Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: Ron Paul on the Iran Deal

  1. #1

    Ron Paul on the Iran Deal

    Iran Deal: Peace Opportunity or 'Historic Mistake'

    Now that a deal between the P5+1 and Iran has been agreed, the fight will be harder than ever in the US. Neocons are ready for battle, with Sen. Tom Cotton calling the agreement an "historic mistake." What's next, war or peace?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP7jJNnTIwE
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 07-14-2015 at 05:00 PM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Then there's this disgrace:


  4. #3
    When Ron said the deal was bad, I was like "what? " and then he explained why it can be bad. We shouldn't be meddling with their internal affairs to begin with, so any solution other than dismantling the sanctions, returning their money and going home is still very interventionist.

    This is what Rand should be saying but you say that and you have ZERO chance in the republican primaries

  5. #4
    Lots of pros and cons identified by Ron. Complex issue. A "no" vote is the purest ancap vote.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Lots of pros and cons identified by Ron. Complex issue. A "no" vote is the purest ancap vote.
    'Present' or 'not voting' would be more pure, in my estimation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  7. #6
    From what I'm reading, it doesn't matter if the Congress does not approve. Obama is going to the United Nations, for approval. The U.S. Congress will then have no say in the matter. All we will see is Theater. Isn't it wonderful when your Country is owned by people in the United Nations you never even heard of? They were not elected by you, the people? Welcome to "World Government". Just fire the Congress !!! They are useless, and soak up more entitlements than any other group in America. This Country needs to stop pretending it is free... it is not.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    This is what Rand should be saying but you say that and you have ZERO chance in the republican primaries
    You know, this sentiment is very prevalent in the Rand Paul supporter thought-sphere.

    What is the implication? "Rand can't speak the truth or he'll never get through the primary."

    Ok, and then what? It gets EASIER after that? Is that logical?

    "Yeah, sure. Once Rand has x amount of power he'll be able to do what he wants." Is that what everyone's thinking? That somehow once you've climbed deep enough into the snake pit you're given free reign?

    There is no "until" people. You want to play the game you can't speak the truth EVER. Ever, ever, ever, ever. There is no magic point where Rand gets to stop doing it like this. That's why I get so frustrated with this. It's like everyone who supports him "no matter what" is looking forward to some future PSYCHE! moment. It doesn't work like that, folks.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  9. #8
    Jan2017
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by Dianne View Post
    From what I'm reading, it doesn't matter if the Congress does not approve. Obama is going to the United Nations, for approval.
    The U.S. Congress will then have no say in the matter.
    . . .
    As I understand, there are resolutions for sanctions against Iran from the European Union, the United States, and of course the UN Security Council Resolutions.
    USA of course has veto power in the Security Council, but expecting a 15-0 vote there.

    The text of the agreement/deal is in several pdf files at the bottom of the page at :
    http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eea...0714_01_en.htm

    From the last pdf some excerpts . . .

    The Eurpoean Union will:
    16.1. Terminate the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 and suspend the corresponding provisions of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP etc.
    The United States will:
    17.1. Cease the application of the sanctions set forth in Sections 4.1 - 4.5 and 4.7 of Annex II, with the exception of Section 211(a) of
    the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (TRA);
    . . .
    17.4. Terminate Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622, 13645 and Sections 5-7 and 15 of Executive Order 13628 as set forth in Section 4 of Annex II; and
    . . .
    UN Security Council (will):
    18.1. In accordance with the UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA, the provisions imposed in UN Security Council resolutions 1696 (2006),
    1737(2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) will be terminated subject to re-imposition in the event of significant nonperformance by Iran . . .



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    As I understand, there are resolutions for sanctions against Iran from the European Union, the United States, and of course the UN Security Council Resolutions.
    USA of course has veto power in the Security Council, but expecting a 15-0 vote there.

    The text of the agreement/deal is in several pdf files at the bottom of the page at :
    http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eea...0714_01_en.htm

    From the last pdf some excerpts . . .
    LOL!

    Come on guys. After everything we've seen, forget over last decade or whatever, but just over this last month! ....is there really anyone on this board who thinks there's a snowballs chance in hell this deal will or even could be stopped by our dickless, neutered legislatures?

    The GOP can't even preserve marriage. Something probably only a few ***** globalists give a $#@! about. This doesn't even rise to no-brainer.

    And to me every GOP puffing his chest over this just looks like a fraud and a moron.

    THEY ALREADY PASSED IT WHEN THEY PASSED ADVISE AND CONSENT.

    Any legislator that doesn't own that fact is just lying more.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  12. #10
    Does anyone have a good link to that advise and consent bill? I can't find the name of the bill in the articles I'm looking at. Maybe useful to post how that vote came out. Since that was the vote where the legislature neutered it's ability to do anything about it now.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  13. #11
    Jan2017
    Member

    RP: "One complaint of the neocons is that they (Iran) can buy weapons"

    - which is what Rand gave as one of his reasons for his Nay to the legislative action in the USA some seven weeks from now.

  14. #12
    Jan2017
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    Does anyone have a good link to that advise and consent bill? I can't find the name of the bill in the articles I'm looking at. Maybe useful to post how that vote came out. Since that was the vote where the legislature neutered it's ability to do anything about it now.
    Corker Bill ?
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rew-c-mccarthy

    The legislation, formally known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, was sponsored by Senators Bob Corker (R. Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Lindsey Graham, a GOP presidential hopeful, among others. It came under intense conservative criticism before being enacted in early May because (as I’ve previously explained) it is structured in a way that virtually guarantees Obama will be authorized to implement the deal – evading the Constitution’s treaty provisions


  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    RP: "One complaint of the neocons is that they (Iran) can buy weapons"

    - which is what Rand gave as one of his reasons for his Nay to the legislative action in the USA some seven weeks from now.
    So why didn't Rand speak up when they passed the Iran Bill in the Senate 98-1 on May 7th? Why didn't the GOP fight for more amendments? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

    Why did only Tom Cotton have the proper response and only "No" vote?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...an-review-bill

    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was the only senator to oppose the bill. He said in a statement that he objected that the deal was not to be presented to the Congress as a treaty.

    "A nuclear-arms agreement with any adversary—especially the terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian regime—should be submitted as a treaty and obtain a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate as required by the Constitution," he said.
    When Rand voted for this was he confused about how the Constitution worked? He seemed very knowledgeable about the Constitution when he stood on his feet for 10 hours talking about meta-data.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    Ok, yeah. I found it. Didn't realize everyone was calling it that.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  17. #15
    Jan2017
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    . . .

    When Rand voted for this was he confused about how the Constitution worked?
    He seemed very knowledgeable about the Constitution when he stood on his feet for 10 hours talking about meta-data.
    All of them . . . but what about neocon Lindsey Graham - a co-sponsor of the Corker Bill ?
    So, Lindsey Graham part of legislation making it easier for Iran to get out of sanctions. That sly dog.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    All of them . . . but what about neocon Lindsey Graham - a co-sponsor of the Corker Bill ?
    So, Lindsey Graham part of legislation making it easier for Iran to get out of sanctions. That sly dog.
    You know, I totally get it, I do. Really, the only shred of "caring" I have at this point is why we've given up talking straight.

    There used to be this guy I liked who even had a show called "Texas straight talk."

    It's like we all know we're going to the furnaces. At the very least we should be screaming "They're taking us to the furnaces!" Since our options for escape are severely limited. But I liken this Rand Paul strategy to our entire concentration camp having a meeting. And in our starvation and stress induced delirium, half of us who figured out the truth have decided to keep quiet, because the guy with the largest lung capacity is going to go into the furnace and blow out the flames. When the nazi's see him do this I guess they will fear him and recognize his power as a leader or something and let us all go. The other half of us who haven't become completely delirious are trying to remind you that this is actually us just walking into the flames and is actually counter to our original strategy of at least speaking up about it! Escape was always known to be a crap shoot! The speaking was working a little at least!
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    I had shared some thoughts on this article elsewhere on the forum. It was actually a much larger article but there were relevant factors to this deal too. I'll share a snippet of that posting as it relates to this. Perhaps some will see the relevance with what we are seeing with this Iran nuke deal...



    Back to the piece... Russia and Saudi Arabia...

    One of the most geopolitically fascinating developments around the St. Petersburg forum was the appearance of Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Defense Minister and son of King Salman. Prince bin Salman, and Putin held a joint press conference during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum where Putin announced he had invited Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to visit Russia, and had accepted an invitation to visit Saudi Arabia.

    In addition, the two discussed Saudi purchase of Russian nuclear power technology. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told RT that Saudi Arabia plans to use Russia’s expertise to build up to 16 power-generating nuclear reactors. Russia and Saudi Arabia signed an intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. According to Russia’s state-run atomic energy agency Rosatom, for the first time in the history of Russian-Saudi relations it creates a legal framework for bilateral cooperation in nuclear energy, and opens prospects for cooperation in construction and operation of reactors, nuclear fuel cycle services as well as education and training.

    Russian President Putin and the Saudi Prince discussed possible cooperation in the arms trade. Hmmmm. Until now Saudi Arabia has been a prime arms customer of the USA and of Great Britain. No doubt the May 9 Moscow parade of the most advanced Russian weapons systems caught the eye of Prince bin Salman. Referring to the talks between bin Salman and Putin on possible Russian weapons system purchases by Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister al-Jubeir stated, “This issue [purchase of weapons] is being considered by the military experts from our countries. But I want to stress that nothing prevents us from buying Russian defense systems, just like nothing prevents Russia from selling them to Saudi Arabia.”

    We can imagine this statement raised more than a few eyebrows in Washington and London and Brussels NATO headquarters, where it’s been assumed ever since the 1945 meeting between US President Roosevelt and Saudi King Ibn Saud securing exclusive rights for American oil majors to develop the huge oil reserves of the Saudi Kingdom, that Riyadh would be a US vassal state.


    Of course, what isn't mentioned here is Russia's involvement in the Iranian nuclear program as well as its role in stimulating discussion with the West with regard to that. Russia is opening doors to Saudi nuclear deals and arms trade, and, so, gain influence within both wings of the Islamic world. Of course, there is a bit more to it since they'll, then, not be so reliant upon western arms for its military. Right? Right. Perhaps, then, we'll see more trade in intelligence? Who knows. The point is that Russia is doing its own thing while/after being slapped around by the west and challenging them at the same time.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-15-2015 at 08:19 PM.

  21. #18
    (h/t jon_perez: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5923605)

    Ron Paul Praises Iran Nuke Deal, Says Critics 'Misinterpreted' It
    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ron-.../14/id/657071/
    Greg Richter (14 July 2014)

    The Iranian nuclear deal is a big step toward world peace, and Republicans would be praising it if one of their own had negotiated it, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul told Newsmax TV's "The Hard Line."

    Paul told host Ed Berliner that the deal echoed Ronald Reagan's deal with the Soviets in the 1980s. Paul's biggest problem with the deal was that the United States had to work under the confines of the United Nations and NATO.

    "There's something to be said about moving in the direction of at least talking to people instead of saying, 'All right, you're scoundrels, we'll keep our $100 billion we've taken from you and all options are on the table, like if you don't do what we tell you, we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons against you,'" Paul said. "The tone has been changed. It's to our benefit; it's to the benefit of world peace."

    [ ... video and full article at link: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ron-.../14/id/657071/ ...]
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 07-15-2015 at 09:30 PM.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    'Present' or 'not voting' would be more pure, in my estimation.
    That goes for every vote if absence of the state is not the goal of what is being voted on.

  23. #20
    Should we support auditing the Fed if it doesn't end the Fed?

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33 View Post
    That goes for every vote if absence of the state is not the goal of what is being voted on.
    This is true. Very few bills that end up being introduced end up shrinking the state in any capacity, let alone any significant capacity. This specific treaty does seem to reduce state aggression and could be supported on those grounds without violating libertarian principles, assuming the deal is what it's purported to be.

    A 'no' vote has the higher hill to climb when it comes to rationale for such a vote, especially in Rand's case, as he has cultivated an image of incrementalism and realism as his approach to governance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    (h/t jon_perez: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5923605)

    Ron Paul Praises Iran Nuke Deal, Says Critics 'Misinterpreted' It
    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ron-.../14/id/657071/
    Greg Richter (14 July 2014)

    The Iranian nuclear deal is a big step toward world peace, and Republicans would be praising it if one of their own had negotiated it, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul told Newsmax TV's "The Hard Line."

    Paul told host Ed Berliner that the deal echoed Ronald Reagan's deal with the Soviets in the 1980s. Paul's biggest problem with the deal was that the United States had to work under the confines of the United Nations and NATO.

    "There's something to be said about moving in the direction of at least talking to people instead of saying, 'All right, you're scoundrels, we'll keep our $100 billion we've taken from you and all options are on the table, like if you don't do what we tell you, we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons against you,'" Paul said. "The tone has been changed. It's to our benefit; it's to the benefit of world peace."

