Rand Paul to make move to repeal Iraq War law

[jct74]

Rand Paul to make move to repeal Iraq War law

By Olivier Knox
January 8, 2014

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., plans to introduce legislation Friday to repeal the law that green-lighted the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, and which remains on the books two years after President Barack Obama declared that war over, Paul’s office said Wednesday.

Paul's announcement came one day after Yahoo News reported the White House now favors scrapping the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, signed into law in late 2002 by then-President George W. Bush.

Paul has been seeking Senate co-sponsors, and hopes Obama’s decision to support repeal will clear opposition from Democrats and some prominent Republicans.

“This bill will ensure that our chapter of action in Iraq is officially closed, and that any future President seeking to engage in the region will be required to come to Congress to gain authorization and support, as is Constitutionally required,” Paul wrote in a letter to colleagues obtained by Yahoo News.

...

read more:
http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-moves-to-repeal-iraq-war-law-200824025.html

[specsaregood]

Paul's announcement came one day after Yahoo News reported the White House now favors scrapping the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, signed into law in late 2002 by then-President George W. Bush.
I see this as Rand calling Obama's bluff and daring him to put his money where his mouthpiece is.

[cajuncocoa]

The neocons are going to have a conniption.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The neocons are going to have a conniption.

I wish I had an account on Free Republic, so that I could post this.

[Inkblots]

The neocons are going to have a conniption.

How would you tell the difference?

[TaftFan]

Good!

Other members of Congress tried to repeal the 2001 AUMF as well.

Here is the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:2:./temp/~bdC6h3::

The Republican co-sponsors are Paul Broun and Walter Jones. Broun contends that the AUMF is an even greater threat to civil liberties than the NDAA.

[Occam's Banana]

The neocons are going to have a conniption.

When are those asses ever NOT having a conniption?
Iraq. Iran. "National Greatness." Iran. Yargle Bargle. Iran ...

[Brett85]

Good for Rand! He attempted to do this a couple of years ago as well.

[jtstellar]

i feel bad for peter king's heart

[Brett85]

Practically every single comment is in agreement with Rand on this.

[radiofriendly]

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1508593_566474543436602_1894792209_n.jpg
That is all.

(Thanks to Nick Argyle for the image.)

[brushfire]

That is all.

(Thanks to Nick Argyle for the image.)

LOL

Rand is a genius. His timing is perfect, and should steer the discussion during a critical time.

[ObiRandKenobi]

good job rand

[Bastiat's The Law]

Another great cause to champion.

[FriedChicken]

It will be interesting to say the least watching how they find a way around passing this bill.

Attach it to other issues? Say its paranoid and pointless? Not allow it to the floor?

[jmdrake]

I wish I had an account on Free Republic, so that I could post this.

How about posting it on DailyKos or Democratic Underground? Seriously, we piss into the wind a lot and for what? This move won't make freepers like Rand. They are too proud to admit they were wrong about the Iraq war. But it could get some (though not many) Dems to say "Well I don't like Rand Paul in general, but I do like this particular move on foreign policy." What we really need is a Dem willing to co-sponsor this. It's days like this that I really miss having Dennis Kucinich in congress.

[compromise]

What we really need is a Dem willing to co-sponsor this.

Wyden opposed the Iraq AUMF. He's Rand's friend and therefore will most likely co-sponsor it.

[cajuncocoa]

I really hope this gets done. I can't wait to see the neocons having a conniption!!

[compromise]

Gillibrand is on board...

421751393368567808

[jct74]

Sens. Paul, Wyden and Gillibrand Introduce Bill to Repeal AUMF for Iraq

Jan 14, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) today introduced S.1919, which would repeal the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) for Iraq and officially bring the Iraq war to a close. This bipartisan effort is co-sponsored by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jon Tester (D- Mont.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).


"Two years ago, President Obama declared the war in Iraq over. With the return of our troops and practical side of the mission concluded, I feel it is necessary to bring the war to an official and legal end. This bipartisan piece of legislation expressly preserves the President's authority to protect our embassy and personnel in Iraq, and ensures that our military involvement in Iraq is officially closed and that any future engagement will require Congressional authorization and support, as required by the Constitution," Sen. Paul said.

"I was one of 23 senators who voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2002 because I was never presented with compelling evidence of a clear and present threat to our domestic security. Now that American troops have come home, it makes sense to bring this chapter in our nation's history to a close. While sectarian conflict and violence still persist in Iraq, it must be the Iraqis- not the men and women of the U.S. military- who now make the difficult choices, forge a stable and inclusive political order and steer their country to peace and prosperity," said Sen. Wyden.

"The men and women of the military who served our country in Iraq did so bravely and heroically. We must always honor their service and sacrifice, and remember those we lost," said Sen. Gillibrand. "Part of honoring their service is ensuring that we in Congress do our duty- and no President, Democrat or Republican, should have a blank check when it comes to war. It is important that we bring this war to its legal and official end while preserving the President's authority to protect our military and embassy personnel, by closing the open-ended war resolution."

"I am proud to join my colleagues in calling for the authorization to use military force in Iraq to be repealed. This legislation provides the necessary closure of our military involvement there while providing for the protection of diplomatic personnel and the continuation of intelligence work deemed vital to national security. Our men and women in uniform fought courageously in Iraq and have returned home, and their bravery and sacrifice should be celebrated across the nation," Sen. Lee said.

"By officially ending the war in Iraq, Congress is sending a clear, bipartisan message: it's time to do more nation-building here at home. We need to strengthen America's infrastructure and continue to reduce our deficit. Doing so will strengthen our economy and create jobs in Montana and around our nation," Sen. Tester said.

"We have finally ended our military involvement in Iraq and brought our brave men and women home. Now, it is time to formally end this war," Sen. Merkley said.

"Now that President Obama has ended the war in Iraq and brought our troops home, it's time to end the authorization of U.S. military involvement in Iraq," said Sen. Warren. "This bill is a reminder that Congressional authorization for the use of force should be limited and that military action is always a last resort."

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1070

[Christian Liberty]

I hate how you have to pander to troop worship to even oppose war in this country, lest you be viewed as an "American Hater" or something. To his credit, Rand didn't do that here, but Gillbrand, Lee, and Tester did. I guess I really shouldn't expect any different, no politician is going to quote Laurence Vance, but its still annoying. Being awake makes it frustrating to watch those who aren't.

[Christian Liberty]

Also, see the last three posts here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/converse.php?u=164&u2=46957

[compromise]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-white-house-backs-rand-pauls-bill-to-end-iraq-war-authorization/
Obama backs it

[Spikender]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-white-house-backs-rand-pauls-bill-to-end-iraq-war-authorization/
Obama backs it

Good news to balance out all the negative.

Great.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't see how anyone could logically oppose this. I'm pretty sure at least the official story says all the troops are already out. I mean, are the neocons going to openly admit to wanting to go into Iraq again already? I support this, of course, but I do wonder if its smoke and mirrors to keep libertarians and constitutionalists from focusing on the stuff going on with Iran. Do NOT give anyone a pass on the Iranian sanctions because of this.

[compromise]

Rand should try to get Coburn, Flake and Heller to co-sponsor, they have all expressed opposition to Iraq in the past and it would give the bill better bi-partisan credentials than just Rand, Lee and Obama's buddies.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand should try to get Coburn, Flake and Heller to co-sponsor, they have all expressed opposition to Iraq in the past and it would give the bill better bi-partisan credentials than just Rand, Lee and Obama's buddies.

I guess Ted "Israel-first" Cruz is going to vote no?

[Brett85]

It's interesting that Mike Lee has cosponsored it since he voted against Rand's bill to repeal the Iraq AUMF the last time it was voted on.

[Brett85]

I don't see how anyone could logically oppose this. I'm pretty sure at least the official story says all the troops are already out. I mean, are the neocons going to openly admit to wanting to go into Iraq again already? I support this, of course, but I do wonder if its smoke and mirrors to keep libertarians and constitutionalists from focusing on the stuff going on with Iran. Do NOT give anyone a pass on the Iranian sanctions because of this.

It sounds like Rand is still undecided on the Iran sanctions bill. It sounds like Flake is leaning towards voting against the sanctions. It may not end up coming up for a vote.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/01/14/senate_liberals_hit_pause_on_iran_sanctions_sprint .html

[compromise]

I guess Ted "Israel-first" Cruz is going to vote no?

I honestly don't know. He doesn't seem to have made many public statements regarding Iraq, but his current foreign policy stances suggest he's fairly supportive of it. Then again, YAL claim he wants a clear exit strategy for Iraq (http://www.yaliberty.org/pac/candidates/cruz). I just think Coburn, Flake and Heller are the guys that we ought be pushing this the hardest to, given they're the most likely on our side of the aisle to back this bill.

[GunnyFreedom]

Good!

Other members of Congress tried to repeal the 2001 AUMF as well.

Here is the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:2:./temp/~bdC6h3::

The Republican co-sponsors are Paul Broun and Walter Jones. Broun contends that the AUMF is an even greater threat to civil liberties than the NDAA.

So glad I support Walter Jones!

Go Rand!

[GunnyFreedom]

i feel bad for peter king's heart

I kinda hope it explodes in outrage...

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't see how anyone could logically oppose this. I'm pretty sure at least the official story says all the troops are already out. I mean, are the neocons going to openly admit to wanting to go into Iraq again already? I support this, of course, but I do wonder if its smoke and mirrors to keep libertarians and constitutionalists from focusing on the stuff going on with Iran. Do NOT give anyone a pass on the Iranian sanctions because of this.

Well, your first mistake is expecting logic from anyone on the hill. McCain, Graham, Ayotte in the Senate and Peter King in the house will make the TV rounds while the usual froth dribbles out of their war-loving mouths as they vociferously insist we need to drop more bombs.

Can't you hear it now, "Rand Paul hates America. Now is not the time to stop bombing Iraqis! BOMB BOMB BOMB"

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't see how anyone could logically oppose this. I'm pretty sure at least the official story says all the troops are already out. I mean, are the neocons going to openly admit to wanting to go into Iraq again already? I support this, of course, but I do wonder if its smoke and mirrors to keep libertarians and constitutionalists from focusing on the stuff going on with Iran. Do NOT give anyone a pass on the Iranian sanctions because of this.

Also, it's not smoke and mirrors. And you have to give Rand a pass on sanctions if you want him to be President. He's already being incredibly ballsy playing the undecided card.

People on this forum still rail on Rand for his vote in favor of Iranian sanctions in the past, but I don't see anything mentioned about Amash's vote for sanctions. Why the double standard?

[Christian Liberty]

Well, your first mistake is expecting logic from anyone on the hill. McCain, Graham, Ayotte in the Senate and Peter King in the house will make the TV rounds while the usual froth dribbles out of their war-loving mouths as they vociferously insist we need to drop more bombs.

Can't you hear it now, "Rand Paul hates America. Now is not the time to stop bombing Iraqis! BOMB BOMB BOMB"

Valid point. What I don't understand is why anyone would be stupid enough to believe it. Its not surprising though.

Also, it's not smoke and mirrors. And you have to give Rand a pass on sanctions if you want him to be President. He's already being incredibly ballsy playing the undecided card.

People on this forum still rail on Rand for his vote in favor of Iranian sanctions in the past, but I don't see anything mentioned about Amash's vote for sanctions. Why the double standard?

First off, I'm still not sure why this ISN'T smoke and mirrors. I mean, the war is over, isn't it? Does repealing the AUMF actually accomplish anything concrete? If a President wanted to send troops there again, Congress, being the warmongering shills that they are, would likely approve it.

As for sanctions, well, in this particular case negotiations with Iran are currently going on, and Obama is promising to veto them. So if Rand votes for these, he'll be even more hawkish on this issue than Obama. Which is a big deal to me. I don't know about you.

As for Amash, he only voted for one, and IIRC it wasn't even against the Iranian people. HUGE difference.


It's interesting that Mike Lee has cosponsored it since he voted against Rand's bill to repeal the Iraq AUMF the last time it was voted on.

What was Mike Lee's reasoning?

I'm not sure Mike Lee is really any better than Ted Cruz. They both suck. Rand is at least marginally better than the rest of the "Tea Party" movement.


It sounds like Rand is still undecided on the Iran sanctions bill. It sounds like Flake is leaning towards voting against the sanctions. It may not end up coming up for a vote.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/01/14/senate_liberals_hit_pause_on_iran_sanctions_sprint .html

I'm not going to say what I want to say here. I'll just silently shake my head in frustration.


I honestly don't know. He doesn't seem to have made many public statements regarding Iraq, but his current foreign policy stances suggest he's fairly supportive of it. Then again, YAL claim he wants a clear exit strategy for Iraq (http://www.yaliberty.org/pac/candidates/cruz). I just think Coburn, Flake and Heller are the guys that we ought be pushing this the hardest to, given they're the most likely on our side of the aisle to back this bill.

What I don't get is why the crap anyone would support anyone who's wrong on such an obvious issue. Then again, I know you're a politics junkie so... whatever. I prefer to stick to issues and principle.

[Occam's Banana]

[Y]ou have to give Rand a pass on sanctions if you want him to be President.

Given that one can (and some will) say exactly the same thing regarding any & every other uncongenial issue that might arise, what is the point of Rand being president?

The fact that we are in a position in which "passes" have to be given on this particular issue in this particular context is Exhibit A in the case against Rand running for president. The Liberty Movement will not be able to put someone in the White House - or that person won't actually be effective in that position - unless and until it can do so without having to hand out "passes" that do such violence to basic principle.


People on this forum still rail on Rand for his vote in favor of Iranian sanctions in the past, but I don't see anything mentioned about Amash's vote for sanctions. Why the double standard?

IIRC, Amash supported sanctions just the once. Rand has supported all the sanctions thus far. They both had reasons - political and/or otherwise - for doing so. Par for course. Rand's support for previous sanctions is one thing - I disagreed vehemently with him (and with Amash). But this is another thing altogether.

The difference is that Rand justified his support for previous sanctions on the basis that they would bring Iran to the negotiating table. Now Iran is at the negotiating table - and these latest proposed sanctions are deliberately intended to blow that table up. So if Rand ends up supporting these sanctions, he will have become just another straight-up, two-faced political hack.

That is not a position Amash has put himself in (especially as it seems unlikely that Amash will support these sanctions). That is why Rand is catching flak but Amash is not. IOW: There is no double-standard here.

[Saint Vitus]

I will judge Rand on how he votes on Iranian sanctions, that has a real immediate impact. This bill/vote on Iraq is almost meaningless at this point and practically just for show as safe way to gain anti-war/libertarian cred without doing anything that would actually upset the establishment.

[TaftFan]

As for Amash's sanctions...I believe what they did is penalize nations for engaging in arms trading with Iran (or maybe just WMDs). More of a deterrent than a punishment and in my view not a bad vote.

[TaftFan]

So glad I support Walter Jones!

Go Rand!

Yeah, the AUMF is what really started us down this road of war and civil liberties violations.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Furthermore, I and others did put pressure on Amash after his sanctions and Israel-US JME votes. Amash even made a statement after being confronted, in which he called those votes mistakes, and vowed not to vote that way in the future.

[Christian Liberty]

As for Amash's sanctions...I believe what they did is penalize nations for engaging in arms trading with Iran (or maybe just WMDs). More of a deterrent than a punishment and in my view not a bad vote.
I don't agree with it, but its clearly different than the ones Rand has voted for.

Furthermore, I and others did put pressure on Amash after his sanctions and Israel-US JME votes. Amash even made a statement after being confronted, in which he called those votes mistakes, and vowed not to vote that way in the future.

Good for Amash:) Amash for President!:)

[Occam's Banana]

Furthermore, I and others did put pressure on Amash after his sanctions and Israel-US JME votes. Amash even made a statement after being confronted, in which he called those votes mistakes, and vowed not to vote that way in the future.

I remember that. It's an excellent illustration of the importance of not muting criticisms - and of what can happen when you don't give "passes" ...

[Brett85]

People on this forum still rail on Rand for his vote in favor of Iranian sanctions in the past, but I don't see anything mentioned about Amash's vote for sanctions. Why the double standard?

Amash voted in favor of one minor sanctions bill and voted against four or five other more major sanctions bills. Rand has voted for all of the sanctions. Whether Rand did that for political reasons or not, Amash's position on the issue is far better than Rand's.

[Rudeman]

Do you guys not have enough threads to criticize Rand? This thread has nothing to do with Iran sanctions.

[Brett85]

Do you guys not have enough threads to criticize Rand? This thread has nothing to do with Iran sanctions.

I'm not sure who you were referring to, but I wasn't criticizing Rand. I was just explaining the difference between Rand on Amash on the issue of Iran sanctions.

[cajuncocoa]

I remember that. It's an excellent illustration of the importance of not muting criticisms - and of what can happen when you don't give "passes" ...
EXACTLY!!

[whoisjohngalt]

First off, I'm still not sure why this ISN'T smoke and mirrors.

I think it paves the way and builds the coalition to do the same with the universal AUMF that was used to go into Afghanistan. Wyden I almost expected, but Rand seems to be working well with Gillibrand too. He is making himself a very hard man to hate.

Does it accomplish something sweeping with regards to our foreign policy? Not really, but it also forces people to talk about and think about our open ended wars.

I think it's a smart play. It may be somewhat token, but I wouldn't call it smoke and mirrors.

[whoisjohngalt]

The difference is that Rand justified his support for previous sanctions on the basis that they would bring Iran to the negotiating table. Now Iran is at the negotiating table - and these latest proposed sanctions are deliberately intended to blow that table up. So if Rand ends up supporting these sanctions, he will have become just another straight-up, two-faced political hack.

I should have been more clear. I was referring to past sanctions. Couldn't agree more that Rand must absolutely oppose this new round as he has the cover of them already being at the negotiating table, as you pointed out. More importantly, this is a tremendous opportunity for him to once again to distance himself and further bury the neocons.

And despite your view of sanctions and whether or not they are an act of war (personally I think they are immoral but calling them an act of war is great hyperbole) it's hard to deny that the past sanctions were the primary impetus for bringing them to diplomacy. Not to say that diplomacy couldn't have been achieved through moral means, but anyone who incessantly declares them an act of war because our dear leader once said it, doesn't have much credibility imo.

[whoisjohngalt]

Furthermore, I and others did put pressure on Amash after his sanctions and Israel-US JME votes. Amash even made a statement after being confronted, in which he called those votes mistakes, and vowed not to vote that way in the future.

Furthermore, Rand made a statement to explaining his well reasoned opinion on the subject without any pressure. He is the only Senator to vote against Iranian sanctions. He blocked an Iranian sanctions bill. And gave a speech talking about how we must be careful that sanctions aren't just a precursor to war. He is the only one in the Senate even engaging in debate on the issue of sanctions, which takes great courage.

Fuck the good. Let's all hold out for perfect. Give me a break.

Hold him accountable, but don't ignore the good and dwell on the bad. Take the equation in balance.

[whoisjohngalt]

Amash voted in favor of one minor sanctions bill and voted against four or five other more major sanctions bills. Rand has voted for all of the sanctions. Whether Rand did that for political reasons or not, Amash's position on the issue is far better than Rand's.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/03/rand-paul-blocks-iran-sanctions-bill-118887.html

What was that?

http://rt.com/usa/rand-paul-senate-iran-756/

Can't hear you?

[Terry1]

I should have been more clear. I was referring to past sanctions. Couldn't agree more that Rand must absolutely oppose this new round as he has the cover of them already being at the negotiating table, as you pointed out. More importantly, this is a tremendous opportunity for him to once again to distance himself and further bury the neocons.

And despite your view of sanctions and whether or not they are an act of war (personally I think they are immoral but calling them an act of war is great hyperbole) it's hard to deny that the past sanctions were the primary impetus for bringing them to diplomacy. Not to say that diplomacy couldn't have been achieved through moral means, but anyone who incessantly declares them an act of war because our dear leader once said it, doesn't have much credibility imo.

Ron Paul said those sanctions against Iran were an act of war because of the real and true reason they were put in place. It's not what the MSM and talking head sycophants to the government want you to believe. The MSM and the government want people to believe that Irans nukes are the real and true threat when that's not the case at all. The real threat was the attack on the dollar by selling oil in other currencies, just the same as when Saddam attempted to sell oil in other currencies was attacked. The government wants to use fear to gain support by using nuke smoke screen to cover the fact that they know if the dollar goes down, so do we. Which explains the U.S. involved in over 130 different military interventions going on globally.

The general voting population are ignorant of the real and true facts because they've drank the MSM koolaid and react to fear instead of truth.

[whoisjohngalt]

Ron Paul said those sanctions against Iran were an act of war because of the real and true reason they were put in place. It's not what the MSM and talking head sycophants to the government want you to believe. The MSM and the government want people to believe that Irans nukes are the real and true threat when that's not the case at all. The real threat was the attack on the dollar by selling oil in other currencies, just the same as when Saddam attempted to sell oil in other currencies was attacked. The government wants to use fear to gain support by using nuke smoke screen to cover the fact that they know if the dollar goes down, so do we. Which explains the U.S. involved in over 130 different military interventions going on globally.

The general voting population are ignorant of the real and true facts because they've drank the MSM koolaid and react to fear instead of truth.

I completely agree. Perception is reality though, and although Rand hasn't been as good as we would like on sanctions by any stretch of the imagingation, he has positioned himself to one day be President Paul. That's more important to me and many of us than a couple bad votes. I'll take that trade.

Those who believe there could one day be a President Amash are too delusional to be reached by logic or reason. He may very well not even be in Congress much longer, unfortunately. Let's hope that's not true. Meanwhile Rand runs Kentucky and is the very likely nominee of his party.

[Occam's Banana]

And despite your view of sanctions and whether or not they are an act of war (personally I think they are immoral but calling them an act of war is great hyperbole) it's hard to deny that the past sanctions were the primary impetus for bringing them to diplomacy. Not to say that diplomacy couldn't have been achieved through moral means, but anyone who incessantly declares them an act of war because our dear leader once said it, doesn't have much credibility imo.

Incessantly? So far as I recall (without going back and rereading all the posts), you are the first person in this thread to broach the question of whether sanctions are an act of war. In any case, I certainly have not done so. But since you bring it up ...

I don't know to whom you are referring when you say "our dear leader." I assume you mean Ron Paul. If so, I would thank you not to condescend to patronize those of us who do not believe a thing merely because Ron Paul said so. (And if you did not mean Ron Paul, then substitute the name of whoever you did mean.)

Until relatively recently, sanctions such as those that have been imposed upon Iran were pretty much universally regarded as acts of war. This is not hyperbole - it was simply the commonly & internationally understood nature of sanctions. That traditional understanding has been systematically undermined & perverted by the rise of nation-state imperialism - that is, by the rise of self-righteous internationalist bullies.

If any of the sanctions the US has imposed upon Iran had instead been imposed upon the US by some other country, there can be extremely little doubt (in fact, I am inclined to think no doubt whatsoever) that pro-sanction apologists would be howling bloody murder and screaming, "Act of war! Act of war!" And they would be correct. It is the hubris of imperium that induces pro-sanctioners to imagine that they can get away with such hypocrisy.

Diplomacy can be achieved by simply engaging in it. Sanctions are, at absolute best, mere bullying. And like all bullying, they justify retaliation if the bullied party chooses to pursue such a course. (That is, after all, no more than what the concept of an "act of war" means in the first place.)

[Terry1]

I completely agree. Perception is reality though, and although Rand hasn't been as good as we would like on sanctions by any stretch of the imagingation, he has positioned himself to one day be President Paul. That's more important to me and many of us than a couple bad votes. I'll take that trade.

Those who believe there could one day be a President Amash are too delusional to be reached by logic or reason. He may very well not even be in Congress much longer, unfortunately. Let's hope that's not true. Meanwhile Rand runs Kentucky and is the very likely nominee of his party.

Rand has a steep hill to climb running against the moderate whale Christie. I hope pray that Rand can pull this off with the right message to appeal to the voting public. I fear Christie's ability to speak with real power and conviction although I can't stand the guy. I know Christie's a sell out to the progressives. I think that Rand should avoid certain topics of discussion like unemployment and especially in this economy when people are all living in fear for their jobs. I think he should focus on chipping away at Obamacare and our constitutional freedom, something that will rally support on all sides.

If he goes with Daddy's message, although Ron Paul was right about everything, we'll lose against the likes of Christie. Unfortunately, we have to take into consideration the ignorance of the voting masses.

[whoisjohngalt]

Diplomacy can be achieved by simply engaging in it. Sanctions are, at absolute best, mere bullying. And like all bullying, they justify retaliation if the bullied party chooses to pursue such a course. (That is, after all, no more than what the concept of an "act of war" means in the first place.)

That's where we part ways. I vehemently disagree that sanctions alone justify physical retaliation. I think they are immoral and mostly couter productive and I wish Rand would never support them. But again, you take the position that they are an "act of war" because you, or someone else says so.

That does not constitute an argument, sorry.

Also, you're just making up the history of how they have been viewed historically. Like anything, positions ran the gambit and still do. When 130 countries including the US set up the South African embargo over apartheid, no one said it was an act of war. It was universally supported.

Mali, China, Iran, North Korea, Cyprus, Cuba, Georgia, Japan, Gaza, Idonesia, and Syria are all currently bound by sanctions and the sanctions apologist aren't crying foul or saying any of those are an act of war. You think someone like McCain would go hard after Russia's sanctions on Georgia. Another incorrect point made by you.

I greatly respect you as a poster, and love to read what you write, but on this issue you don't seem to be examining the full spectrum of evidence. I hope it's just because you hate war and sanctions so much. So do I.

[Occam's Banana]

But again, you take the position that they are an "act of war" because you, or someone else says so.

That does not constitute an argument, sorry.

"You take the position [...] because you or someone else says so" ...
With all due respect - what the hell is that even supposed to mean?

I "say so" because that is what my position is. Furthermore, I told you why it is my position.

Sanctions are aggressive, force-imposing bullying.
As such, they justify aggressive, forceful retaliation by the bullied party (or parties).

How is retailiation NOT justified against aggressive impositions of force?
Why, pray tell, is the bullied party obligated to just "sit there and take it?"


That's where we part ways. I vehemently disagree that sanctions alone justify physical retaliation. I think they are immoral and mostly couter productive and I wish Rand would never support them.

So let me get this straight: YOU "take the position that sanctions are NOT an 'act of war' because YOU say so" ... and then you turn right around and dismiss my position because you say that I "take the position that sanctions are an 'act of war' because I say so" ...

Question: Do you actually expect such blatant hypocrisy to be taken seriously? :rolleyes:

The fact that you have no reply other than the rhetorical equivalent of "neener neener neener" is what "does not constitute an argument."

[Occam's Banana]

Also, you're just making up the history of how they have been viewed historically. Like anything, positions ran the gambit and still do. When 130 countries including the US set up the South African embargo over apartheid, no one said it was an act of war. It was universally supported.

Are you serious? You are aware that history goes a LOT further back than South African apartheid, aren't you?

I said that prior to the rise of modern, imperialist nation-states, sanctions of the kind being imposed upon Iran were regarded as acts of war ...

... and your "counter-evidence" is that modern, imperialist nation-states don't regard sanctions as acts of war ... *facepalm*


Mali, China, Iran, North Korea, Cyprus, Cuba, Georgia, Japan, Gaza, Idonesia, and Syria are all currently bound by sanctions and the sanctions apologist aren't crying foul or saying any of those are an act of war. You think someone like McCain would go hard after Russia's sanctions on Georgia. Another incorrect point made by you.

Well, duh! Of course they aren't "crying foul" - because they are sanctions apologists. Why the hell would McCain bitch about sanctions? He thinks they're fantastic.

I mean, come on! I'm supposed to take John McCain's lack of opposition to sanctions as evidence that sanctions are not acts of war? Are you for real?

[whoisjohngalt]

I just dismantled each one of your points by providing evidence to the contrary. I didn't say that sanctions weren't an act of war. I challenged dogmatically accepting that all sanctions are an act of war. I'm not the one making that claim. The burden of proof is entirely on you.

I did say that I don't think sanctions justify retaliation via force. If that's your only criteria for act of war, I guess I did make that claim. I'd like to backtrack on that though, because it's really on an instance by instance basis and isn't black and white like so many on these forums make it out to be. That's my whole point.

You have done nothing to challenge that. I notice you didn't dispute the inaccuracies in your claims after they were pointed out. So i guess we agree.

[tsai3904]

Ted Cruz signed on as a cosponsor yesterday. List of 8 cosponsors:


Sen Cruz, Ted [TX] - 1/15/2014
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 1/14/2014
Sen Lee, Mike [UT] - 1/14/2014
Sen Merkley, Jeff [OR] - 1/14/2014
Sen Murphy, Christopher S. [CT] - 1/14/2014
Sen Tester, Jon [MT] - 1/14/2014
Sen Warren, Elizabeth [MA] - 1/14/2014
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 1/14/2014

[Brett85]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/03/rand-paul-blocks-iran-sanctions-bill-118887.html

What was that?

http://rt.com/usa/rand-paul-senate-iran-756/

Can't hear you?

I said that Rand has voted for all of the sanctions, which is true, and which is what Rand himself has said. The first article mentions that Rand held up a sanctions bill to get language inserted that nothing in the legislation could be used as an authorization for the use of military force. He didn't have a problem with the sanctions themselves, and he didn't vote against the sanctions. He voted in favor of the sanctions after that language was included in the bill. He has never voted against a sanctions bill.

The second article talks about a bill that wasn't a sanctions bill. It didn't contain any new sanctions. It contained a provision that Rand didn't like, which ruled out containment as an option and basically boxed us into using the military option. Rand takes the position that our policy towards Iran shouldn't necessarily be containment, but containment still shouldn't be ruled out and taken completely off the table. So he voted against the bill for that reason. It had nothing do with sanctions. The bill didn't contain any new sanctions.

[whoisjohngalt]

I said that Rand has voted for all of the sanctions, which is true, and which is what Rand himself has said. The first article mentions that Rand held up a sanctions bill to get language inserted that nothing in the legislation could be used as an authorization for the use of military force. He didn't have a problem with the sanctions themselves, and he didn't vote against the sanctions. He voted in favor of the sanctions after that language was included in the bill. He has never voted against a sanctions bill.

The second article talks about a bill that wasn't a sanctions bill. It didn't contain any new sanctions. It contained a provision that Rand didn't like, which ruled out containment as an option and basically boxed us into using the military option. Rand takes the position that our policy towards Iran shouldn't necessarily be containment, but containment still shouldn't be ruled out and taken completely off the table. So he voted against the bill for that reason. It had nothing do with sanctions. The bill didn't contain any new sanctions.

There is no greater sanction than "if you do x, we will destroy you". It's the ultimate sanction. You forgot to mention it wasn't a binding bill. You are totally missing the point, though. He is by leagues the most vocally antiwar Senator in my lifetime and that includes the dialogue that he and his father have started on sanctions.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

[Occam's Banana]

I just dismantled each one of your points by providing evidence to the contrary.

You have a very strange notion of "dismantled," but be that as it may - I am content to leave it to others to read our exchange & decide for themselves who has or hasn't done what.


I didn't say that sanctions weren't an act of war. I challenged dogmatically accepting that all sanctions are an act of war. I'm not the one making that claim. The burden of proof is entirely on you.

At this point, I can only repeat myself:

Sanctions are aggressive, force-imposing bullying.
As such, they justify aggressive, forceful retaliation by the bullied party (or parties).

How is retailiation NOT justified against aggressive impositions of force?
Why, pray tell, is the bullied party obligated to just "sit there and take it?"


I did say that I don't think sanctions justify retaliation via force. If that's your only criteria for act of war, I guess I did make that claim. I'd like to backtrack on that though, because it's really on an instance by instance basis and isn't black and white like so many on these forums make it out to be. That's my whole point.

You have done nothing to challenge that.

Challenge what? You don't think this thing ... you did claim some other thing ... you would like to backtrack ... I honestly cannot make head or tails out of anything you just said. At this point, I don't have any idea what your "whole point" is - let alone how to go about "challenging" it ...


I notice you didn't dispute the inaccuracies in your claims after they were pointed out. So i guess we agree.

You did not point out any inaccuracies in my claims. You did go off on a bizarre tangent about the (entirely undisputed) fact that modern nation-states support the use of sanctions (and what John McCain thinks about Russian sanctions on Georgia). I have yet to fathom how any of this exposes alleged inaccuracies on my part ...

[Brett85]

He is by leagues the most vocally antiwar Senator in my lifetime.

I never said anything to the contrary. I wasn't even criticizing Rand in my comment. I was simply responding to someone who asked what the difference was between Rand and Amash on sanctions. I just pointed out that Amash is better on the issue of sanctions than Rand.

Edit: I guess you were the one I was responding to, about why there's a "double standard" when it comes to criticizing Rand over sanctions but not criticizing Amash. It's because Amash voted in favor of one minor sanctions bill against Iran that didn't even negatively affect the people of Iran, and he voted against the other four or five more major sanctions that he voted on. Rand voted in favor of all three sanctions bills that he voted on, and they were all more significant sanctions than the sanctions bill that Amash voted for.

[GunnyFreedom]

There is no greater sanction than "if you do x, we will destroy you". It's the ultimate sanction. You forgot to mention it wasn't a binding bill. You are totally missing the point, though. He is by leagues the most vocally antiwar Senator in my lifetime and that includes the dialogue that he and his father have started on sanctions.

You are missing the forest for the trees.


I never said anything to the contrary. I wasn't even criticizing Rand in my comment. I was simply responding to someone who asked what the difference was between Rand and Amash on sanctions. I just pointed out that Amash is better on the issue of sanctions than Rand.

Edit: I guess you were the one I was responding to, about why there's a "double standard" when it comes to criticizing Rand over sanctions but not criticizing Amash. It's because Amash voted in favor of one minor sanctions bill against Iran that didn't even negatively affect the people of Iran, and he voted against the other four or five more major sanctions that he voted on. Rand voted in favor of all three sanctions bills that he voted on, and they were all more significant sanctions than the sanctions bill that Amash voted for.

Galt, TC is one of the biggest Rand supporters on the boards here, he was just trying to rationally answer your question. I think you may have misinterpreted.

[whoisjohngalt]

Galt, TC is one of the biggest Rand supporters on the boards here, he was just trying to rationally answer your question. I think you may have misinterpreted.

Oh I know he is. I apologize if my tone is overly defensive. Just a little annoyed by OB's circular arguments.

I was just trying to point out to TC that while he is technically correct, semantically speaking, laying it out in that way makes Rand appear as if he actually supports sanctions. That is obviously his intent so that he can refute the isolationist claims. But if you read between the lines, it's a horrible characterization.

OB is a Rand supporter as well, I believe. Thanks for calming me down though.

[Brett85]

I was just trying to point out to TC that while he is technically correct, semantically speaking, laying it out in that way makes Rand appear as if he actually supports sanctions. That is obviously his intent so that he can refute the isolationist claims. But if you read between the lines, it's a horrible characterization.

Well, I guess we have no way of knowing whether Rand simply voted for the sanctions for political reasons, or whether he's actually in favor of sanctions philosophically. I have no way of knowing since I can't read his mind. But he did vote in favor of Hagel's nomination, which was an unpopular vote with the Republican base. So I don't really think that Rand is always making political calculations and voting a certain way for political reasons.

[whoisjohngalt]

Well, I guess we have no way of knowing whether Rand simply voted for the sanctions for political reasons, or whether he's actually in favor of sanctions philosophically. I have no way of knowing since I can't read his mind. But he did vote in favor of Hagel's nomination, which was an unpopular vote with the Republican base. So I don't really think that Rand is always making political calculations and voting a certain way for political reasons.

No one can rationally accuse of him of being an isolationist for voting for Hagel. Anyone making that accusation comes out looking like Peter King. On the other hand, with most of the Senate in AIPAC's pocket and this undisputed idea that Iran is an "existential threat" whatever the hell that means, he will be accused of being an isolationist and it will stick if he is seen as weak on Iran.

The isolationist tag sticking to Ron was ultimately his downfall as a presidential candidate. You don't need to read his mind to reason through it. I think he has unquestionably earned the benefit of the doubt.

[Brett85]

Ted Cruz signed on as a cosponsor yesterday. List of 8 cosponsors:

I think that at least proves that Cruz isn't a hardcore neocon like McCain and Graham. Neither one of them would ever sign onto or vote for a bill like this.

[Brett85]

No one can rationally accuse of him of being an isolationist for voting for Hagel. Anyone making that accusation comes out looking like Peter King. On the other hand, with most of the Senate in AIPAC's pocket and this undisputed idea that Iran is an "existential threat" whatever the hell that means, he will be accused of being an isolationist and it will stick if he is seen as weak on Iran.

I guess, even though the use of the term "isolationist" is quite ironic here, since the real isolationists are the ones who want to isolate Iran through sanctions and kill diplomacy.

[twomp]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/8cb046e6f16e05f8521e15de31927f52/tumblr_mt80mvKYGn1rqfhi2o1_500.gif

Go Rand Go!!

[whoisjohngalt]

I guess, even though the use of the term "isolationist" is quite ironic here, since the real isolationists are the ones who want to isolate Iran through sanctions and kill diplomacy.

Perception is reality.

I have wasted more breath than I care to remember trying to explain the differences between non-interventionism and isolationism. And if you reread the first three paragraphs of his foreign policy speech from two days ago, it becomes quite clear that Rand's preemptively preventing us having to continually engage in that futile explanation.