be more pure, in my estimation.

 

[Dianne]

From what I'm reading, it doesn't matter if the Congress does not approve. Obama is going to the United Nations, for approval. The U.S. Congress will then have no say in the matter. All we will see is Theater. Isn't it wonderful when your Country is owned by people in the United Nations you never even heard of? They were not elected by you, the people? Welcome to "World Government". Just fire the Congress !!! They are useless, and soak up more entitlements than any other group in America. This Country needs to stop pretending it is free... it is not.

 

[wizardwatson]

This is what Rand should be saying but you say that and you have ZERO chance in the republican primaries

You know, this sentiment is very prevalent in the Rand Paul supporter thought-sphere.

What is the implication? "Rand can't speak the truth or he'll never get through the primary."

Ok, and then what? It gets EASIER after that? Is that logical?

"Yeah, sure. Once Rand has x amount of power he'll be able to do what he wants." Is that what everyone's thinking? That somehow once you've climbed deep enough into the snake pit you're given free reign?

There is no "until" people. You want to play the game you can't speak the truth EVER. Ever, ever, ever, ever. There is no magic point where Rand gets to stop doing it like this. That's why I get so frustrated with this. It's like everyone who supports him "no matter what" is looking forward to some future PSYCHE! moment. It doesn't work like that, folks.

 

[Jan2017]

From what I'm reading, it doesn't matter if the Congress does not approve. Obama is going to the United Nations, for approval.
The U.S. Congress will then have no say in the matter.
. . .

As I understand, there are resolutions for sanctions against Iran from the European Union, the United States, and of course the UN Security Council Resolutions.
USA of course has veto power in the Security Council, but expecting a 15-0 vote there.

The text of the agreement/deal is in several pdf files at the bottom of the page at :
http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/150714_01_en.htm

From the last pdf some excerpts . . .

The Eurpoean Union will:
16.1. Terminate the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 and suspend the corresponding provisions of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP etc.

The United States will:
17.1. Cease the application of the sanctions set forth in Sections 4.1 - 4.5 and 4.7 of Annex II, with the exception of Section 211(a) of
the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (TRA);
. . .
17.4. Terminate Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622, 13645 and Sections 5-7 and 15 of Executive Order 13628 as set forth in Section 4 of Annex II; and
. . .

UN Security Council (will):
18.1. In accordance with the UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA, the provisions imposed in UN Security Council resolutions 1696 (2006),
1737(2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) will be terminated subject to re-imposition in the event of significant nonperformance by Iran . . .

 

[wizardwatson]

As I understand, there are resolutions for sanctions against Iran from the European Union, the United States, and of course the UN Security Council Resolutions.
USA of course has veto power in the Security Council, but expecting a 15-0 vote there.

The text of the agreement/deal is in several pdf files at the bottom of the page at :
http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/150714_01_en.htm

From the last pdf some excerpts . . .

LOL!

Come on guys. After everything we've seen, forget over last decade or whatever, but just over this last month! ....is there really anyone on this board who thinks there's a snowballs chance in hell this deal will or even could be stopped by our dickless, neutered legislatures?

The GOP can't even preserve marriage. Something probably only a few queer globalists give a shit about. This doesn't even rise to no-brainer.

And to me every GOP puffing his chest over this just looks like a fraud and a moron.

THEY ALREADY PASSED IT WHEN THEY PASSED ADVISE AND CONSENT.

Any legislator that doesn't own that fact is just lying more.

 

[wizardwatson]

Does anyone have a good link to that advise and consent bill? I can't find the name of the bill in the articles I'm looking at. Maybe useful to post how that vote came out. Since that was the vote where the legislature neutered it's ability to do anything about it now.

 

[Jan2017]

RP: "One complaint of the neocons is that they (Iran) can buy weapons"

- which is what Rand gave as one of his reasons for his Nay to the legislative action in the USA some seven weeks from now.

 

[Jan2017]

Does anyone have a good link to that advise and consent bill? I can't find the name of the bill in the articles I'm looking at. Maybe useful to post how that vote came out. Since that was the vote where the legislature neutered it's ability to do anything about it now.

Corker Bill ?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ecrecy-over-iran-deal-wrong-andrew-c-mccarthy

The legislation, formally known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, was sponsored by Senators Bob Corker (R. Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Lindsey Graham, a GOP presidential hopeful, among others. It came under intense conservative criticism before being enacted in early May because (as I’ve previously explained) it is structured in a way that virtually guarantees Obama will be authorized to implement the deal – evading the Constitution’s treaty provisions

 

[wizardwatson]

RP: "One complaint of the neocons is that they (Iran) can buy weapons"

- which is what Rand gave as one of his reasons for his Nay to the legislative action in the USA some seven weeks from now.

So why didn't Rand speak up when they passed the Iran Bill in the Senate 98-1 on May 7th? Why didn't the GOP fight for more amendments? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Why did only Tom Cotton have the proper response and only "No" vote?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/241355-senate-votes-to-approve-Iran-review-bill

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was the only senator to oppose the bill. He said in a statement that he objected that the deal was not to be presented to the Congress as a treaty.

"A nuclear-arms agreement with any adversary—especially the terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian regime—should be submitted as a treaty and obtain a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate as required by the Constitution," he said.

When Rand voted for this was he confused about how the Constitution worked? He seemed very knowledgeable about the Constitution when he stood on his feet for 10 hours talking about meta-data.

