69 votes

Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions Are An Act of War!

[The Capitol Column: ] U.S. Congressman Ron Paul vocally opposed new sanctions against Iran Wednesday. He referred to the economic sanctions as “an act of war.” The bill aims to stop Iran’s nuclear program, which is suspected to be pursuing nuclear weapons, although Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Mr. Paul was one of few representatives who opposed the sanctions against Iran in retaliation for its nuclear program. The sanctions attempt to target the Iranian oil industry, in addition to Chinese and Iraqi banks.

According to Reuters, China’s Foreign Ministry said these sanctions against Iran harm China’s interests and will be detrimental to the relationship between the China and the U.S. One group that was pleased with the bill was the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbyist group that endorsed the sanctions.

Read more at The Capitol Column

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

When the U.S. imposed

When the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iraq and 500,000 Iraqi children died from disease and starvation, what do we call that? When the then Secretary of State Madelene Al Bright was interviewed and asked was it the right thing to do, she replied, Yes! We think it was.

Bob Marshall

SteveMT's picture

"Ron Paul continues to

Ron Paul 2012, Economic Sanctions comments, etc.
August 4, 2012 by Staff

"Ron Paul continues to outshine the soon to be ex president Barack Obama. Ron Paul the people choice."

posted comments from this story:
nevadasmith says:
"When Ron Paul stands practically alone in decrying sanctions against Iran, then you know America is in complete moral bankruptcy."

Patriot1 says:
Ron Paul is kind of like the prophets in the Old Testament. In ancient Israel, the nation was in a state of moral decay, on the verge of collapse, and prophets such as Jeremiah and others spoke up and warned the people of the impending doom. However, nobody listened to them; instead they were mocked, ridiculed, ignored, beaten, imprisoned, and sometimes even killed. Such is the case with Ron Paul today. he speaks the truth, but no one listens, in fact he is often mocked and ridiculed. I don’t believe a word that the government says anymore. Since they lie about EVERYTHING, why should I believe them when it comes to Iran? It’s like the story about the boy who cried wolf. He kept shouting “Wolf wolf!” and the people would come running to his aid, only to find it to be a false alarm. Finally, a wolf really did come, but when he cried wolf, nobody believed him and the wolf devoured him. That is the sad story of our government today. With all these false flag incidents, who’s going to believe them if there really is a crisis?

Truly sad

I don't want WW3 to start before November. Of course, I don't want it to start at all.

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

I hate to go against the Doc,

but trade sanctions aren't really an act of war. Now before the haters out there start to hate, listen to me for a second. It's important to understand the difference between sanctions, an embargo, and a blockade. We've had a near embargo, or refusal to allow American businesses trade with Iranian ones, since shortly after the Shah fell. We've had one with Cuba for decades.

Embargos don't work, because there's always someone willing to do business with unsavory countries for the right amount of money (like China, or Russia). We've been also working on getting other nations to impose sanctions, really embargos of limited scope, for years as well. Most countries won't sell Iran weapons, and now we've got a lot of them not buying Iranian oil either. The odds of these sanctions convincing Iran not to develop nuclear technology are slim; sanctions or embargos don't have a good track record.

You could make a strong case that we shouldn't be telling other nations who they can or cannot trade with, and that by doing so we're just throwing our weight around. You could also make the case that since santions and embargos don't work, we'd might as well lift our own and try engaging with Iran instead of pretending they don't exist. Where you would fall short is by trying to say these actions are an act of war. To be a true act of war, we would have to physically stop other nations from doing business with Iran, and that can only be accomplished by enforcing a blockade.

A lot of peole get blockades and embargos confused; there are those who even think we started the war with Japan by blockading them. We imposed an embargo on selling Japan steel and oil (and some other war materials) in response to their slaughter of Chinese while occupying Manchuria. All the other nations of the world were free to sell Japan whatever they wanted, and we did nothing to stop them. We blockaded the South during the Civil War, that is, we turned away foreign ships from doing business with them, and sank any Confederate ships that tried to do business with the rest of the world. We also enforced a blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

A blockade is an absolute act of war with hundreds of years precedent. Trade sanctions, while counter-productive and not a nice thing to do, is far short of that threshold.

Suppose someone put effective trade sanctions/blockades on us.

Would we consider it an act of war?

(Not that WE need a reason to go to war.)



You make some good arguments ...

But, as usual the devil is in the details.

"The Wall Street Journal reports that this bill comes as a compromise between two committees. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen collaborated on the bill.

This round of sanctions comes in addition to additional sanctions approved last year. The previous bill penalized countries that participated in business with Iran’s central bank. Reuters reports that these sanctions successfully limited purchases of Iranian oil from countries such as Japan, South Korea and India."


Here's a video I came across a while back. It makes the case that sanctions can lead to genocide, with an example of U.S. sanctions against Iraq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rlhJ71n0Tg

So I guess the question in that case would be, is genocide against another sovereign nation an act of war?

I think it's what the sanction is

When a sanction is a product like medicine for example, and people are dying from not getting medicine, than it's an act of war for it's killing people, eh?

reedr3v's picture

Check the last paragraph. LOL, the Liberal media

is already sticking the blame on Romney. Poor Obama is once again "forced" into war by the only Evil ones in the room, the Repubs.

AIPAC and the Zionist Jew

AIPAC and the Zionist Jew bankers runs the USA.

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams

reedr3v's picture

Troll alert



Are you that Dumb or just playing Dumb.Maybe just waiting for the zionist war machine to strike Iran so the zionist shadow govt can race to thier aid...


Thank you

Posted on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15