Ron Paul: Sanctions against Iran are 'acts of war' [Archive]

bt53

12-30-2011, 01:03 AM

What are the ramifications of going to War with Iran other then the obvious? Will Russia or China become involved? What about Syria? Thoughts?

War with Iran may very well reignite cold-war era tensions with Russia and China. It's something we should avoid at all costs. The chinese army is very worrisome as it is a remnant from cold war communist china that is becoming increasingly distanced politically and ideologically from the more modern technocrat-capitalist chinese government. Combine this with dwindling recources in China and you have the makings for some severe military trouble if we were to kick off some east vs. west BS all over again.

kylejack

12-30-2011, 01:05 AM

Ron vs. Rand!

bobbyw24

12-31-2011, 01:47 PM

Rand was Right

Woo Hoo!!

GeorgiaAvenger

12-31-2011, 01:51 PM

I personally disagree with Ron.

The fact that you say sanctions(so called acts of war) can then lead to war is logically incorrect.

kylejack

12-31-2011, 01:51 PM

Rand needs to answer for voting for sanctions. Why has his office stonewalled the people calling about it?

braane

12-31-2011, 01:52 PM

I personally disagree with Ron.

The fact that you say sanctions(so called acts of war) can then lead to war is logically incorrect.

It is going to lead to war. Iran reacted as any other nation would. Now the US is going to press for war.

walt

12-31-2011, 01:53 PM

War with Iran may very well reignite cold-war era tensions with Russia and China. It's something we should avoid at all costs. The chinese army is very worrisome as it is a remnant from cold war communist china that is becoming increasingly distanced politically and ideologically from the more modern technocrat-capitalist chinese government. Combine this with dwindling recources in China and you have the makings for some severe military trouble if we were to kick off some east vs. west BS all over again.

Very well stated.

RickyJ

12-31-2011, 01:53 PM

Ron Paul: Sanctions against Iran are 'acts of war'

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-sanctions-act-of-war20111229,0,4395532.story

Doesn't Rand support sanctions?

It appears he does. He is not his father and I would have had a hard time voting for him to be senator if I lived in KY.

bobbyw24

12-31-2011, 01:54 PM

It is going to lead to war. Iran reacted as any other nation would. Now the US is going to press for war.

Iran now wants to talk to us. Lead to war? Hmmm

Sublyminal

12-31-2011, 01:54 PM

I personally disagree with Ron.

The fact that you say sanctions(so called acts of war) can then lead to war is logically incorrect.

You are incorrect, we first started off with sanctions on Iraq too, before we inevitably invaded them. Sanctions are the precursor to war.

anewvoice

12-31-2011, 01:54 PM

I personally disagree with Ron.

The fact that you say sanctions(so called acts of war) can then lead to war is logically incorrect.

It cannot be an act of war without a declared war, but it most certainly is an act of aggression which can result in actual war. Even recent history has shown that the impact of draconian sanctions will result in blowback, and like Iraq can then on to war. What Ron is also saying is this act is a pretense to war, much like Iraq.

Karsten

12-31-2011, 01:54 PM

I agree with Ron Paul.
And I hope Rand is listening to his father.

bluesc

12-31-2011, 01:55 PM

Iran now wants to talk to us. Lead to war? Hmmm

"Lead to war" doesn't mean the one under sanctions initiates it. Ron argues that sanctions are just a prelude to war, which they typically are.

bobbyw24

12-31-2011, 01:57 PM

You are incorrect, we first started off with sanctions on Iraq too, before we inevitably invaded them. Sanctions are the precursor to war.

Can be but don't have to be

GeorgiaAvenger

12-31-2011, 01:59 PM

It is going to lead to war. Iran reacted as any other nation would. Now the US is going to press for war.

No the point was, how in the heck does WAR lead to WAR?