 

[wizardwatson]

Corker Bill ?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ecrecy-over-iran-deal-wrong-andrew-c-mccarthy

Ok, yeah. I found it. Didn't realize everyone was calling it that.

 

[Jan2017]

. . .

When Rand voted for this was he confused about how the Constitution worked?
He seemed very knowledgeable about the Constitution when he stood on his feet for 10 hours talking about meta-data.

All of them . . . but what about neocon Lindsey Graham - a co-sponsor of the Corker Bill ?
So, Lindsey Graham part of legislation making it easier for Iran to get out of sanctions. That sly dog.

 

[wizardwatson]

All of them . . . but what about neocon Lindsey Graham - a co-sponsor of the Corker Bill ?
So, Lindsey Graham part of legislation making it easier for Iran to get out of sanctions. That sly dog.

You know, I totally get it, I do. Really, the only shred of "caring" I have at this point is why we've given up talking straight.

There used to be this guy I liked who even had a show called "Texas straight talk."

It's like we all know we're going to the furnaces. At the very least we should be screaming "They're taking us to the furnaces!" Since our options for escape are severely limited. But I liken this Rand Paul strategy to our entire concentration camp having a meeting. And in our starvation and stress induced delirium, half of us who figured out the truth have decided to keep quiet, because the guy with the largest lung capacity is going to go into the furnace and blow out the flames. When the nazi's see him do this I guess they will fear him and recognize his power as a leader or something and let us all go. The other half of us who haven't become completely delirious are trying to remind you that this is actually us just walking into the flames and is actually counter to our original strategy of at least speaking up about it! Escape was always known to be a crap shoot! The speaking was working a little at least!

 

[Natural Citizen]

I had shared some thoughts on this article elsewhere on the forum. It was actually a much larger article but there were relevant factors to this deal too. I'll share a snippet of that posting as it relates to this. Perhaps some will see the relevance with what we are seeing with this Iran nuke deal...

Back to the piece... Russia and Saudi Arabia...

One of the most geopolitically fascinating developments around the St. Petersburg forum was the appearance of Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Defense Minister and son of King Salman. Prince bin Salman, and Putin held a joint press conference during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum where Putin announced he had invited Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to visit Russia, and had accepted an invitation to visit Saudi Arabia.

In addition, the two discussed Saudi purchase of Russian nuclear power technology. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told RT that Saudi Arabia plans to use Russia’s expertise to build up to 16 power-generating nuclear reactors. Russia and Saudi Arabia signed an intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. According to Russia’s state-run atomic energy agency Rosatom, for the first time in the history of Russian-Saudi relations it creates a legal framework for bilateral cooperation in nuclear energy, and opens prospects for cooperation in construction and operation of reactors, nuclear fuel cycle services as well as education and training.

Russian President Putin and the Saudi Prince discussed possible cooperation in the arms trade. Hmmmm. Until now Saudi Arabia has been a prime arms customer of the USA and of Great Britain. No doubt the May 9 Moscow parade of the most advanced Russian weapons systems caught the eye of Prince bin Salman. Referring to the talks between bin Salman and Putin on possible Russian weapons system purchases by Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister al-Jubeir stated, “This issue [purchase of weapons] is being considered by the military experts from our countries. But I want to stress that nothing prevents us from buying Russian defense systems, just like nothing prevents Russia from selling them to Saudi Arabia.”

We can imagine this statement raised more than a few eyebrows in Washington and London and Brussels NATO headquarters, where it’s been assumed ever since the 1945 meeting between US President Roosevelt and Saudi King Ibn Saud securing exclusive rights for American oil majors to develop the huge oil reserves of the Saudi Kingdom, that Riyadh would be a US vassal state.

Of course, what isn't mentioned here is Russia's involvement in the Iranian nuclear program as well as its role in stimulating discussion with the West with regard to that. Russia is opening doors to Saudi nuclear deals and arms trade, and, so, gain influence within both wings of the Islamic world. Of course, there is a bit more to it since they'll, then, not be so reliant upon western arms for its military. Right? Right. Perhaps, then, we'll see more trade in intelligence? Who knows. The point is that Russia is doing its own thing while/after being slapped around by the west and challenging them at the same time.

 

[Occam's Banana]

(h/t jon_perez: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nuclear-deal&p=5923605&viewfull=1#post5923605)

Ron Paul Praises Iran Nuke Deal, Says Critics 'Misinterpreted' It
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ron-paul-praise-iran-nuclear/2015/07/14/id/657071/
Greg Richter (14 July 2014)

The Iranian nuclear deal is a big step toward world peace, and Republicans would be praising it if one of their own had negotiated it, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul told Newsmax TV's "The Hard Line."

Paul told host Ed Berliner that the deal echoed Ronald Reagan's deal with the Soviets in the 1980s. Paul's biggest problem with the deal was that the United States had to work under the confines of the United Nations and NATO.

"There's something to be said about moving in the direction of at least talking to people instead of saying, 'All right, you're scoundrels, we'll keep our $100 billion we've taken from you and all options are on the table, like if you don't do what we tell you, we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons against you,'" Paul said. "The tone has been changed. It's to our benefit; it's to the benefit of world peace."

[ ... video and full article at link: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ron-paul-praise-iran-nuclear/2015/07/14/id/657071/ ...]

 

[fr33]

'Present' or 'not voting' would be more pure, in my estimation.

That goes for every vote if absence of the state is not the goal of what is being voted on.

 

[fr33]

Should we support auditing the Fed if it doesn't end the Fed?