RPI and LRC Blog: Senate Votes Unanimously Toward War Against Iran

[Feeding the Abscess]

How is refusal to trade with a nation and those who do trade with them an act of war?

I have to say I don't agree with Ron on this one, although I agree with him on sanctions being stupid and I think this vote had more to it than just sanctions.

Because blocking me from trading from anyone I wish to conduct business with by force of government is immoral and wrong, and the implication is that the government would use its military to ultimately enforce said immoral sanctions? The government doesn't own trade and allow people to conduct business, which is the position you have to logically take if you believe sanctions are ever just.

 

[Spikender]

Because blocking me from trading from anyone I wish to conduct business with by force of government is immoral and wrong, and the implication is that the government would use its military to ultimately enforce said immoral sanctions? The government doesn't own trade and allow people to conduct business, which is the position you have to logically take if you believe sanctions are ever just.

Thank you also for the back up.

FreedomFanatic, you've said in the past foreign policy is a big issue for you, so I think you should reconsider your stance on sanctions. Perhaps you just didn't realize what they entailed, and I understand that, but they really are immoral and do nothing to go after tyrannical governments.

 

[Christian Liberty]

http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/introtoforeignpolicy/a/what-are-sanctions.htm

Sanctions hurt the poor and innocent and do nothing to really stymie whatever potential threat a nation poses. To me, it is an act of war; think of it like surrounding a castle in Medieval times and starving out the enemy until they can no longer resist. Except in this case, the only people that it will hurt will be the unintended targets: the innocent civilians. Or as the government calls them, collateral damage.

Not to mention that these aren't just trade sanctions, these are International Sanctions that have been placed against Iran. Those cover a lot more than just trade, and can cover diplomatic, economic, and military sanctions.

If a nation actually aggresses against another nation to stop them from getting supplies, like a blockade, than I'd agree that its an act of war. If, on the other hand, they simply refuse to trade with a certain nation and boycott nations that do trade with them, than I don't think that's an excuse to attack anyone. I still don't support the sanctions though. I don't think sanctioning Japan during WWII was a smart idea, but I don't think it was an excuse for them to attack Pearl Harbor either. It was a motivation, but not an excuse.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Thank you also for the back up.

FreedomFanatic, you've said in the past foreign policy is a big issue for you, so I think you should reconsider your stance on sanctions. Perhaps you just didn't realize what they entailed, and I understand that, but they really are immoral and do nothing to go after tyrannical governments.

I didn't say I was for sanctions, I said I don't think its quite equivalent to an act of war. The analogy I used was a town with a bunch of white people and one black family. Every white family refuses to trade with the black family. That's clearly, not even questionably, immoral but its not an act of aggression against the black family. Even if some white families threatened not to trade with other white families if they didn't boycott the black family, that still wouldn't be an act of aggression per say. However, if the black family resorted to crime because otherwise they would starve to death.... the white family who was victimized would TECHNICALLY be defending themselves but they still have themselves to blame for a stupid policy, if that makes sense.

I admit I don't understand ALL the details on sanctions. I did kind of give Rand Paul a pass there because even though I hate them I didn't think they were quite as bad as going to war, and I still don't. It was the vote to potentially pursue aggressive war against Iran that made me stop supporting Rand. But I still don't like sanctions.

If the sanctions involve the use of force to enforce, such as a blockade, than I'd agree with you and Ron Paul that its an act of war. Until then, I don't.

I'm not sure I see a problem with purely symbolic actions like boycotting the Olympics, I mean ideally that would be an individual choice but on principle I personally probably wouldn't want to participate in the Olympics in a tyrannical country. I'm not sure how that's the same as normal sanctions that hurt the poor, however.

 

[cajuncocoa]

good to see the freak-out crew still out doing their job.

The "freak-out crew" is just trying to remind members of RON Paul forums of RON Paul's stance on sanctions.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Because blocking me from trading from anyone I wish to conduct business with by force of government is immoral and wrong, and the implication is that the government would use its military to ultimately enforce said immoral sanctions? The government doesn't own trade and allow people to conduct business, which is the position you have to logically take if you believe sanctions are ever just.

That's a valid point that I didn't really consider. I'd say that's more directly a domestic act of aggression against the people of the country doing the sanctions (For instance, if the US sanctions Iran, it is aggressing against every citizen who boycots Iran.) I don't think, for instance, that the oil embargo in the 70's would have justified America going to war...