    [ ... video and full article at link: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ron-.../14/id/657071/ ...]
    Ron starts at 1:45

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Though his wasn't a deciding vote, didnt Rand vote in favor of the President having the ability to circumvent the constitutional treaty language?????

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianne View Post
    From what I'm reading, it doesn't matter if the Congress does not approve. Obama is going to the United Nations, for approval. The U.S. Congress will then have no say in the matter.
    congress has no say?!? The house can offer 0 funding to any UN agreement and the congress, as a whole, can choose to not go along with what the president says. In fact, they can publicly announce the president has no authority to deal with the UN and that alone should limit a president's ability to get the seat at the UN to negotiate. Aside from the US being part of the UN (which is unconstitutional), the president can't circumvent the congress just because he wants to, no matter who he joins with (including the UN). Congress just needs a backbone and, as the most important and powerful of all three branches, needs to tell the president to stand down. Congress needs to represent the people.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Jan2017
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    So why didn't Rand speak up when they passed the Iran Bill in the Senate 98-1 on May 7th? Why didn't the GOP fight for more amendments? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

    Why did only Tom Cotton have the proper response and only "No" vote?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...an-review-bill



    When Rand voted for this was he confused about how the Constitution worked? He seemed very knowledgeable about the Constitution when he stood on his feet for 10 hours talking about meta-data.
    OK, now what is the right . . . the constitutionalist - thing to do about this Corker bill ?

    How would the Supreme Court rule on the Corker bill if it was presented with a cause of action questioning its' constitutionality ?
    Senator Cotton objecting that the agreement is not being presented as the enforcement of the NPT (treaty) seems correct -
    even to - of all people, Sean Hannity - who played the Constitution card in the recent interview with Rand.

    Rand may be in a learning curve with this . . . a challenge could show that at least the Dr. is a fast learner, and truly wants to do the right thing.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    How would the Supreme Court rule on the Corker bill if it was presented with a cause of action questioning its' constitutionality ?
    where in the constitution does the Supreme Court have authority to decide constitutionality? The Supreme Court has recently shown they don't understand the constitution anyway. If people keep running to federal courts for answers it elevates the courts to the most powerful level; the Supreme Court is constitutionally the weakest of the three branches.

  31. #27
    Jan2017
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    where in the constitution does the Supreme Court have authority to decide constitutionality? The Supreme Court has recently shown they don't understand the constitution anyway. If people keep running to federal courts for answers it elevates the courts to the most powerful level; the Supreme Court is constitutionally the weakest of the three branches.
    I get your point/sarcasm(?) . . .

    Officially for the record . . .


    Article III

    Section 1.

    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress
    may from time to time ordain and establish. . . .

    Section 2.


    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,
    and treaties made, or which shall be made, . . .


  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    (h/t jon_perez: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5923605)

    Ron Paul Praises Iran Nuke Deal, Says Critics 'Misinterpreted' It
    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ron-.../14/id/657071/
    Greg Richter (14 July 2014)

    The Iranian nuclear deal is a big step toward world peace, and Republicans would be praising it if one of their own had negotiated it, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul told Newsmax TV's "The Hard Line."

    Paul told host Ed Berliner that the deal echoed Ronald Reagan's deal with the Soviets in the 1980s. Paul's biggest problem with the deal was that the United States had to work under the confines of the United Nations and NATO.

    "There's something to be said about moving in the direction of at least talking to people instead of saying, 'All right, you're scoundrels, we'll keep our $100 billion we've taken from you and all options are on the table, like if you don't do what we tell you, we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons against you,'" Paul said. "The tone has been changed. It's to our benefit; it's to the benefit of world peace."

    [ ... video and full article at link: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ron-.../14/id/657071/ ...]
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Ron starts at 1:45

    Ron Paul Takes on Neocon: 'We've Got a Schizophrenic Foreign Policy'

    By Daniel McAdams
    Ron Paul Institute
    July 17, 2015

    We’re with the Iranians because we are both fighting ISIS but we’re against the Iranians because they are on the side of Assad. That is why RPI Chairman Ron Paul described our foreign policy as “schizophrenic” in a Newsmax debate on the Iran deal.

    On the Iran talks, Dr. Paul reminded the viewers that Reagan believed it was important to talk to the Soviets, a regime that had killed far more people than has the Iranians, and to look for ways to reduce weapons proliferation. So why not talk to Iran?

