Comment: Sanctions to have the stature to oppose war?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The neocons see sanctions as (see in situ)

Sanctions to have the stature to oppose war?

How does an act of war (and as Ron Paul said, sanctions *are* an act of war) work as a way of opposing war?

I do certainly agree that Rand is no uber-hawk like McCain, but it looks like in 2016 the neocons aren't going to have an uber-hawk to support. So they're going to have to settle for a president who will keep the sanctions going, and the tough talk about "threats to the region," etc. That creates an environment that makes a shooting war far, far more likely, and *any* president who does this would have no politically viable way to avoid retaliation if sanctions provoke a military response. That's all Mitt would have done for them, and it's all any of the other non-hawk GOP candidates would do for them.

And in that situation what difference does it make that Rand or any other non-hawk GOP President might not want war? If sanctions provoke a military response, the neocons have their war no matter what Rand wants.

I'm not as confident as some about how to tell the difference between Rand telling the truth and Rand saying something he doesn't really believe for the sake of political viability, so I tend to just take Rand at his word. Personally I think an honest Rand who is a libertarian-leaning Republican whose differences with the GOP mainstream are much much smaller than his Dad's, is a more appealing candidate than a politically calculating Rand whose true views are much closer to his Dad's but who is willing to say things he doesn't believe and support acts of war like sanctions for the sake of political viability.