 

[sailingaway]

I can't quickly find the video I was looking for but essentially Ron said media always came to him and asked him why he voted differently from everyone else, and he was able to explain why something that on the surface seemed like a no brainer, actually raised concerns. He saw that as a positive thing specifically tied to being the only one to stand up against immoral votes. I do too.

Rand has a different approach, and that is his call. I don't need to trash Rand amongst all the others who voted the same way, but MY desire is that Ron's message continue, and that is what I personally push.

 

[Warlord]

What people dont realize is that Ron was in the House and didn't face political opponents getting him to vote on for or against resolutions like this in order to damage him.

This is what Graham's game is here not because he wants a war with Iran. He wants to damage Rand with a vote either if against with the GOP base or for with his own supporters.

 

[sailingaway]

What people dont realize is that Ron was in the House and didn't face political opponents getting him to vote on for or against resolutions like this in order to damage him.

This is what Graham's game is here not because he wants a war with Iran. He wants to damage Rand with a vote either if against with the GOP base or for with his own supporters.

that is nonsens that Ron didn't face opponents trying to trap him or have consequences to his votes, he had the committee he had seniority to chair ABOLISHED rather than let him have it. He was routinely passed for leadership positions. He had thirty years of consequences and acted the way he did anyhow. That is WHY Ron Paul is so inspiring.

Our posts crossed, so I'll clarify again:

Rand has a different approach, and that is his call. I don't need to trash Rand amongst all the others who voted the same way, but MY desire is that Ron's message continue, and that is what I personally push.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If a nation actually aggresses against another nation to stop them from getting supplies, like a blockade, than I'd agree that its an act of war. If, on the other hand, they simply refuse to trade with a certain nation and boycott nations that do trade with them, than I don't think that's an excuse to attack anyone. I still don't support the sanctions though. I don't think sanctioning Japan during WWII was a smart idea, but I don't think it was an excuse for them to attack Pearl Harbor either. It was a motivation, but not an excuse.

That's not why Pearl Harbor was bombed. But that's a big topic for another thread. /end vent

 

[devil21]

I can't understand why Rand would vote for this... What's the reasoning?

Because he doesn't want to give the AIPAC crowd the same playbook to smear him with that they successfully smeared Ron with. You know, the whole "if you vote against anything Israel-related you are a jew hater". Voting on a powerless resolution means nothing policy-wise. I went through this whole thing yesterday with most of the same cast of anti-Rand posters (FreedomFanatic, cajun, Traditional Conservative, etc) in another thread. I would have thought that Ron's 2008 and 2012 campaigns would have taught people here how politics actually works but apparently not. Effective political strategy still falls on the deaf ears of trolls and purists at RPF.

 

[sailingaway]

people who prefer Ron's approach aren't 'anti Rand posters' just because they prefer Ron's approach. What ever happened to Ron Paul supporters being able to support Ron's positions?

 

[devil21]

Btw, why is this is Ron Paul Grassroots Central? Sailing?

 

[sailingaway]

Btw, why is this is Ron Paul Grassroots Central? Sailing?

Ron Paul Institute articles are usually here, as being part of Ron's new effort. I'll put that link in the OP.

It was originally posted in General Politics

 

[Spikender]

I didn't say I was for sanctions, I said I don't think its quite equivalent to an act of war. The analogy I used was a town with a bunch of white people and one black family. Every white family refuses to trade with the black family. That's clearly, not even questionably, immoral but its not an act of aggression against the black family. Even if some white families threatened not to trade with other white families if they didn't boycott the black family, that still wouldn't be an act of aggression per say. However, if the black family resorted to crime because otherwise they would starve to death.... the white family who was victimized would TECHNICALLY be defending themselves but they still have themselves to blame for a stupid policy, if that makes sense.

I admit I don't understand ALL the details on sanctions. I did kind of give Rand Paul a pass there because even though I hate them I didn't think they were quite as bad as going to war, and I still don't. It was the vote to potentially pursue aggressive war against Iran that made me stop supporting Rand. But I still don't like sanctions.

If the sanctions involve the use of force to enforce, such as a blockade, than I'd agree with you and Ron Paul that its an act of war. Until then, I don't.

