Senate vote 100-0

[ZanZibar]

Yes. We are barring all banks from doing business with Iran. China will probably refuse. India may refuse. The question then becomes how will the U.S. respond to those who refuse to go along.

You might be right about that, I honestly don't know. I would like to ask you to cite the section of the bill which says that please?


And if that's indeed true, then it's an embargo or worse yet an actual blockade, not just a sanction. The other question is if it's unilateral or if other countries join in on it too.

 

[klamath]

And this is where I agree with Rand and against Ron. Sanctions are NOT an act of war any more that if you refused to sell something to someone and then they claimed the right to steal it. I can see Ron point in that our current sanctions always seem to be a step toward a later war. A blockade is an act of war.

 

[Pericles]

And this is where I agree with Rand and against Ron. Sanctions are NOT an act of war any more that if you refused to sell something to someone and then they claimed the right to steal it. I can see Ron point in that our current sanctions always seem to be a step toward a later war. A blockade is an act of war.

Agree - it matters not the reason why a transaction can not be made to the seller. Any infringement is harm to the rights of the buyer.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Funny that members on this forum are quick to ignore the oil embargo pending by Iran.

I have come to this conclusion as a free thinker:

1-Iran is not presently a threat.
2-Iran has the capability to become a threat.

Therefore, while we should not be preemptive in military action, we must maintain upmost vigilance when dealing with Iran.

 

[kylejack]

Funny that members on this forum are quick to ignore the oil embargo pending by Iran.

I have come to this conclusion as a free thinker:

1-Iran is not presently a threat.
2-Iran has the capability to become a threat.

Therefore, while we should not be preemptive in military action, we must maintain upmost vigilance when dealing with Iran.

I'm not ignoring anything. It's their business who they sell their oil to. The world is not entitled to keep buying their oil. If they want to sell it, fine. If not, that's their right.

The United States has no business ordering the banks of other countries what to do. We need to stop trying to be the nanny state of the entire world.

 

[Pericles]

Funny that members on this forum are quick to ignore the oil embargo pending by Iran.

I have come to this conclusion as a free thinker:

1-Iran is not presently a threat.
2-Iran has the capability to become a threat.

Therefore, while we should not be preemptive in military action, we must maintain upmost vigilance when dealing with Iran.

Stop making sense.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I'm not ignoring anything. It's their business who they sell their oil to. The world is not entitled to keep buying their oil. If they want to sell it, fine. If not, that's their right.

The United States has no business ordering the banks of other countries what to do. We need to stop trying to be the nanny state of the entire world.

Ban on central banks, ban on oil, same principle.

I agree that sanctions are a negative value, but oil embargos compare favorably.

So, are both countries committing acts of war? IMO no, but it could lead to war....but it might not.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So I guess if somebody is a 90% non interventionist, that's not good enough for you. You would just sit back and allow the 100% interventionist to win.

Intervention is intervention is intervention.

It's like being a "little pregnant".

You either are or are not.

By what right does the US have to impose a fiduciary blockade against a nation that has not attacked us and there has been no declaration of war against?

 

[klamath]

Funny that members on this forum are quick to ignore the oil embargo pending by Iran.

I have come to this conclusion as a free thinker:

1-Iran is not presently a threat.
2-Iran has the capability to become a threat.

Therefore, while we should not be preemptive in military action, we must maintain upmost vigilance when dealing with Iran.

Closing the strait of hormuz would be an act of war agaist all non involved nations because it would be stopping free trade with noninvolved nations at the point of a gun. It would be a bad move on their part because they just declared war against nations that might have been their allies otherwise.

 

[Number19]

You might be right about that, I honestly don't know. I would like to ask you to cite the section of the bill which says that please?...And if that's indeed true, then it's an embargo or worse yet an actual blockade, not just a sanction. The other question is if it's unilateral or if other countries join in on it too.

This is an issue that just came to my attention this afternoon. I'm still researching the details and ramifications, which mostly may not become clear until the legislation is signed and implementation begins. But much of my initial understanding is influenced by this link : http://www.cnbc.com/id/45806878?__source=google|editorspicks|&par=google; and this paragraph, which on second look could be interpreted several ways : “You have in the case of Europe, Korea and Japan, private banks that facilitate trade between refineries and Iran...adding those banks would not want to be barred from doing business with the U.S. financial system...". The obvious question is whether the restrictions only apply to the petrochemical transactions or to all business transactions. But it is indisputable that our government has the power over the financial system to do as it pleases.

I don't believe this will take the form of an embargo, or blockade, because this would mean using military force to cut off commerce between Iran and China, which I don't believe China will tolerate. We know there are treaty agreements between the two countries, although we don't know the extent of these agreements. And China does import 500,000 barrels of Iranian oil each day.

 

[AbVag]

Would 99-Yes, 1-No really make a difference?

It did with Ron Paul. He's been called him Dr. No for a reason.

 

[LoneWolf]

Here's the vote. Rand Paul voted Yes.

Statement of Purpose: To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to the financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran.

SOURCE:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00216



This was a losing battle so I don't blame Rand Paul (99-1 means nothing), but his Freedom Index score will drop.

Means something to the people who voted for him thinking he was more like his Father and not a typical scumbag Republican.Tons of times Ron Paul has been the lone no vote or yes vote on things you are supposed to stand by your principles.

 

[Brett85]

By what right does the US have to impose a fiduciary blockade against a nation that has not attacked us and there has been no declaration of war against?

I agree with you on that. I'm opposed to sanctions. I'm just saying that I don't have to agree with a politician on every single issue in order to support them. Rand's foreign policy views are pretty good in general. He's still the most non interventionist Senator we have.

 

[ZanZibar]

And this is where I agree with Rand and against Ron. Sanctions are NOT an act of war any more that if you refused to sell something to someone and then they claimed the right to steal it. I can see Ron point in that our current sanctions always seem to be a step toward a later war. A blockade is an act of war.

Well I disagree with Rand on his vote, I think sanctions are almost always bad, but I do agree that they are not an act of war. I didn't understand this until I did some research on it last week.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

when does Obama sign this?

 

[kylejack]

when does Obama sign this?

The sanctions were attached to the NDAA, which Obama signed 5 days ago.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

If you watch the uncut CNN interview with Gloria Borger, Ron Paul said he would probably vote against the payroll tax cut if it is paired with extending unemployment benefits.

He said if the tax cuts were greater in amount than the other things in the bill, he'd vote for it.

Push comes to shove, he touts his "never voted for a tax increase" stance all the time. Also, Rand was talking about how the tax cut would hurt SS and government revenue (as if that money were the government's), while Ron was saying it's their money, of course I want to cut the tax.

 

[Ricky201]

We donated to him so he could represent us. I don't like this compromise bullshit, especially with innocently lives being effected by this. I'm a pretty forgiving voter (when it comes to a Ron Paul supporter). If you vote for universal healthcare, but are great on civil liberties, foreign policy, and other economic issues...I would probably forgive you. If you voted for other affirmative actions to take place, but are great on everything else I probably would forgive you. If you vote to raise taxes, but are great on everything else I probably would forgive you.

I can NEVER stand by anyone that votes for acts of war. Sorry Rand, but you lost my donation and my vote.

 

[liberty2897]

While i agree with the sentiment in this thread for the most part, I am new here. I'm sure that not many here really care much about what I have to say. I'm okay with that. I will say this: When Rand Paul was the only person I saw that stood up against the Patriot Act, I took notice. I doubt I would be here learning, reading, and being educated about freedom/liberty if he had not done that. I doubt I would have given a significant amount of my income this year to Ron Paul if I had not heard Rand Paul speak up for me and my concerns regarding civil liberties. I also abhor war, but I am willing to let the man explain himself before dismissing him. Shouldn't a thread like this be in hot topics right before the primaries? flame away.

 

[jmdrake]

Who wrote this international law? And where did they ever get the authority to do that?

+rep