8 votes

Time OpEd: Sen. Rand Paul: U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression

By Rand Paul | Time Magazine | March 9, 2014

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community. His continuing occupation of Ukraine is completely unacceptable and Russia’s President should be isolated for his actions.

It is America’s duty to condemn these actions in no uncertain terms. It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression.

Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.

More: http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-act...

Comment viewing options

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

All along while the US directed protesters were violently taking

over Kiev, Russia was complaining about the US violation of that same treaty.

"The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine...."

The US, through NED and USAID, located, assisted, trained, and supported these "peaceful protesters" as they took over Government buildings, threw gasoline firebombs, and attacked police officers. And the US threatened the Yanukovych Government that it would get involved if the government intervened.

THAT is certainly as much a violation of that treaty as anything the Russians have done.

The leaked call by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland made clear to anyone who had any doubt that the US was planning this takeover all along. The man that she specifically mentions as her hand picked replacement for Yanukovych is the man currently occupying that position today.

Russia was not alone, or even FIRST in throwing out that treaty.

fireant's picture

No doubt, but our moral authority is zilch at this point.

All of our "secret" meddling, which can be painted however our "leaders" want, does a disservice to the whole process, and gives Putin fodder to carry on. If our efforts can't be conducted out in the open on this issue, we lose all credibility.

Undo what Wilson did

Great job.

This piece and his one on Brietbart is fantastic. Ted Cruz is a neophyte when it comes to Rand's political abilities.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/03/10/Rand-Paul-Reag...

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

And why hasn't he released a

And why hasn't he released a statement about Israel's illegal occupation and Jewish only colonies on Palestinian land? Rand is such a disappointment.

man

What is Palestinian Land?

After WWI, The Brittish occupied the Palestinian Mandate. The mandate was to establish two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state. The land was divided Jordan, the Arab state; and Israel, the Jewish state. What was known as Sumaria and Judea became Palestine, Trans-Jordan, The West Bank, that flies Jordan's flag, but is dependent on Israel for water, energy, jobs and so on, and it's Israel's fault becaise Israel strives to have these things which most the mid east does not. Technology, energy, what have you are controlled by layers of authority. which blaming Israel is ignorant of what is Palestine and buying this "Bad Israel" BS, coming from the Communist/Islamic front in the UN for a UN Agenda, which opposes western civilization: US/Israel.

Sharia law come to the USA, you and me are infor a short life because I will not wear a hadji or burka and for you, homosexulas are executed.

Granger, u are one of the

Granger, u are one of the most ignorant people I have ever come across. What is now the West Bank was never part of the imposed Jewish state. Go look at the UN Partition map and see for yourself.

Incorrect

After WWI and the Brittish occupied Palestine for 30 years, they made promises to Jews and Arabs to hand over the land. Jews, especially Jews that had created weath in the USA began investing, buying property, building industry, draining swamps.. so when the UN was created and the Palestinian Mandate was issues, all the countries agreed for two states to be made of the Palestinians Mandate.. Jordan and Israel. From the beginning, of course, there were disputes because both sides felt betrayed.

Parts of the West Bank had been won and retuned by Israel to Trans Jordan/ The West bank. Israel supplies much of the water and power and jobs. Most of the people in the West Bank came looking for jobs with Israel. Watch Palestinian movies. Explore resources.

I never said The West Bank was part of Israel. I said The West bank flies the flag of Jordan, not Israel, and Jordan was made of the same treaty as Israel.. but for some reason.. people blame Israel for Palestine.. It's like blaming America for Tiajuana.

I cringed as I read it, but I was relieved to see that most of

the huff and puff stuff - was just that (huff and puff) designed to sound strong to an electorate who wants their leaders to sounds strong (even when they are huffing and puffing).

He DIDN'T advocate a US military role (Thank God), nor did he advocate anything like a blockade (again Thank God). He merely advocated voluntary restraint of trade and giving Europe other choices for energy. Nothing wrong with that. If I oppose something someone is doing I probably would avoid doing business with that person.

I especially liked when he said "We should also suspend American loans and aid to Ukraine because currently these could have the counterproductive effect of rewarding Russia. Ukraine owes so much money to Russia that America would essentially be borrowing from China to give to Russia. " So true.

It would be like being robbed of your credit card and responding by calling your bank to up your credit limit on that card.

Yes. I agree. And the issue

Yes. I agree. And the issue is pretty complicated. I think Rand is right on this one.

Debbie's picture

I agree also.

*

Debbie

Every time Rand says

Every time Rand says something smart, he hedges it by saying something fucking stupid the very next day. I'm so goddam wanting to support this guy but fuck me if he doesn't piss me off more often than he makes me proud.

So the coward piece of shit Cruz calls you a pussy on foreign policy. STAND UP AND MAKE SENSE Rand. Cruz is an idiot. You were right the first time you spoke about the Ukraine "crisis."

Take a deep breath and reread

Take a deep breath and reread what he's saying.

This could be looked at from a freedom perspective

In the Budapest agreement, after the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine agreed to remove over 1000 nuclear weapons in it's possession. This was in an exchange for a security agreement. I could be wrong, but I have a hunch Russia would not have been so quick to invade Ukraine if they sill had those weapons. Just saying.

Genious?

Political judo at it's best!!!

Pro's:
- Helps Rands career! Yeah! Stand with Rand!!! KING RAND! KING RAND! KING RAND!

Con's:
- Didn't really enlighten anyone or cure anyone's apathy.
- Reinforced the puff your chest and act with arrogance philosophy that has kept the wheels of the war machine turning.
- Promote a policy of war (since sanctions are an act of war)
- Promote a policy that will push BRICS to dump the dollar, while simultaneously not educating anyone on this issue.

Stand with Rand, he is.

What are the alternatives to sanctions?

This guy makes some interesting points-
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2012/10/31/economic-sa...

Essentially saying free trade would empower and create wealth for the citizens who could then stand up against their oppressive governments. Doesn't seem like this is true in Russia or China; the rich just seem to co-opt the corruption.

I think sanctions could be useful. It depends. I don't think it's as simplistic as saying they are an act of war.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

great article.

Extremely well put and thought out.

Also, keep in mind that Russia, China, and the US don't have free trade. These massive "free-trade" agreements are misnomers and should be appropriately named "regulated-trade". As Jake Towne once put it - you don't need 2,000 pages of regulation to define "free" trade.
But the evidence and theory is overwhelming that freedom allows for more productivity and prosperity.

Sanctions an act of war or not??? I don't really want to argue over the definitions. Obama argued that dropping bombs on a country wasn't an act of war. that's silly. I know that sanctions are designed to hurt economies, which causes poverty for the innocent citizenry, death, and is often a precursor to war. And ironically enough typically pushes the oppressed citizenry of the sanctioned nation toward dependence on their evil leaders. Nationalism tends to increase during war or threat of war times. I don't know of a situation where it is useful.

agreed on the free trade / regulated trade

And even Mr. Paine advocated for sanctions.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

Sanctions are not actually an act of war

They are an act of dissociation.

I think its all bullshit, but he does maintain a strictly constitutional position here. He is doing a great job keeping his positions consistent while feeding the interventionist types red meat.

He is basically saying "Yeah, we should punish Russia!!! YOU KNOW HOW?!?!?! give us a little bit freedom back... YEAH!!! PUNISH THEM!!!

Séamusín

If you think its all bullshit,

why do you apologize for it?

I honestly think this is part of the problem, we allow a hypocrisy between what we know is right and the actions we take/support.

Especially when we justify it by saying it's red meat for the interventionists types. Does reinforcing their flawed view help our cause? Is it this political game of deceit that we are trying to win?? or are we trying to accomplish something more? Will being deceitful help us reach our ends?

Ron Paul on Lysander Spooner

Séamusín

Ron Paul on Sanctions

"Sanctions are literally an act of war"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO-4v8qpYc

Depends on the type of

Depends on the type of sanctions. As jet guy said above...

"He DIDN'T advocate a US military role (Thank God), nor did he advocate anything like a blockade (again Thank God). He merely advocated voluntary restraint of trade and giving Europe other choices for energy. Nothing wrong with that. If I oppose something someone is doing I probably would avoid doing business with that person.

I especially liked when he said "We should also suspend American loans and aid to Ukraine because currently these could have the counterproductive effect of rewarding Russia. Ukraine owes so much money to Russia that America would essentially be borrowing from China to give to Russia. " So true."

as jet guy said above...

"He merely advocated voluntary restraint of trade"

or as Rand Said in the article:
"Economic sanctions and visa bans should be imposed and enforced without delay."

Words jet guy used "advocate", "Voluntary", "restraint"

Words rand used "sanctions", "bans", "imposed", "enforced"

... Do I need to point out the disconnect here?

Did you read the part where he said it should be europe who...

imposes said sanctions?

Look, sanctions are evil. Got it. But you guys talking about how the sanctions are an act of war, just because Ron Paul said it once(or twice, or however many times he said it) doesn't make it true. If anything, it is more an act of diplomacy. Reputation goes a long way. Countries are dealing with each other, and talking with each other and yes, threatening to take action in terms of foreign aid and exchange. But this is not outside the authority delegated to the federal government by the states.

Now some people will say we shouldn't be involved. Yes, you are correct.

Some will say we shouldn't have caused the coup in the first place. Good Job, you are very smart.

Some will say this will lead to trouble. News flash, we are already in more trouble than we can stand.

Some will say that neither Rand Paul, or Barack Obama speak on my behalf.You might also say, the constitution does not govern me, The state is illegitimate. Yup.

So where does that leave this rhetoric that Rand Paul is speaking. Lets say everything he asks for comes true. Less Restriction. Less Money wasted in foreign aid. More incentive to develop production in this country, Get paid for military bases we are already going to install and not get paid for OR not have those missile defense bases there. Less burden on the tax payer overall. If you really don't think that the federal government has any jurisdiction over your life, then why bitch when some one in the federal government is trying to make it cheaper for you?

Séamusín

I did see that

and I'm not denying that Rand is slightly better than the rest of the scum. Unfortunately, however, I have to group him in that category. The results of his efforts keep people dumb. He chooses to pander, reinforce flawed biases and keep people lost in a false l vs r paradigm. Those actions, IMO, hurt the cause of freedom. Here is a letter I wrote him a long time ago:

http://www.dailypaul.com/239544/dear-rand-please-help-with-t...

What I don't understand is why people apologize for him when they disagree with him. You clearly are grounded morally and have solid principled beliefs, so it confuses me when you have a negative reaction to people criticizing Rand even when he is acting outside your moral compass. He will continue to pander unless people call him out. I feel like this is "holding them accountable", which is what we always say we will do. Not giving him a pass because his Dad is so awesome.

I tend to agree with this

I tend to agree with this post here.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3356263

I asked a very important

I asked a very important question further up. I'm just trying to understand the whole picture. Rand has always stood by his stance on meddling with other countries unless it affects our national security. He's stood up many times in the past. I find it hard to believe he would advocate anything otherwise. I think it's really important to understand what our interests in the Ukraine are.

I think it is really important to understand

who "our" is. We often say "our interests", or "we", or "the west", but we need to define that.

Because I believe the oligarchs and corporate intities have interests over their and they like to trick us (you and me, regular people) into thinking that their interests and ours are the same... USA! USA! USA!... you know nationalism.

So when we are defining "our interests in the Ukraine", lets not forget to specify who "we" exactly are.

Listen, I'm just trying to

Listen, I'm just trying to understand Rands position on this issue. He has always been pretty solid on foreign policy. If Russia broke some kind of a treaty or agreement that involves the US then why wouldn't we be involved?

sanctions are evil

How would you feel if some agency stopped goods and services from being delivered to your town?

But Rand did not actually call for sanctions in the op-ed piece.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus