Rand Paul position on new Iran sanction

[libertarian101]

The funny thing that surprise most foreign policy expert about Rand is probably the exaggerated views he has about evangelicals (Christian Zionist) and their power. As his past clashes like on foreign aid for Egypt shows, unlike the rest of senators, Rand has no fear of AIPAC (most powerfully lobby in Washington). However for some reason Rand has come in to conclusion that Christian Zionist are too powerful too mess with and he has to be hawkish and pro-Israel in order to appease them.


Like the late Jerry Falwell, there are still some corrupted evangelical leaders like John Hagee who are influential in evangelical circle but their power in persuading evangelical voters to vote for a candidate is next to zero. Gary Bauer tried that tactic in 2012 against Ron Paul and failed miserably but Rand still met with him privately like a month ago in a hotel room and he has upped his “i love Israel” rhetoric since then.

This week, Israel and its lobby have been busy wrecking Obama's admin big peace talk breakthrough with Iran. If this peace talk failed the only option left is war.
[The Obama administration’s effort to save its talks with Iran has turned into a craven game of Israel outreach. John Kerry, Joe Biden and a top Treasury official had to placate Israel’s friends on the Hill yesterday, but these powerful friends, including Democrats, repeatedly cited Israeli officials’ concerns. “I’m dubious,” Chuck Schumer said of the administration’s talks; and on MSNBC this morning Kerry was reduced to bragging about how often he was on the phone with “Bibi,” the Israeli prime minister. I just got off the phone with
him now, he said.
The whole exercise is a demonstration of the centrality of Israel and its lobby inside the American discourse. What about America’s interests? And why
isn’t our press making more of this question? http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/senators-battle-israel.html



Meanwhile Rand Paul has been spending his time lavishing praise after praise on Israel, however Neocon Jenifer Rubin seems to see this Rand rhetoric as smokescreen for his true intention, which i hope she is right.

[Platitudes in foreign policy are often a smokescreen for true intentions. “Amidst the chaos of the Middle East we have always had one friend that never leaves our side — Israel.” Or this one: “We must have the strongest military on earth, not because we are eager to use it, but because no one would ever dare challenge us.” Those were lines in a speech Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave at the Citadel in South Carolina on Tuesday. But I’m sure President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry have said similar things. That is why they have no meaning — they tell us nothing about what the speaker would do in any given situation and do not set out any particular policies. Htto:// www.washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost) (dot)com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/11/13/pretty-platitudes-arent-enough-sen-paul


Rand need to drop the talk about containing Iran as Iran them self said they don’t want nuke but I hope Rubin is right and the reason Rand is doing what he is doing is because he is going to vote against sanction (filibuster if possible) and he will vigorously support Obama on peaceful negotiation process as even democrat senators are rebelling against him.


But part of me doubt Rand rhetoric is just rhetoric. Unlike Ted Cruz, Justin amash and other 33 lawmakers in the house who opposed Syria intervention two days earlier than Rand on the grounds that “American force should be used only for American interest “, Rand kept silent on the issue for two days even though he had made several interviews including one with Ron Paul and came out just before the attack begins after many politicians has already opposed it, emphasizing the reason he were against Syria intervention were mainly to protect Christians.


I thought it was strange that Rand kept silent when war were about to erupt the next day and i wonder what he would have done if there were less resistance from Cruz and the 33 republican lawmakers who demanded a vote before any intervention? Rand is now in the similar situation though this time Cruz and the other are on the other side of the fence.

[kcchiefs6465]

I am hopeful that Rand Paul votes against these new rounds of sanctions. I doubt he will.

As for whether or not he is simply placating neocons or the hawks in his party, he believes what he says and says what he believes. Should he vote for further sanctions on Iran my enthusiasm for him will be practically nil.

[eduardo89]

I am hopeful that Rand Paul votes against these new rounds of sanctions. I doubt he will.

The best thing for him would be to take a sick day on the day of the vote. It's going to pass overwhelmingly, and voting against it will do nothing but continue the anti-Israel anti-Jewish meme that maggots like Jennifer Rubin try to pin on the Pauls.

[compromise]

I will stand with Rand on this issue regardless of what decision he makes.

Rand has access to intelligence I do not have access to and therefore I defer to his better judgement.

[libertarian101]

I am hopeful that Rand Paul votes against these new rounds of sanctions. I doubt he will.

As for whether or not he is simply placating neocons or the hawks in his party, he believes what he says and says what he believes. Should he vote for further sanctions on Iran my enthusiasm for him will be practically nil. Voting for new sanction now is like voting for pre-emptive strike. I'm not against him saying I'm pro Israel bla bla but if votes for new sanction even Jennifer Rubin thinks he will lose all his support from libertarian leaning republicans.

[ClydeCoulter]

I will stand with Rand on this issue regardless of what decision he makes.

Rand has access to intelligence I do not have access to and therefore I defer to his better judgement.

That is what 80% of people, who support the ongoing wars, say when confronted with why they support the wars that politicians keep voting for or allowing.

[libertarian101]

The best thing for him would be to take a sick day on the day of the vote. It's going to pass overwhelmingly, and voting against it will do nothing but continue the anti-Israel anti-Jewish meme that maggots like Jennifer Rubin try to pin on the Pauls. Wow, what next? are you going to ask Rand to put poison in Ron drink so that neocons won’t pin him down? What is the point of hiding when you still has to explain how you would have voted ? rather than hiding, Rand should support Obama vocally.

[libertarian101]

I will stand with Rand on this issue regardless of what decision he makes.

Rand has access to intelligence I do not have access to and therefore I defer to his better judgement. Who has more access to intelligence Rand or Obama ?

[compromise]

Who has more access to intelligence Rand or Obama ?

Obama, but Rand is a constitutionalist and I trust him. Obama has a progressive globalist agenda to push.

[FriedChicken]

Who has more access to intelligence Rand or Obama ?

Obama has more access. He is the POTUS. However, he doesn't read/listen to it ... haven't you noticed he said "I didn't have any knowledge of that" more than any other president in American history?
:)

I disagree with 'compromise' on this - but his point was that he trusts Rand to make the best decision based on what info he has available. Two people can have the same info but you can still trust one more than the other.

[Brett85]

I think he'll vote for them, because he wants to be able to say in the Republican debates, "I voted for all of the sanctions, so I don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons." If he votes against this round of sanctions, it will open him up to attack from other Republicans who will say that he doesn't care if Iran gets nuclear weapons, and I think that Rand is looking at the big picture and doesn't want to allow someone like Marco Rubio or Chris Christie to become the GOP nominee. Although I could end up being wrong.

[politics]

I didn t know that the congress was trying to put more sanctions while the goverment is trying to have some kind of peaceful negotiations.
But indeed some members of the congress apparently are trying to put some more sanctions against Iran.
I just can not find any good reason to do so at this time. There is a meeting in just five days to try to get a kind of agreement.
In fact, It just doesn t seems reasonable at all.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mpNxEE3tBZo

[kcchiefs6465]

Wow, what next? are you going to ask Rand to put poison in Ron drink so that neocons won’t pin him down? What is the point of hiding when you still has to explain how you would have voted ? rather than hiding, Rand should support Obama vocally.
Calm down, bro.


The best thing for him would be to take a sick day on the day of the vote. It's going to pass overwhelmingly, and voting against it will do nothing but continue the anti-Israel anti-Jewish meme that maggots like Jennifer Rubin try to pin on the Pauls.
Well politically the vote is a no win situation for him. The problem for me personally, is that I ultimately know which position he believes in. That Iran having a nuclear weapon is destabilizing to the region and that sanctions are the least severe means by which we could try to deter them from enriching uranium to weapons grade. I wholeheartedly disagree with that and have written about it a few times.

Ultimately there is only proof that Iran is enriching Uranium to around 20% for the medical radioisotopes that we sold them. Iran hasn't aggressively attacked a country in some two hundred plus years. A policy of dialogue is more encouraging and apparent of good faith than more sanctions. Sanctions are counterproductive to the goals stated. Sanctions are acts of war in that we are using force to prevent willing countries from trading with Iran as well as seizing assets. Sanctions unduly target a citizenry while enhancing the leader's power by instilling an obligatory, blind, patriotic, zeal in the people. You can't prove a negative. (that is, they say they don't, we say they do; nothing will satisfy our demands of "proof".. eventually the propaganda piper will be called and the chickens will come home to roost; i.e. we will "liberate" them) Iran has been alleged to be a year or two away from ICBM and weapons grade uranium technology for thirty years. Oh, and finally, fuck Israel. Seriously.

I could go on and on about why Rand Paul is wrong in his beliefs. He isn't going to change them, and I'm not going to change mine. It is just something I disagree with him on. I will be disappointed should he vote for another round of sanctions. Ron Paul inspired and gave me hope, I shared his message with everyone I know. Rand Paul is more of a "meh." I'm more interested in my educational pursuits than anything. I will give you that he is the best Senator by a mile. I do appreciate the stands he takes.

[anaconda]

Rand has access to intelligence I do not have access to and therefore I defer to his better judgement.

But this is also the argument we would expect to hear from Dick Cheney. At some point we either need transparency and the risks that might accompany it, or simply vote to restrict the things that the bureaucrats can do. Like telling Congress: "no sanctions - now go figure out a plan B..." And, "no secret courts - now go figure out a plan B..." Etc..

[69360]

I think he probably will vote for them and that's fine. But also I think he could possibly vote no and spin it to his advantage what with the ongoing opening of relations with Rouhani. Something along the lines of not imposing sanctions while talks are in progress. It would separate him from the rest of the GOP pack, which may or may not be a good thing and may or may not be politically expedient if he wants to be president. If there is a breakthrough in relations with Iran and he was the lone no vote in the GOP it could work out well. It's a risk.

[MichaelDavis]

I will stand with Rand on this issue regardless of what decision he makes.

Rand has access to intelligence I do not have access to and therefore I defer to his better judgement.

I will be dissappointed in Rand if he votes against the sanctions, but I will understand if he does. Besides, the measure should pass easily.

[libertarian101]

I will be dissappointed in Rand if he votes against the sanctions, but I will understand if he does. Besides, the measure should pass easily.

Why would you be disappointed in Rand if he votes against sanction ?

[libertarian101]

I think he'll vote for them, because he wants to be able to say in the Republican debates, "I voted for all of the sanctions, so I don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons." If he votes against this round of sanctions, it will open him up to attack from other Republicans who will say that he doesn't care if Iran gets nuclear weapons, and I think that Rand is looking at the big picture and doesn't want to allow someone like Marco Rubio or Chris Christie to become the GOP nominee. Although I could end up being wrong. If Rand vote for this sanction there won't be any presidential debates about Iran sanction in 2016 because war will defiantly start way before then.

[libertarian101]

Obama has more access. He is the POTUS. However, he doesn't read/listen to it ... haven't you noticed he said "I didn't have any knowledge of that" more than any other president in American history?
:)

I disagree with 'compromise' on this - but his point was that he trusts Rand to make the best decision based on what info he has available. Two people can have the same info but you can still trust one more than the other. I disagree. Obama agreed a deal where Iran will suspend their enrichment program for 5% sanction relief and this guy "compromise" criticise Obama for being more anti-interventionist and close to Ron Paul.

[eduardo89]

I just got the funniest -rep comment of my life

http://i.imgur.com/0fXekSo.png

Because everyone knows how pro-Israel I am... :rolleyes:

[phill4paul]

I just got the funniest -rep comment of my life

http://i.imgur.com/0fXekSo.png

Because everyone knows how pro-Israel I am... :rolleyes:

Your such an attention whore airing your dirty neg reps. Still, that is a pretty funny one.

[libertarian101]

I just got the funniest -rep comment of my life

http://i.imgur.com/0fXekSo.png

Because everyone knows how pro-Israel I am... :rolleyes: So proud Israel firster, just curious, why do you support Ron and Rand rather than McCain and Graham who are Israel firster just like you ?

[eduardo89]

So proud Israel firster, just curious, why do you support Ron and Rand rather than McCain and Graham who are Israel firster just like you ?

Hahahahaha. Seriously?

You're calling the guy who started this thread:
Standing With Israel: How Bad Theology Duped Us Into Supporting Terrorism And Oppression (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429568-Standing-With-Israel-How-Bad-Theology-Duped-Us-Into-Supporting-Terrorism-And-Oppression)
an Israel firster? lol

[phill4paul]

Hahahahaha. Seriously?

You're calling the guy who started this thread:
Standing With Israel: How Bad Theology Duped Us Into Supporting Terrorism And Oppression (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429568-Standing-With-Israel-How-Bad-Theology-Duped-Us-Into-Supporting-Terrorism-And-Oppression)
an Israel firster? lol

Posting a thread like that only proves that you are an AIPAC cointel agent. Good try eduardo. We see you for what you truly are. :p

[libertarian101]

Hahahahaha. Seriously?

You're calling the guy who started this thread:
Standing With Israel: How Bad Theology Duped Us Into Supporting Terrorism And Oppression (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429568-Standing-With-Israel-How-Bad-Theology-Duped-Us-Into-Supporting-Terrorism-And-Oppression)
an Israel firster? lol
Ok, just wondering, do you believe there should be a two state solution ?

[eduardo89]

Ok, just wondering, do you believe there should be a two state solution ?

No.

[RJB]

This latest turn of the discussion is a bit surreal. :confused:

Weird.

[libertarian101]

No.
Why not and how do you think the conflict should be solved ?

[eduardo89]

Why not and how do you think the conflict should be solved ?

It should become an Islamic Caliphate.

[libertarian101]

This latest turn of the discussion is a bit surreal. :confused:

Weird. Not really, I think there are quite a few Zionist and SPLC employees trolling Rand forum. I'm pretty sure "compromise" is SPLC employee

[phill4paul]

Economic sanctions are an act of war. I hope Rand isn't pro-war.

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”
― Thomas Jefferson

War. Are we about it or are we not?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432917-Are-Economic-Sanction-An-Act-of-War

[GunnyFreedom]

there has been way too much ass-u-me going on round these parts the last couple years, actually.

[libertarian101]

It should become an Islamic Caliphate. Seriously, why would you want that ? :D like Phill said Posting a thread like Standing With Israel: How Bad Theology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429568-Standing-With-Israel-How-Bad-Theology-Duped-Us-Into-Supporting-Terrorism-And-Oppression) ...only proves that you are an AIPAC cointel agent . Why would you save a link of a thread you made 7 month ago unless you made it for this purpose in the first place. Sorry for being detective columbo on you but I think unlike "Compromise" your are a very good mole but unfortunately not that good.

[GunnyFreedom]

smdh

[phill4paul]

Seriously, why would you want that ? :D like Phill said Posting a thread like Standing With Israel: How Bad Theology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429568-Standing-With-Israel-How-Bad-Theology-Duped-Us-Into-Supporting-Terrorism-And-Oppression) ...only proves that you are an AIPAC cointel agent . Why would you save a link of a thread you made 7 month ago unless you made it for this purpose in the first place. Sorry for being detective columbo on you but I think unlike "Compromise" your are a very good mole but unfortunately not that good.

eduardo, as far as I know, is not a mole. More like a hedgehog.

[eduardo89]

Seriously, why would you want that ? :D like Phill said Posting a thread like Standing With Israel: How Bad Theology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429568-Standing-With-Israel-How-Bad-Theology-Duped-Us-Into-Supporting-Terrorism-And-Oppression) ...only proves that you are an AIPAC cointel agent . Why would you save a link of a thread you made 7 month ago unless you made it for this purpose in the first place. Sorry for being detective columbo on you but I think unlike "Compromise" your are a very good mole but unfortunately not that good.

Huh? I made the thread a month ago. And in the almost 5 years I've been here everyone know I'm anti-Zionist.

btw, I also started this thread: Dispensationalism, Israel, & the Church (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429473-Dispensationalism-Israel-amp-the-Church)

[eduardo89]

eduardo, as far as I know, is not a mole. More like a hedgehog.

Hedgehogs are pretty damn cute.

[libertarian101]

eduardo, as far as I know, is not a mole. More like a hedgehog.

yeah, you might be right :rolleyes:

[phill4paul]

Hedgehogs are pretty damn cute.

http://www.straight.com/files/styles/popup/public/hedgehog.jpg

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Rand has been playing this perfectly his entire term, sucessfully acting as a major force in preventing war with Iran. I have no doubt he will continue #winning and make the right play here.


----------

Sen. Paul Blocks New Iran Sanctions - Senator Rand Paul
www.paul.senate.gov › Home › Press Office › Press Releases‎
Mar 27, 2012 - Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to oppose unanimous consent of a new set of sanctions on Iran and introduced an amendment that would ...

Rand Paul alone stops harsher sanctions on Iran — RT USA - RT.com
rt.com/usa/paul-iran-war-us-704/‎
Mar 28, 2012 - Rand Paul alone stops harsher sanctions on Iran ... the undivided approval of a new set of sanctions on Iran and introduced an amendment.

Rand Paul Amendment Barring War With Iran, Syria Added To ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../rand-paul-war-iran-syria-sanctions_n_1524...‎

Rand Paul Amendment Barring War With Iran, Syria Added To Sanctions Bill. Posted: 05/17/2012 12:18 pm Updated: 05/17/2012 2:26 pm. reddit stumble.

Rand Paul blocks Iran sanctions bill - POLITICO.com
www.politico.com/.../rand-paul-blocks-iran-sanctions-bill-118887.html‎
Mar 27, 2012 - Rand Paul blocks Iran sanctions bill ... Paul wants Senate Democrats to allow a vote on his amendment that says that nothing in the measure ...

Rand Paul stops war with Iran by offering a one sentence ... - PolicyMic
www.policymic.com/.../rand-paul-stops-war-with-iran-by-offering-a-one...‎
Mar 28, 2012 - Libertarian Senator Rand Paul tells Congress that if they want to start a new war, they need to officially declare it first.

[libertarian101]

Huh? I made the thread a month ago. And in the almost 5 years I've been here everyone know I'm anti-Zionist.

btw, I also started this thread: Dispensationalism, Israel, & the Church (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429473-Dispensationalism-Israel-amp-the-Church) Still doesn’t make me change my mind. You still haven’t seriously stated why you not for two state solution ?

[libertarian101]

http://www.straight.com/files/styles/popup/public/hedgehog.jpg ha ha ha ha , why did I clicked on that? every time I see Eduardo name from now on I imagine that picture

[eduardo89]

Still doesn’t make me change my mind. You still haven’t seriously stated why you not for two state solution ?

Why would I support a two state solution?

[libertarian101]

Why would I support a two state solution?

Why would you oppose it ?

[T.hill]

I hope Rand makes the best decision in that it helps the liberty movement the most.

[ClydeCoulter]

Why would you oppose it ?

How would 2 states be any different than the 1 there now along with the oppressed (and divided) state of the "other" people?

[ClydeCoulter]

I hope Rand makes the best decision in that it helps the liberty movement the most.

I'm with Rand taking a stand against the sanctions, using the "let diplomacy work" rhetoric. Maybe he could pull some over to the not so eager for war side.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

libertarian101

http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/concerned_trollcat.jpg

[Christian Liberty]

Voting for new sanction now is like voting for pre-emptive strike. I'm not against him saying I'm pro Israel bla bla but if votes for new sanction even Jennifer Rubin thinks he will lose all his support from libertarian leaning republicans.

I've already decided that I'm not drawing my line in the sand on the sanctions issue... only if Rand actually decides to vote in favor of attacking someone will I draw my line. I suppose a good argument could convince me to do otherwise, and to draw my line in the sand there. But just the fact that he'll likely vote for them again won't change my stance on Rand anymore than they have in the past.

That said, its still bothersome. And this is exactly why Rand is not simply a senate version of Ron. This stuff matters. I'll vote for him, yes, but I much prefer his dad.

Unlike some here (Not calling anyone out, or saying they're wrong, just offering a different position) I actually tend to agree with most Republicans that Iran probably does want nuclear weapons. I just don't really think it matters that much if they do get them. They won't nuke Israel, if they did Israel would wipe them off the map. They certainly won't nuke the US. Worst case scenario Israel doesn't retain as much Middle Eastern superiority, and frankly, I don't see why I should care.

[Christian Liberty]

corrupted evangelical leaders like John Hagee

How the flying crap is John Hagee "Evangelical." Does that word even mean anything anymore? John Hagee believes that the Jews can be saved through their adherence to the law. He's Satan's Child, just like the Pharisees. Then again, if inclusivists like Billy Graham pass as "Evangelical" I guess it doesn't really matter anymore. Is there really any value in identifying as an evangelical anymore? Wow.

[Christian Liberty]

Why would you oppose it ?

As an ancap I support a no-state solution:p But frankly, its none of my business what they decide to do in the Middle East. Just keep the American Empire out of it.

[kcchiefs6465]

How the flying crap is John Hagee "Evangelical." Does that word even mean anything anymore? John Hagee believes that the Jews can be saved through their adherence to the law. He's Satan's Child, just like the Pharisees. Then again, if inclusivists like Billy Graham pass as "Evangelical" I guess it doesn't really matter anymore. Is there really any value in identifying as an evangelical anymore? Wow.
I have no idea what you just said.

[gwax23]

I think a good strategy for Rand to use would be to argue the sanctions arent working and are actually have the opposite effect (negative unintended consequences) for example he could say the sanctions only give the Iranian regime more Propaganda material to feed to people, thus strengthening the regime in power and its agenda while destroying the local opposition, because the sanctions really negatively effect the Iranian people while doing little to effect the Government officials.