I'm not sure I see a problem with purely symbolic actions like boycotting the Olympics, I mean ideally that would be an individual choice but on principle I personally probably wouldn't want to participate in the Olympics in a tyrannical country. I'm not sure how that's the same as normal sanctions that hurt the poor, however.

The sanctions used are International Sanctions, which do include military sanctions and the use of military force. That is immoral, and I believe that would be of concern to you. I get where you're coming from on the subject of the black family/white family example, but it's simply not the same thing. In this case, it's as if the white families all threaten the black family with economic and physical harassment if the black family chooses to buy guns or behave in a way they don't like, which is immoral and breaks the golden rule.

Besides, even if they were just pure economic sanctions, it's ridiculously stupid to think those actually harm the government or will lead to them getting toppled. All it does is starve out farmers, businesses, and innocent civilians, which is horrible and most certainly, in my eyes, warfare against the people.

 

[rich34]

Yes, he did.

He's gotta play the game. I really, REALLY hope Ron's supporters understand this. Like it or not, believe it or not, but this kind of shit they'd use to hang Rand in the primary....

If Rand can keep the majority or all of Ron's supporter's while picking up the "traditional" republican voters by avoiding potential pitfalls like this, the man will have a GREAT shot at winning the republican nomination. I know most of Ron's supporters can't stand Rand doing this, but he HAS to do it, period! If he can continue to avoid the land mines the establishment republicans will continue to throw at him in the senate he might just take it to the (White) HOUSE!

 

[devil21]

people who prefer Ron's approach aren't 'anti Rand posters' just because they prefer Ron's approach. What ever happened to Ron Paul supporters being able to support Ron's positions?

If by "preferring Ron's approach" you mean losing, then sure I guess they're entitled to support losing, though Id question anyone that wants to support the same failed strategy that brought us Mitt and Barack. I'd like to play the game to win, not play to make a point, lose again and get Hillary in 2016. Those are the options. Play to win or Hillary. I don't see that as a tough choice. Ron was the educator who never really wanted to win. Rand wants to win and is playing the game accordingly.

 

[Spikender]

If by "preferring Ron's approach" you mean losing, then sure I guess they're entitled to support losing, though Id question anyone that wants to support the same failed strategy that brought us Mitt and Barack. I'd like to play the game to win, not play to make a point, lose again and get Hillary in 2016. Those are the options. Play to win or Hillary. I don't see that as a tough choice. Ron was the educator who never really wanted to win. Rand wants to win and is playing the game accordingly.

Ron Paul didn't lose anything, he used his position to spread a love of liberty and woke up more people than any other politician has in a long time. Do you notice how many liberty candidates are up there because of Ron Paul, and how many of us are on here because of him?

Winning an office is small time compared to waking up millions of people.

I'm still on the fence about Rand Paul myself, but I am still not going to say much about him at this point. I will say that voting for this was a breach of principle in my eyes, and leave it at that.

 

[sailingaway]

If by "preferring Ron's approach" you mean losing, then sure I guess they're entitled to support losing, though Id question anyone that wants to support the same failed strategy that brought us Mitt and Barack. I'd like to play the game to win, not play to make a point, lose again and get Hillary in 2016. Those are the options. Play to win or Hillary. I don't see that as a tough choice. Ron was the educator who never really wanted to win. Rand wants to win and is playing the game accordingly.

By supporting Ron's approach I mean saying the truth clearly and loudly and giving people a rallying point to push change across the board, actually.

 

[devil21]

Ron Paul didn't lose anything, he used his position to spread a love of liberty and woke up more people than any other politician has in a long time. Do you notice how many liberty candidates are up there because of Ron Paul, and how many of us are on here because of him?

Yet we're still a very small percentage and can't carry elections or change policy in any meaningful way. Don't be delusional. We've accomplished a lot but we're still heavily outnumbered and outgunned. And the clock is ticking....

Winning an office is small time compared to waking up millions of people.

This country is about out of time for the wake up call. In case you've missed it, the totalitarian police state is being implemented much faster than we are making progress waking people up. I bet it'll be easy to wake people up inside the FEMA camps....

I'm still on the fence about Rand Paul myself, but I am still not going to say much about him at this point. I will say that voting for this was a breach of principle in my eyes, and leave it at that.

That's fine but at least acknowledge that if he voted against it, today you'd have Krauthammer, Graham, and the rest of the neo-con goon squad bashing him to high heaven to millions of viewers that are not going to "wake up". That'll win elections! For them.