46 votes

Sen. Rand Paul Explains His Vote In Favor Of Sanctions On Iran

Today I attended a town hall in Alexandria, KY and was able to finally ask Rand Paul a question many have wondered about, namely why he voted in favor of sanctions on Iran.

As far as I know this question hadn't been posed to him yet...

http://youtu.be/3LzzBOVsIFk

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sanctions is

an act of war!

Lessons learned

Gaddafi dismantled his nuclear program. He downsized his defense capabilities. He spent the bulk of the savings and the oil revenues on programs for housing, education and health care for the Libyan people, creating the most prosperous country in Africa. He cooperated with US intelligence agencies on terrorism.

So........ the US attacked supported his over throw which killed him and his family anyway.

North Korea kept it's nuclear program. Strengthened it's defense program. Developed the bomb. Starved and impoverished it's people. Shared missile and nuclear technology. Didn't cooperate on the war on terror.

So......... the US left them alone.

What's the lesson here? The US is asking Iran to cooperate????

sanctions

Rand Paul correctly stated that an external threat had a tendency to rally the Iranians around the current government.

He is being disingenuous. Sanctions represent an external threat. The US will be blamed for any economic problem and shortages of goods that the Iranians end up with. Let's also not forget the massive number of infant deaths that occurred as a result of the Clinton sanctions on Iraq.

Rand should listen to his father more, and his neo-con advisers less.

Keep some perspective, folks.

Keep some perspective, folks. If this was any other Senator you guys would be going nuts (in a good way) over his votes and attention he is bringing to constitutional issues.

He is speaking a language that normal people can understand.

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

SteveMT's picture

He isn't. That's the problem.

Everyone goes through the filter here, and that filter is The Ron Paul filter of the Constitution. That is what is being used, nothing more.

He is making it very hard to defend him right now

If I have nothing nice to say, I won't say anything at all.

I love you Ron Paul!

Now my question is this.

I can have a million nuclear weapons hanging out but until I use them what crime did I commit again?

more localized personal example:

I don't want these crackheads who live down the street from me having guns but I can't go and disarm them "just in case" I feel they might do something to me? It is a preconceived STEREOTYPE at best that these "crackheads down the street" have ever thought of or will ever harm, hurt or steal from me ever so what business is it of MINE if even they have a weapon?

Now if they come into MY yard, house and so forth I ACT but until then why should I SANCTION or USE FORCE just because in my mind I rationalize the possibility or almost certainty that something could happen.

why did I use a crackhead analogy for this....

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

That's why I will never

That's why I will never support this man!

juan maldonado

Compromise or cave-in?

I don't buy any of his rationalizing of sanctions against Iran. I'd like Rand Paul to cite one instance in which sanctions worked to the advantage of the United States. Sanctions against Japan invited their attack at Pearl Harbor. Sanctions against Germany after WWI led to the rise of Nazism. Sanctions against Cuba didn't hurt Castro one bit.

It's beginning to look like Rand is submitting to the Republican Establishment, either because of behind the scenes coercion or his own peculiar idea of party unity.

Paul should realize that Iran is Israel's problem. Let the Jews deal with Iran. It is none of our business.

Romney's election is a guarantee of business as usual in the Middle East. He is the candidate of choice for the neocons. Many of Romney's foreign policy advisers are Bush retreads. Seventeen of the thirty-five are CFR members. I checked each one against the CFR membership list on CFR's home page.

Ron B.

Sanctions

Can someone please explain to me the purpose of sanctions? I don't understand how they hurt governments, I'm sure they're well stocked & supplied and control all resources anyway (like Obama does now). Doesn't it force the people to depend more heavily on their government? Being discontent with your government vs. food for your children - which would you choose? I imagine most would not bite the hand that feeds them. Maybe I have it wrong. I also don't agree with Rand's statement we only have 3 options; do nothing, sanctions or war.

"The goal of the Obama administration’s sanctions on Iran is to undermine the regime by stoking public discontent" http://news.antiwar.com/2012/01/10/goal-of-iran-sanctions-is...

God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. – Daniel Webster

Do I do more research

Than these politicians? There is NO proof at all that IRAN is building a weapon ! How can sanctions or anything else work to stop something that hasn't even been proved or isn't being done ???!!!!!
I think of Bachmann waiving around the IAEA report saying they could have the weapon in months. She either didn't read it or is an evil LIAR. I read it. Just like Ahemdinejad threatening to "Wipe Israel off the map" Is a LIE ! Is Rand ignorant or a liar?

Both lol

Both lol

juan maldonado

Bottom line

Sanctions or undeclared wars?

Tough spot to be in because no one else would probably vote outside this framework.

Rand is doing great imo the more I think about it.

Remember he is a US Senator and not a Congressman...He has less wiggle room with lobbyists and special interests in my view. Imagine day after day people coming to see you for contracts and/or easy money. lol

He is only one guy, seems as though Lee has bailed.

Let others walk in his shoes for a day and then give their views.

p.s. I would rather cut off all diplomatic channels and close embassies first then putting on sanctions if there was a choice and if the country is viewed as so dangerous.

So what Cuba has been sanctioned and is still around. Not that I necessarily agree with it today but people do manage.

donvino

Ron Paul clones don't exist

Rand haters who are now looking for every excuse to hate, better wake up to the realization that there will NEVER BE another Ron Paul. The sanctions debate is one that obviously Ron and Rand disagree on. That does not mean Ron is right and Rand is wrong, it just means they disagree. It's ok, reasonable people can disagree. I personally side with Ron on the argument. However it is premature to judge Rand on this vote alone, when the entirety of his voting record puts him well with our movements ideology.

Ron Paul clones don't exist. They never will. So as this movement evolves we have to come to the realization that each person is an individual, and each person is imperfect. There are going to be disagreements, just keep in mind we are all fighting on the same side, and for the same cause.

I think this is hilarious!

In 2010 so many on this site were drooling over Rand Paul being elected to the senate. The Rand worship was palpable. I dared, dare mind you, to point out that Rand Paul is not Ron Paul by association or family name. That every, any candidate requires personal vetting. Since I knew nothing about Rand at the time, I didn't criticize him, but rather just suggested that their allegiance to him was premature.

I was vilified, chastized, called every name in the book including the Daily Paul favorite: a troll. I was told that so close to the mid-term elections that any such talk was treasonous. I was actually booted off the Daily Paul! The Daily Paul had become what it proclaimed to be fighting against: tyranical. Our way or we'll isolate you and your unconventional views. Not very Paul like.

And now? ROTFL! A little common sense goes a long way.

This is what Santorum calls 'taking one for the team'. There

are so many sanctions on Iran now, it's no different from an ancient regime encircling a hold out to starve them into surrender/submission.

Frankly I didn't come away with a clear picture of what Rand actually believes. I heard a lot of double-talk: Part Ron and part Party.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Ding dong JPS

I have been thinking the same all along, in each of his interviews. Is it a message that he's giving us or is it deceit?.

Sanctions against any country = act of war where only the public suffer

Preparation through education is less costly than learning through tragedy

I should

have paid more attention to this. I think it's a sign of things to come.

Ugh.

And what happens on June 21st when Iran, along with all its trading partners are ousted from the international clearing house, SWIFT system(settled in dollars)??? Who needs the dollar after this? China, Brazil, India, and Iran are currently deciding alternate methods of settling their trade imbalances. Hello Gold. Goodbye dollar reserve.

Rand ought to spend a few hours a week in his dad's library. His arrogance in economics makes my stomach queezy.

This is how Rand advances the freedom agenda.

Well played Rand! Masterstroke! Act like a Neo-con until people believe you're a neo-con and then .... I guess you'd be a neo-con.

Why Rand

Thats all I can say...why do this. This world needs you, and right when you being tested the most, you flop around, you rode the wave of your father. It is making me sick.

You just got PAULED!

You can't call yourself teaparty

and vote for sanctions.

INCOMPATIBLE.

Lost a lot of respect and my automatic support with this one.

The Problem with Duplicity

du·plic·i·ty   [doo-plis-i-tee, dyoo-] Show IPA
noun, plural du·plic·i·ties

1. deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as by speaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter; double-dealing. Synonyms: deceit, deception, dissimulation, fraud, guile, hypocrisy, trickery. Antonyms: candidness, directness, honesty, straightforwardness.
2. an act or instance of such deceitfulness.

It's a common political trait. In almost every instance, the purity which one shows up in elected office possessing, is quickly vaporized by the compromise of thoughts which stand in the way of being in the club; or positioning oneself for higher office. Adolescents call it Peer Pressure. Radically strong principles are required to be the anti-virus to resist such temptations. Rand never got the shot. It's only downhill from here.

Unacceptable

I'm sorry, but in trying to make Ron Paul's message more "mainstream", you end up corrupting it entirely.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for bringing people our way. But you do that with discussion and explanation of your position. You help them see your point-of-view from a different angle. You DO NOT delude the message by compromising your core principles to fit their preconceived beliefs.

The Liberty movement is all about mutually-assured respect in all aspects of governance, including our dealing with foreign powers. If you don't believe that "love your neighbor as yourself" works outside the purview of our national boundaries, then you don't really believe in it in the first place.

This was the video that changed my opinion.

I defended Rand's political tightrope walking. Now I'm stepping away from that.

I am moving to a neutral stance on Rand. No longer will he get my automatic support and defense.

From now on I'll take each Rand issue/event individually.

I know what he's trying to do. Rebuild the GOP, with future plans to bring Ron Paul supporters together with Flea Party supporters, and Glen Palin supporters, and the GOP establishment.

I'm not going to go for that.

Reforming the GOP is the same

Reforming the GOP is the same goal Ron has had, though. I think that's why he has stayed in the party all this time. He could have chosen to go third party again, right from the start, but he didn't. The GOP still has vestiges of libertarian rhetoric (fiscal conservatism, small govt, individual rights, freedom, etc). I used to be a Tea Party supporter-- at least in the beginning, before I started sensing the co-option by Koch, etc (which is not surprising now that I know the history between CATO and Mises). But I think Rand is the real deal.

Thanks OP

That was a good answer from Rand, pretty much what I expected - Rand has a broader definition of "national defense" than does Ron. For Ron (and for me), national defense means literally defending the territory of the U.S. from attack. Rand, on the other hand, considers stability in the Middle East a national defense issue, warranting intervention. I imagine he has similar views about stability in the Far East (e.g. supporting Taiwan), and in Europe (e.g. supporting NATO), etc.

Rand is FAR better than the neocon war-mongers; I don't think we'd see another war under a President Rand Paul - but, he is not advocating the same change in grand strategy that Ron is.

Of all the issues, I can most forgive Rand's position on foreign policy, because there are no principles at stake. We and Rand agree that the federal government should defend the U.S., our disagreement is over the MEANS of accomplishing that task.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

He agrees with Ron on a

He agrees with Ron on a Constitutional foreign policy where only congress has the authority to declare wars, and his budget proposal calls for the overall reduction of our forces & overseas presence (see pg 14 of the proposal). So I would say they are still in the same ballpark on foreign policy. The difference is, apparently, Rand doesn't consider sanctions to necessarily be an act of war in all cases. And he is choosing to emphasize the fiscal concerns, and the fact that the cold war mentality needs to finally come to an end in order to modernization our forces and have a stronger defense at home. Honestly, I think if we could just follow the Constitution, we'd have fewer unnecessary conflicts in the first place. That would solve a lot of problems right there. And even better if we could end the Fed and change our monetary policy--that would reduce special interests (both domestic and foreign) from having an incentive to dictate our policies.

I didn't hear him

answer the question to my satisfaction.

Ya, he takes the middle

Ya, he takes the middle ground. I disagree with him on many issues, but he is still better than most. SO FAR. I am not completely certain he is "corruption-proof". We will have to see. I think he voted for the debt ceiling increase or some other off thing, too..

What he voted yes on was a

What he voted yes on was a motion to table the bill, but he voted against the final version. He was pushing for a balanced budget amendment and wanted to debate it. But he was vocally opposed to the debt ceiling increase. I remember he was getting a lot of heat for holding up the bill.

http://www.votesmart.org/bill/13640/36146/117285/increasing-...