Massie and Sanctions

[oldsmobile98]

Mmmkay, question:

Is there anything on Thomas Massie and sanctions?

I would really like to hear that he is against them. I gave to Rand in 2010 and was not pleased with his first vote in favor of sanctions on Iran. YES, I know he more recently blocked a different sanctions bill from being passed quickly in the Senate, and I'm glad he did that.

I read that Massie is closer to Rand than to Ron on foreign policy.

Let me know, Massie fans...

[muzzled dogg]

Fair question

[Sola_Fide]

I don't think he has articulated his position on this yet (and I don't think he needs to in the primary at this point....my opinion).

But, will he be a reliably anti-war vote in congress? Yes.

Would Ron Paul so strongly support someone who disagreed with him on foreign policy? No way.

[Sola_Fide]

Here is something to chew on from Thomas' issue page:

I am opposed to bailouts, corporate subsidies, undeclared wars, and so called stimulus spending — on economic, moral, and constitutional grounds.

Thomas understands the war issue from moral grounds like Ron does. Its not just a "fiscal issue" for him. Whatever political posturing he must do in this campaign notwithstanding, I do think Thomas is one of us and understands liberty from the moral standpoint. My 2 cents...

[TruthisTreason]

You can't be for or against sanctions without knowing the circumstances.

[oldsmobile98]

You can't be for or against sanctions without knowing the circumstances.

Interesting. Please explain. Don't sanctions hurt the people of the target country much more than its government?

In any case, I threw $15 in the hat for Thomas Massie just now. I know he probably won't be giving a bunch of speeches on non-interventionism during the race; it's hard to do that in Kentucky and win. But I expect y'all to raise Cain with me if there's a sanctions vote and he goes the wrong way on it. Ron Paul set the bar high. We can't give anybody a free pass.

Good luck, Mr. Massie. I'm expecting great things.

Thank you!

Thank you for your generous donation!

Amount: $15.00 Transaction ID: ESHP8EF5574C Transaction date/time: 2012-04-27 09:48:41

[Sola_Fide]

the

Interesting. Please explain. Don't sanctions hurt the people of the target country much more than its government?

In any case, I threw $15 in the hat for Thomas Massie just now. I know he probably won't be giving a bunch of speeches on non-interventionism during the race; it's hard to do that in Kentucky and win. But I expect y'all to raise Cain with me if there's a sanctions vote and he goes the wrong way on it. Ron Paul set the bar high. We can't give anybody a free pass.

Good luck, Mr. Massie. I'm expecting great things.

+rep

[oldsmobile98]

+rep

Thanks! And sorry about the extra "the" at the beginning. ; ) I'm typing on my phone. It's edited now.

[TruthisTreason]

Interesting. Please explain. Don't sanctions hurt the people of the target country much more than its government?

I'll go out on a limb, but I assume Thomas supports just war. So assuming a country is doing certain things that would lead to a "just war" one would think a liberty candidate would support sanctions in an attempt to stop a war. However, history does show that most sanctions only punished the people (non-military) and usually helped provoke the war. Anyway, there could be a case where sanctions could stop a war, and if we have a chance to stop a war, we should attempt to stop it, imo.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'll go out on a limb, but I assume Thomas supports just war. So assuming a country is doing certain things that would lead to a "just war" one would think a liberty candidate would support sanctions in an attempt to stop a war. However, history does show that most sanctions only punished the people (non-military) and usually helped provoke the war. Anyway, there could be a case where sanctions could stop a war, and if we have a chance to stop a war, we should attempt to stop it, imo.

Let me see if I've got this right... history shows that sanctions harm civilians and provoke war. So in an attempt to prevent war, we should enact sanctions.

That is literally the definition of insanity.

[TruthisTreason]

Let me see if I've got this right... history shows that sanctions harm civilians and provoke war. So in an attempt to prevent war, we should enact sanctions.

That is literally the definition of insanity.

Right, strawman. OK if Mexico is going to invade America, I and most sane people would have no problems putting sanctions on Mexico, especially arms sanctions.

[BamaFanNKy]

Let me see if I've got this right... history shows that sanctions harm civilians and provoke war. So in an attempt to prevent war, we should enact sanctions.

That is literally the definition of insanity.

Or it's literally not using reading comprehension. "there could be a case where sanctions could stop a war"

[kuckfeynes]

Sanctions NEVER prevent war. They hasten it. If Mexico wants to invade the US, sanctions are not going to change their mind. If anything it would be one more thing to stoke the flames.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Or it's literally not using reading comprehension. "there could be a case where sanctions could stop a war"

And aliens might have really visited the planet 10,000 years ago and taught humans the basis of what we know today.

Right, strawman. OK if Mexico is going to invade America, I and most sane people would have no problems putting sanctions on Mexico, especially arms sanctions.

Yeah, so we're somehow going to stop the entire world from dealing with Mexico. Right. Oh, and double bonus for doing so without violating anyone's rights.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Or it's literally not using reading comprehension. "there could be a case where sanctions could stop a war"

Actually there isn't. Hell, we embargo'd and sanctioned Japan which far from preventing war, exacerbated it. Sanctions are a pre-text to a 'hot'-war. They are not meant contra politician spew to prevent, but to hasten war's arrival. Shot across the bow as you will. They provoke the sanctioned country into action against you, giving you the pre-text to make the war 'justified' and sell it to the mass of idiots.

Surprising the number of folks on this board who are completely clueless on this issue. Well, then again, there are quite a few protectionists, so maybe not.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Right, strawman. OK if Mexico is going to invade America, I and most sane people would have no problems putting sanctions on Mexico, especially arms sanctions.

If they're going to invade sanctions don't do anything. How about putting troops and material where you think they're going to attack. Besides, I'd be more worried about them drug cartels who we fund, supply, and cheer on as a pre-text to destroy the second amendment here at home than whatever pitiful $#@! Mexico has. Besides, the last time we were attacked was in 1776 (well I suppose the Barbary pirates, but that's at sea far from home). Worrying about this type of stuff is pretty silly. I'd be more worried about the Police who have a far greater chance of killing you, your family, your pets, and destroying your home and liberty. They're the threats to be worried about.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

You can't be for or against sanctions without knowing the circumstances.

Sanctions are never really reasonable under any circumstance. I have never seen them work.

That isn't to say preemptive war is never appropriate. I lean non-interventionist, but not absolutely as all circumstances are different. I did go from pro-war to anti-war until finally I reached a cost-benefit foreign policy view. Just about the only time a preemptive war makes sense for a nation would probably only be in the case of a nuclear threat. Of course when conducting war it should be declared and swiftly accomplished. That's just my IMO.

[BamaFanNKy]

You guys are right. I've lost many family members in our war with Cuba. I can't believe our sanctions there for over 50 years are still going. Haven't we lost enough men in this war with Cuba?