HOLLYWOOD

12-31-2011, 01:59 PM

Iran now wants to talk to us. Lead to war? HmmmYes, and all of fasco-corporate Media are now spinning this as "Harsh Sanctions have brought Iran back to the negotiation table".

The .gov & media Spin: Harsh Sanctions are working

braane

12-31-2011, 01:59 PM

Can be but don't have to be

They don't have to be... but they are used as such by our administrations. Therefore they are. Of Course Iran wants to talk with us, they realize that the US wants war with them.

bobbyw24

12-31-2011, 02:00 PM

They don't have to be... but they are used as such by our administrations. Therefore they are. Of Course Iran wants to talk with us, they realize that the US wants war with them.

Time will tell

kylejack

12-31-2011, 02:01 PM

Iran was always willing to talk. Iran has been allowing IAEA to inspect.

bobbyw24

12-31-2011, 02:02 PM

"Lead to war" doesn't mean the one under sanctions initiates it. Ron argues that sanctions are just a prelude to war, which they typically are.

I am with Rand on this one.

We will see who is right.

LET'S WIN IOWA!!!

Sublyminal

12-31-2011, 02:02 PM

Can be but don't have to be

Only if we have politicians that don't want war. The bad thing is everyone in the current administration, wants war. They wanted it with Iraq and now for Iran. Our only problem is figuring out how to deal with China and Russia before we decide to attack Iran.

TheTexan

12-31-2011, 02:03 PM

Sanctions are a use of force to cause harm to another country. Definitely an act of war.

RickyJ

12-31-2011, 02:04 PM

"I think we're looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran," Paul told a midday audience at the Hotel Pattee in Perry, Iowa. He said the Iranians are "planning to be bombed" and understandably would like to have a nuclear weapon, even though there is "no evidence whatsoever" that they have "enriched" uranium.

Apparently alluding to Israel and its nuclear-weapons arsenal, Paul said that "if I were an Iranian, I'd like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them."

You got to love Paul's honesty. He doesn't hold back and lets the chips fall where they may.

It is clearly not PC to say anything good on behalf of Iran now, yet that doesn't stop the good doctor. He is not going to let the media dictate what he talks about and what he doesn't talk about.

Paul explains his position well on Iran, and won't have a guilty conscience that he didn’t say anything to stop a potential 3rd world war from starting. If only we had more like Ron Paul in this country we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

bobbyw24

12-31-2011, 02:04 PM

Sanctions are a use of force to cause harm to another country. Definitely an act of war.

if you say so;)

RickyJ

12-31-2011, 02:07 PM

No the point was, how in the heck does WAR lead to WAR?

Well this is an non violent act of war which will lead to violent acts of war. Does that clear it up?

GeorgiaAvenger

12-31-2011, 02:08 PM

Sanctions are a use of force to cause harm to another country. Definitely an act of war.

Well that may be your position, but it can't be had both ways.

Some have the position that sanctions are an act of war(war), but that they also lead to war(war).

How can war lead to war? War IS War.

GeorgiaAvenger

12-31-2011, 02:09 PM

Well this is an non violent act of war which will lead to violent acts of war. Does that clear it up?

It has always been my view that war is violent.

Southron

12-31-2011, 02:09 PM

Sanctions are a use of force to cause harm to another country. Definitely an act of war.

You would declare war on Canada or Mexico if they enforced sanctions on us? Military force to open up markets?

Sublyminal

12-31-2011, 02:09 PM

Well that may be your position, but it can't be had both ways.

Some have the position that sanctions are an act of war(war), but that they also lead to war(war).

How can war lead to war? War IS War.

War has to be declared before it is war, sanctions are just an act. That is how an act of war can lead to war.

TheTexan

12-31-2011, 02:12 PM

You would declare war on Canada or Mexico if they enforced sanctions on us? Military force to open up markets?

I didn't say it was an act worthy of taking military actions, but the act of intentionally causing harm to another country is inherently an act of war, and as GA pointed out, is war. Just a subtle one.

TheTexan

12-31-2011, 02:13 PM

War has to be declared before it is war, sanctions are just an act. That is how an act of war can lead to war.

Wars are supposed to be declared, but no, to describe our actions against Iraq as anything other than war would be misleading. Similarly, sanctions are undeclared wars.

lucent

12-31-2011, 02:13 PM

You would declare war on Canada or Mexico if they enforced sanctions on us? Military force to open up markets?

Yes, because sanctions means they are using their military to prevent trade of goods with other countries.

RickyJ

12-31-2011, 02:14 PM

It has always been my view that war is violent.

Did you never hear of the "cold war", or are you too young to remember that?

Not a shot was fired directly, but indirectly it was in Korea and Vietnam.

Non violent acts of war usually lead to violent acts of war.

Even in WW2 we blockaded Japan before they attacked us. What we did was an act of war, and we knew that would lead them to attack us. Only naive people thought they wouldn't.

GeorgiaAvenger

12-31-2011, 02:14 PM

War has to be declared before it is war, sanctions are just an act. That is how an act of war can lead to war.
(Cornell Law)
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin

I am normally not a big nitpicker on specifics, but I think it is a bit reckless for Ron to be saying sanctions are an act of war.

Sanctions can lead to war or discussions.

Sublyminal

12-31-2011, 02:15 PM

Wars are supposed to be declared, but no, to describe our actions against Iraq as anything other than war would be misleading. Similarly, sanctions are undeclared wars.

Not necessarily, they are just acts of aggression, which is not war per say. One or more countries must declare war for it to really be considered a war. Which is why, we aren't at war with Cuba, while we have sanctions on them, neither country has declared.

GeorgiaAvenger

12-31-2011, 02:15 PM

Did you never hear of the "cold war", or are you too young to remember that?

Not a shot was fired directly, but indirectly it was in Korea and Vietnam.

Non violent acts of war usually lead to war.

Even in WW2 we blockaded Japan before they attacked us. What we did was an act of war, and we knew that would lead them to attack us. Only naive people thought they wouldn't.

None of that constitutes war, regardless if there are puppet state wars or sanctions that may lead to war.

RickyJ

12-31-2011, 02:19 PM

None of that constitutes war, regardless if there are puppet state wars or sanctions that may lead to war.

Depriving a nation from its needs is a very real act of war just as if you were bombing them. If you can't understand that I can't help you.

lucent

12-31-2011, 02:19 PM

act of war
noun
an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act+of+war

lucent

12-31-2011, 02:20 PM

Depriving a nation from its needs is a very real act of war just as if you were bombing them. If you can't understand that I can't help you.

+1

Philosophy_of_Politics

12-31-2011, 02:22 PM

Have you all forgotten your history? This is the exact same thing we did to Japan prior to pearl harbor.

Listen to Ron, not Rand on this one.

TheTexan

12-31-2011, 02:23 PM

I think it just comes down to semantics. How you choose to define war, etc. No right or wrong answer on whether or not its an act of war.

Sanctions may have a purpose, but that purpose should be as a last resort before going to war.

Sublyminal

12-31-2011, 02:23 PM

Have you all forgotten your history? This is the exact same thing we did to Japan prior to pearl harbor.

Listen to Ron, not Rand on this one.

I remember And Japan, attacked Pearl Harbor over it. And which then lead to the declaration of war.

Southron

12-31-2011, 02:24 PM

Depriving a nation from its needs is a very real act of war just as if you were bombing them. If you can't understand that I can't help you.

So a war to secure oil is very much morally justified if a country refuses to sell to us anymore?

GeorgiaAvenger

12-31-2011, 02:27 PM

Have you all forgotten your history? This is the exact same thing we did to Japan prior to pearl harbor.

Listen to Ron, not Rand on this one.

I am not supporting sanctions.

I disagree that they are an act of war, that is all.

TheTexan

12-31-2011, 02:29 PM

So a war to secure oil is very much morally justified if a country refuses to sell to us anymore?

If they were refusing to sell to us with the intention of doing us harm, and it was doing us real harm, then yes.

Philosophy_of_Politics

12-31-2011, 02:43 PM

I remember And Japan, attacked Pearl Harbor over it. And which then lead to the declaration of war.

While true.

Isn't that exactly what we're trying to prevent at this point and time?

Sublyminal

12-31-2011, 02:44 PM

While true.

Isn't that exactly what we're trying to prevent at this point and time?

Yes, trying to prevent it but by sanctioning Iran, we're pushing them into a corner. Just as we did with Japan, and if you corner anyone they're going to strike you to get out of it.

Philosophy_of_Politics

12-31-2011, 02:51 PM

Yes, trying to prevent it but by sanctioning Iran, we're pushing them into a corner. Just as we did with Japan, and if you corner anyone they're going to strike you to get out of it.

In most accounts of this situation in the American Mainstream Media, you consistently seem to only hear the standard political talking points about 'Iranian Aggression', most always calling it 'unprovoked'. But what they intentionally (or incompetently) always forget to mention is the most important geopolitical action that has precipitated this whole 'Strait of Hormuz' incident. This entire 'confrontation' in the Strait of Hormuz has been spurred primarily by one event: The European Union, backed by the United States, has threatened a 'Death Penalty' sanction on the Iranian Central Bank (as part of the Massive National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA) in response to it's Nuclear Program'. Even Conservative Republican sites like www.gopusa.com agree with Ron Paul's view on the nature of this crisis, and how dangerous it is for the US to engage in economic and military brinksmanship like this. By taking this serious economic action, the US and it's allies will effectively shut down Iran's ability to not only sell oil, but will effectively make it impossible for Iran to maintain ANY banking relationships on the world markets- precipitously collapsing the Iranian Economy, and forcing their hand militarily. Threatened with this economically unacceptable possibility, most informed observers find that Iran has responded in a predictable and wholly understandable (and economically balanced) manner to this overt (let's put it bluntly) act of Economic War. In essence, the Iranian Regime said that if The West cuts off their ability to sell oil, they will respond in like kind by shutting off the straits of Hormuz, so NO ONE can sell oil from the Gulf. SO this 'confrontation can actually be seen as a DEFENSIVE measure in response to the overtly aggressive economic threats made by the U.S. and it's European allies.

Why exactly would you want to encourage them to strike?

Here's how it will pan out.

We Sanction Iran and implode their economy. They retaliate, and we'll retaliate back.

Vicious Circle, more perpetual war. Just hope China/Russa don't get involved.

Don't forget the economy.

SonofThunder

12-31-2011, 02:51 PM

You are incorrect, we first started off with sanctions on Iraq too, before we inevitably invaded them. Sanctions are the precursor to war.

Sanctions are 100% an act of war. Not a precursor. Not something that leads to war. They are an act of war.

Answer this question: What is a sanction?

RickyJ

12-31-2011, 02:57 PM

While true.

Isn't that exactly what we're trying to prevent at this point and time?

It was what the majority in the country wanted to prevent then, but not Roosevelt. He was trying to get us in the war.

Sublyminal

12-31-2011, 02:58 PM

Sanctions are 100% an act of war. Not a precursor. Not something that leads to war. They are an act of war.

Answer this question: What is a sanction?

Definition is something that serves to support an action and in which case would indeed be a pre-cursor to war.

P_o_P: I don't want them to strike, I want us to stop trying to provoke them into doing something stupid like closing the strait of Hormuz. That is what the current administration wants them to do, so that the fifth fleet can take action.

Travlyr

12-31-2011, 03:07 PM

Ron Paul is telling the truth.

Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:

-- surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces;

-- measures to isolate an enemy;

-- encirclement and besieging;

-- preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

-- an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy's coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9866

IRAN IS SURROUNDED BY U.S.- NATO MILITARY BASES (http://alexandravaliente.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/checkmate-iran-is-surrounded-by-u-s-nato-military-bases/)

socal

12-31-2011, 03:26 PM

I wonder if the tighter proposed Iran "sanctions" are effectively a blockade, I haven't researched it. The LA Times article says,

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-sanctions-act-of-war20111229,0,4395532.story

He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war...He said an Iranian blockade would be the most likely response to tighter sanctions...

A blockade is an act of war.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Blockade

A blockade is defined by the Encyclopædia Britannica as "an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts.

Sublyminal

12-31-2011, 03:30 PM

I wonder if the tighter proposed Iran "sanctions" are effectively a blockade, I haven't researched it. The LA Times article says,

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-sanctions-act-of-war20111229,0,4395532.story

A blockade is an act of war.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Blockade

Which is probably why they're calling it a sanction instead of a blockade, everyone knows it's just a matter of words.

kylejack

12-31-2011, 03:37 PM

I wonder if the tighter proposed Iran "sanctions" are effectively a blockade, I haven't researched it. The LA Times article says,

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-sanctions-act-of-war20111229,0,4395532.story

A blockade is an act of war.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Blockade
Correct, the legislation bans ALL banks domestic and foreign from doing any business with Iran's bank, except on the exempt categories (food, medical supplies, a certain amount of oil).

It's sort of a modern version of a blockade.

Number19

12-31-2011, 03:40 PM

Here is just a short compilation of quotes, which is not all inclusive

Rand was Right Woo Hoo!!

Iran now wants to talk to us...

...it most certainly is an act of aggression which can result in actual war. Even recent history has shown that the impact of draconian sanctions will result in blowback, and like Iraq can then on to war...

...now spinning this as "Harsh Sanctions have brought Iran back to the negotiation table"...Harsh Sanctions are working

...Of Course Iran wants to talk with us, they realize that the US wants war with them.

Sanctions are a use of force to cause harm to another country. Definitely an act of war.

Depriving a nation from its needs is a very real act of war just as if you were bombing them. If you can't understand that I can't help you.

Iran is taking the only option available when confronted by a vastly superior military force. It voiced its rights as a sovereign nation with "threats" it knew it would be unable to follow through on. It now offers to return to the negotiation table, which will be as productive or non-productive as they decide is in their interests. It buys them time and it throws the political ball back to the United States.

There was one comment, by anewvoice, which was not picked up on, but actions have consequences. In politics, today, this is known as blowback. But the United States is forcing its will, not just on Iran, but on all the economies which depend on doing business with the American banking system. To greater or lesser degree, this will have consequences, not necessarily soon, but little ripples spreading out over time. The United States has declared Iran as our enemy and we have committed an act of aggression against them.

It is incomprehensible to me how so many Americans think we can have our way against the rest of the world, without consequences, and then when blowback does happen, and without any thought, place all blame on anyone but themselves.

Sunstruck-Eden

12-31-2011, 03:51 PM

Time will tell

And as I have noticed, Time usually falls into Ron's favor ;)

Feeding the Abscess

12-31-2011, 04:01 PM

Correct, the legislation bans ALL banks domestic and foreign from doing any business with Iran's bank, except on the exempt categories (food, medical supplies, a certain amount of oil).

It's sort of a modern version of a blockade.

When you factor in American bases, naval and ground forces that surround Iran, it kind of is a blockade. Even without qualification.

kylejack

12-31-2011, 04:06 PM

RickyJ

12-31-2011, 04:09 PM

Note also the severity of these sanctions. If they're trying to stop a nuclear program they could simply sanction any purchases related to nuclear technology. I would still be opposed to it, but it would be a lot less severe than sanctioning practically everything.

Only the blind can't see their true intentions with these sanctions is war. They have no desire to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, they just want to attack them for their oil and stop them from selling their oil in other currencies.