    Former CIA operative Fred Fleitz, now head of policy at the neoconservative Center for Security Policy, unsurprisingly disagreed, stating that he has no idea what Ron Paul is talking about. The Iran deal is a “catastrophe” that “could lead to a huge regional war in the Middle East.” He’s all for talking to Iran, he claimed, but only to get a good deal.

    When Dr. Paul pointed out that Iran has never been found in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Fleitz (mistakenly) blurted out “that’s not true!”

    Good fireworks and a great lesson from Dr. Paul on how the military-industrial complex gins up global conflict because it’s good for business. He might have added that the military-industrial complex is also very generous with “analysts” like Fred Fleitz who are paid well to spread lies and foment conflict while posing as experts.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/...ts-cia-neocon/
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  33. #29
    good for Ron. when the neocons started calling this deal bad, and when Israel jumped in, we should have known it was probably a helluva lot better than current policy.

    now let's hope his son follows his lead.
    Seattle Sounders 2016 MLS Cup Champions 2019 MLS Cup Champions 2022 CONCACAF Champions League - and the [un]official football club of RPF

    just a libertarian - no caucus

  34. #30


    Iran Agreement Boosts Peace, Defeats Neocons

    Last week’s successfully concluded Iran agreement is one of the two most important achievements of an otherwise pretty dismal Obama presidency. Along with the ongoing process of normalizing relations with Cuba, this move shows that diplomacy can produce peaceful, positive changes. It also shows that sometimes taking a principled position means facing down overwhelming opposition from all sides and not backing down. The president should be commended for both of these achievements.

    The agreement has reduced the chance of a US attack on Iran, which is a great development. But the interventionists will not give up so easily. Already they are organizing media and lobbying efforts to defeat the agreement in Congress. Will they have enough votes to over-ride a presidential veto of their rejection of the deal? It is unlikely, but at this point if the neocons can force the US out of the deal it may not make much difference. Which of our allies, who are now facing the prospect of mutually-beneficial trade with Iran, will be enthusiastic about going back to the days of a trade embargo? Which will support an attack on an Iran that has proven to be an important trading partner and has also proven reasonable in allowing intrusive inspections of its nuclear energy program?

    However, what is most important about this agreement is not that US government officials have conducted talks with Iranian government officials. It is that the elimination of sanctions, which are an act of war, will open up opportunities for trade with Iran. Government-to-government relations are one thing, but real diplomacy is people-to-people: business ventures, tourism, and student exchanges.

    I was so impressed when travel personality Rick Steves traveled to Iran in 2009 to show that the US media and government demonization of Iranians was a lie, and that travel and human contact can help defeat the warmongers because it humanizes those who are supposed to be dehumanized.

    As I write in my new book, Swords into Plowshares:
    Our unwise policy with Iran is a perfect example of what the interventionists have given us—60 years of needless conflict and fear for no justifiable reason. This obsession with Iran is bewildering. If the people knew the truth, they would strongly favor a different way to interact with Iran.
    Let’s not forget that the Iran crisis started not 31 years ago when the Iran Sanctions Act was signed into law, not 35 years ago when Iranians overthrew the US-installed Shah, but rather 52 years ago when the US CIA overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian leader Mossadegh and put a brutal dictator into power. Our relations with the Iranians are marked by nearly six decades of blowback.

    When the Cold War was winding down and the military-industrial complex needed a new enemy to justify enormous military spending, it was decided that Iran should be the latest “threat” to the US. That’s when sanctions really picked up steam. But as we know from our own CIA National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, the stories about Iran building a nuclear weapon were all lies. Though those lies continue to be repeated to this day.

    It is unfortunate that Iran was forced to give up some of its sovereignty to allow restrictions on a nuclear energy program that was never found to be in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But if the net result is the end of sanctions and at least a temporary reprieve from the constant neocon demands for attack, there is much to cheer in the agreement. Peace and prosperity arise from friendly relations and trade – and especially when governments get out of the way.
    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...feats-neocons/
    Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Rand Paul & Iran Deal
    By TommyJeff in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-21-2015, 06:45 AM
  2. Trump On CNN Interview: Iran Deal bad, we should invade Iran take their oil.
    By AngryCanadian in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-21-2015, 12:58 PM
  3. Will Ted Cruz and Rand Paul split on Iran? Americans back Iran deal
    By libertarian101 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-01-2013, 09:55 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-26-2013, 01:40 AM
  5. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 12-12-2011, 01:42 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •