Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: The Folly of Sanctions

  1. #1

    Lightbulb The Folly of Sanctions

    The Folly of Sanctions

    “Many people have the misconception that sanctions are an effective means to encourage a change of behavior in another country without war. However, imposing sanctions and blockades are not only an act of war according to international law, they are most often the first step toward a real war starting with a bombing campaign. Sanctions were the first step in our wars against Iraq and Libya, and now more sanctions planned against Syria and Iran are leading down the same destructive path…”

    Click here to read the full article: http://bit.ly/sLsLE5
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    For those who would rather listen instead of read:



  4. #3
    Hope he CC'd this one to Rand's office.
    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

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    The Folly of Sanctions

    “Many people have the misconception that sanctions are an effective means to encourage a change of behavior in another country without war. However, imposing sanctions and blockades are not only an act of war according to international law, they are most often the first step toward a real war starting with a bombing campaign. Sanctions were the first step in our wars against Iraq and Libya, and now more sanctions planned against Syria and Iran are leading down the same destructive path…”

    Click here to read the full article: http://bit.ly/sLsLE5
    Who wrote this and where is it hosted? I'm not clicking on some random hidden link from some 'Matt Collins' character no one has ever heard of.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZanZibar View Post
    For those who would rather listen instead of read:

    o, ok
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Hope he CC'd this one to Rand's office.
    Why, has Rand ever voted to sanctions?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by ZanZibar View Post
    Why, has Rand ever voted to sanctions?
    Signing on to a letter begging Barack Obama to impose sanctions on another country is inexcusable, and has no justification.
    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

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Signing on to a letter begging Barack Obama to impose sanctions on another country is inexcusable, and has no justification.
    Col--ZanZibar will say it is irrelevant because a letter urging for it doesn't have the power of law behind it. He literally said that.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesc View Post
    Col--ZanZibar will say it is irrelevant because a letter urging for it doesn't have the power of law behind it. He literally said that.
    Yeah, well, now there is a vote that has the power of law behind it, and Rand sided with the neocons and progressives.
    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



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Yeah, well, now there is a vote that has the power of law behind it, and Rand sided with the neocons and progressives.
    Did Rand actually VOTE for it?

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ZanZibar View Post
    Did Rand actually VOTE for it?
    Yes.

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00216

    And since Rand apparently missed Ron's memo about sanctions, I'll forward Ron's column to Rand's office.
    Last edited by Feeding the Abscess; 12-01-2011 at 11:39 PM.
    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

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Yes.

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00216

    And since Rand apparently missed Ron's memo about sanctions, I'll forward Ron's column to Rand's office.
    I think Rand already understand's his Dad's views on this. He probably just disagrees that all sanctions are always an act of war. Not sure I agree but I would need to know exactly what this amendment is doing. I thought I read somewhere that there were already sanctions in place and this amendment was just to close a loophole involving the Iranian central bank.

    Maybe he's afraid that if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon, we will go to war with them and he's hoping sanctions will prevent that. Or maybe if he has to vote against an authorization of force against Iran, he wants to be able to say that he was willing to support actions short of war to prevent an Iranian nuke. He's not going to agree with Ron on everything but I don't think he wants to discuss those disagreements while the campaign is ongoing so we may not get an official explaination for this vote, at least not right away.

  14. #12
    Guys I just had a quick question - all the arguments about sanctions seem to center around whether or not they are effective. My question is - are they constitutional? Doesn't it infringe upon my rights to have the government tell me whom I can and cannot transact with? Why do I pay the government tax dollars so that it can enforce a law that reduces my right to transact with any business I choose? And we're not even talking nuclear material or arms, which I could see the argument for. We're talking no buying/selling oil, depositing with Iranian banks, etc.

  15. #13
    The policy of sanctions is essentially to starve your neighbor to make him love you. Obey or starve.

    The operation is to prevent goods from entering or leaving and to have the citizens rise up against the internal government. In reality the people unify in hatred against the imposers of the sanctions and to the direct benefit of the local criminal politicians who get to demagog against the outside meddlers. Classic imbecilic backfire.

  16. #14
    My understanding is that it is not unconstitutional. It may not be smart in most cases, but the Constitution gives the Federal government power to regulate trade with other nations. Most of the founding fathers were pro-trade with all nations, but they also allow for taxes and duties on imports. The founding fathers saw the federal government as a means to set universal standards (money, weights and measures) and promote open markets in commerce among the states but also saw that not all other nations would trade with us using what we today call free market principles. Hamilton addressed this question in Federalist #11 and it appears there was even debate at that time whether or not this was a proper or good idea (to restrict commerce with another nation).

    You asked if you have a right to transact business with anyone you choose? If you are in a state of war with another nation, do you feel that selling goods to the enemy in a time of war is a right? Do you feel that could be considered aiding and abetting an enemy? Of course, we are not at war with Iran but I'm just asking if you believe that there could ever be an exception to that?

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitt Romney View Post
    My understanding is that it is not unconstitutional. It may not be smart in most cases, but the Constitution gives the Federal government power to regulate trade with other nations. Most of the founding fathers were pro-trade with all nations, but they also allow for taxes and duties on imports. The founding fathers saw the federal government as a means to set universal standards (money, weights and measures) and promote open markets in commerce among the states but also saw that not all other nations would trade with us using what we today call free market principles. Hamilton addressed this question in Federalist #11 and it appears there was even debate at that time whether or not this was a proper or good idea (to restrict commerce with another nation).

    You asked if you have a right to transact business with anyone you choose? If you are in a state of war with another nation, do you feel that selling goods to the enemy in a time of war is a right? Do you feel that could be considered aiding and abetting an enemy? Of course, we are not at war with Iran but I'm just asking if you believe that there could ever be an exception to that?
    Especially since the decision to 'be at war' is up to the gang on Capitol Hill. Some good guys in Iran oughta be able to buy our products, why can't good guys here buy theirs?
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    Especially since the decision to 'be at war' is up to the gang on Capitol Hill. Some good guys in Iran oughta be able to buy our products, why can't good guys here buy theirs?
    I think your question is certainly a good one. That is the nature of nations and one in which the Federalists had to convince the American people to accept. Should our new nation be able to set trade with foreign countries for the entire nation or should the states be allowed to do this themselves? Federalist #11 and many other discussions considered this very matter.

    Rather than figuring out what a "good" guy is (who would decide such a question?), why not just determine what nations are a threat or not to the U.S., which is one of the purposes of a national government. China has many good people but their citizens cannot trade with us on an even playing field. Nor can we compete with them on an even playing field because they use state-controlled labor that makes cheap products to export while we regulate the crap out of our own private sector. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul opposed MFN (most favored nation) status for China because of this very imbalance.

    http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rol...=2000&roll=228

    I would agree though that we should try to have good trading relationships with as many countries as possible, not making enemies out of friends. Ron Paul is consistent on opposing bills that call on other nations to change their practices or try to meddle in their way of doing things. However, when it comes to how we do things, he doesn't think we should be playing favors or granting any advantages to other countries (he voted against NAFTA as well). In his eyes, I'm sure he would support ending such massive regulations on American companies as the best solution. If we had an even playing field with China, there is no question in my mind we would win every time (on price and quality).

    As for Rand Paul, I'm curious as to what his reasoning was on the Iran vote and would like to hear him address it.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    I confess that I don't follow Rand Paul and his actions very closely. When he emerges, such as in a TV interview, or when I catch a floor speech of his, I tend to like very much what he says. I will have to research his vote(s) on sanctions, but from what is said above I don't think I like it! That would be sad.



Similar Threads

  1. The Folly Of Mocking Radicalism
    By Origanalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-05-2013, 09:47 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 05:53 PM
  3. WalMart's Latest Folly
    By angelatc in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-24-2009, 07:45 AM
  4. more on the folly of Statism (article)
    By heavenlyboy34 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-04-2009, 09:27 PM
  5. The Folly Of Us Interventionism
    By max in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2007, 09:31 PM

Posting Permissions

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