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



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I'm sick of this!

If I could say one thing to iRand it would be this

GO AWAY and learn something about peace. Until you're more like your father- shut up and go back to Kentucky.

This guy acts like a smarter version of palin.

Right, because Palin would

Right, because Palin would have moved to try and stop the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, etc.
Get your head out of your ass dude.

You missed my point

Rand is a physician.

Palin is quitter with not too much brains as demonstrated in the interview with Katie Couric ('Don't care how you spell her name).

Both basically appear the same policy wise.

You did the right thing by

You did the right thing by challenging him on it and you can tell by his answer that fundamentally he gets it. On this one I think he made a mistake but he has been fighting a heroic battle in the Senate overall. I would still support him later on given he keeps going like he has been but we all have to call him out when he gets it wrong. Still though he is by far the best guy in the Senate.

When you compare him to his dad I would call him the lesser of two goods.

I don't care much for Rands answer but...

Like the poster above...he is better than the rest. Rand said that sometimes sanctions have had positive results. I can't think of any that have had positive results that were "fair" to both sides. The situations where sanctions are claimed to have had positive results are most likely against small countries where they know they would stand zero chance against the military and financial powers of the US. That's more of a bullying situation than sanctions working. IMHO.

Weren't these sanctions

Weren't these sanctions passed by unanimous consent? If so he couldn't have objected without picking another fight on another bill that would have been passed anyway... I'd say he's picking his choosing his battles based on what he thinks he can actually get accomplished instead of simply voting no and making a political point but no progress

I hope he's not learning how

I hope he's not learning how to be a team player just for the sake of appeasement.

not convincing

something is better than nothing ? so lets put sanctions, which have always been a precursor to war ? and will only harm the general population there. and solidify the support of their current administration, when the general populace is under threat !!
just like poor scared people today run to their neocon leaders to "save" them from all the bad guys !

----------------------------
Dr.Ron Paul's 2002 Predictions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

Bottom line

Iran has a very young average population. Pissing them off along with a billion other Moslems is not going to bode well.

Plus China and Russia as friends of theirs is even going to increase the turmoil.

P.s. This being said I think China has outgrown the West's expectations. It is going to be even more difficult to reel them in. I wouldn't be surprised if China starting annexing parts of South East Asia if Iran was attacked and occupied.

donvino

When I hear someone say sanctions....

I remember the powerful words written by Lew Rockwell in his blog:

When the Neocons [or anyone for that matter] Say 'Sanctions'...
...they actually mean impoverishment, sickness, starvation, and death. As an act of war intentionally directed at civilians (including women, children, old people, and non-combatant men), sanctions are war crimes—and those who implement them are war criminals. Those who propagandize for them are accessories to murder.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/37292.html

No one can find a safe way out if society is sweeping towards destruction. Everyone,in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. - LvM

Rand sounds like santorum. He

Rand sounds like santorum. He sites all these bad things about sanctions and concluded against these facts to support sanctions. Can you get turned to the dark side and hope to come out ahead. When do you stop compromising and taking the "middle ground."

NO ONE BUT Ron Paul!

Did you guys realize that the smartest people like Woodrew Wilson, makes the worst mistakes?

To people comparing him to Santorum

Seriously? Wake up. He's taken rather courageous stands on NDAA, SOPA, The Patriot Act and on and on...

I was disappointed in his answer and I wondered if maybe he was playing to this rural, redneck, Kentucky crowd that was predominantly over 55... he's a little better than Ron at speaking Republican-ese and I think that will help him in the long run.

Besides, wasn't this a unanimous consent vote?

This would make perfect sense

if sanctions would cause Iran to get the idea that they need to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. BUT, that's assuming they're on the path to acquiring nukes. Assuming they are, I don't think sanctions are going to stop them. Here's the way I explain it to people. The only way to stop any country from pursuing a nuclear weapon is to invade that country, overthrow its government, and occupy it Iraq-style. Iraq cost us $3 TRILLION and FOUR thousand lives. Iran is more than three times the size of Iraq. War with Iraq would cost us over $9 TRILLION and over TWELVE thousand lives. It would literally bankrupt this country and probably cause a military cue here.

Cue the military!

I think you meant "military coup".

I chalk this up to inexperience

Being in the Senate and trying to be principled is really, really tough. It's easy to be deceived, too.

He's only been in the Senate for less than 2 years. I'll pray for him and hope that he gains experience and wisdom. I'm kinda glad that this was his reason and not "Because I had to support the team."

Thanks for asking him that question so he could answer. I wish him the best.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Exactly

Remember, Rand is not perfect and he's not his father. Let's wait and see. Hopefully he'll see his mistake and learn from it.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Sanctions are worse than doing nothing

I would assume (hope) Rand understands this, and only voted for sanctions as political strategy/theater.

If Government wanted to "something" we should be subsidizing free trade with Iran, (flood Iran with loss-leaders, subsidized western goods and services). This would give Iranians the idea that the outside world is good, not bad.

Sanctions encourage Iranian nationalism, and the idea that the outside world is bad.

He's no Dr. Ron Paul

Sanctions are an act of war. He reminded me of the debate with Rick Santorum voting for Planned Parenthood and how he could not explain that one away. It is Senate pride. He should have consulted with his brilliant father, our candidate, Dr. Ron Paul.

What Rand says about war is correct

But he doesn't bother to persuade anyone why sanctions make any sense. What is the goal of sanctions except to piss them off, to provoke them into attacking us or attacking their neighbors?

When have sanctions ever, EVER worked? Exactly... never in all of history. Period.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

Debbie's picture

That is just what I was going to say! He gives examples of

sanctions NOT working, and no examples of them working! I agree with Ron Paul, sanctions are a bad idea. I respect Rand for having his own viewpoints but disagree on this point. I think sanctions will only antagonize Iran more (I can see why), but will not prevent them from developing a nuke if they want to. They have Russia, China (and Venezuela?) to help them.

Debbie

I think the son still has a lot to learn from his father.

"It could de-stabilise the middle east." Really? We sure wouldn't want to cause a ripple in that still and peaceful pond! I agree with Ron that sanctions lead to war. I think he probably voted the popular way. Sounds exactly like what Frothy said at the debate about taking one for the team. I hope I am wrong about senator Paul.

Larry in North Carolina
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to not support Ron Paul!

He needs his own education

One of the reasons why Ron Paul is so why is because he's studied the words of great minds. Here's hoping that Rand Paul can gain wisdom, too. I do believe he's doing the best he can. He can't just learn from his father. He has to learn for himself.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Sanctions are intended to

Sanctions are intended to force people to vote in a way that we want them to in order to end the misery. Since last year, the sanctions on Iran have caused the rial to lose 60% of it's value. This is not an acceptable position. Rand is getting dangerously close to being one of the "lesser evils" in Congress.

Sounds like it could be a

Sounds like it could be a "slippery slope"

This is what someone over at

This is what someone over at Ron Paul forums said. It makes sense.

"I've been told by people who work in his office that he voted for sanctions (on their central bank not on medical supplies and things of that nature) so that if it comes down to him having to stop the war by himself with a filibuster (or at least force a declaration) then he will have the political capital to say that he's been going through the "diplomatic" steps (because even though we know sanctions lead to war -- in the media they are portrayed as ways to prevent war). If he doesn't vote for any sanctions the perception is that, "oh well you tried to sit by and ignore it and because of that now we have to go in."

Again you may not agree with his tactics but his ultimate goal of preventing war and the fact that he's not voting for sanctions on medical supplies and food, etc. are what we want in a U.S. Senator."

I think the government fully

I think the government fully intends to strike Iran, it's just a matter of when. This war is being waged for economic reasons. They have already tried one move to provoke Russia (which Rand blocked btw, and the media blacked out), and a strike on Iran will definitely get Russia and China involved too. This isn't really about nuclear weapons. That is just an excuse. When that time comes to start a hot war with Iran, Rand is going to need some support to fight it. I don't like or agree with sanctions, and from the sound of it, it doesn't seem like Rand really does either... But I just hope that he has a plan.

Re: the post above. If that is true...

Why not do a skillful job of saying that publicly...without actually saying it. That's what politicans do all the time and like it or not, it's a skill that must be mastered...even by the "good guys".

Thanks...

For this explanation - it makes a lot more sense of his choice which seems inconsistent otherwise.

Sweet Liberty

Were there voting subsections?

Like yes for sanctions on this but no for that? What is included in the final "exclusion list" in other words...what are "things of that nature"? Thanks for the info...BTW

I really want to know more...and I'll be digging now.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

The sanctions that we put on

The sanctions that we put on Iraq in the 90's actually targeted food and medical care. We wouldn't even allow the Iraqi people to get medical care. He was saying that Rand is opposed to these kind of sanctions, and the sanctions that he voted for weren't sanctions on things like food and medical care. It was just a sanction on Iran's central bank. I still don't agree with it, but it's not nearly as bad as what we did to Iraq in the 90's.