Rand was right to question Iran deal

[65fastback2+2]

Stuff is starting to come to light: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e...nuke-work-site

[wizardwatson]

I also have come around on that. I watched the "propaganda video" about how awesome it was but then later watched Netanyahu's webcast about his concerns. It definitely seems like all it really boiled down to is "let's get those sanctions lifted".

Bibi makes a convincing argument that the billions and billions that will be freed up, not to mention resources in general, will escalate the war situation in the region. So from an objective anti-war stance, the deal is questionable. From a purely libertarian stance obviously you can argue for the deal, but from an anti-war stance I'd say Rand's position is justifiable.

EDIT:

Here's the positively spinned 3 minute deal explanation I watched first:

static link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqvghou5m3U



Here's Netanyahu's webcast that basically aligned me more with Rand:

static link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ad6g3j04o



Poor John Q. Public has to figure out for himself if deal is anti-war or pro-war as both positions claim to be preventing war.

[65fastback2+2]

i was reading today about how this could escalate Iran v. Saudi tensions due to one wanting low oil prices and high volume and the other wanting high oil prices.

[65fastback2+2]

I also have come around on that. I watched the "propaganda video" about how awesome it was but then later watched Netanyahu's webcast about his concerns. It definitely seems like all it really boiled down to is "let's get those sanctions lifted".

Bibi makes a convincing argument that the billions and billions that will be freed up, not to mention resources in general, will escalate the war situation in the region. So from an objective anti-war stance, the deal is questionable. From a purely libertarian stance obviously you can argue for the deal, but from an anti-war stance I'd say Rand's position is justifiable.

I thought it was ridiculous for anyone (esp on here) to slam him over it, because we all know the gov never tells the truth about what is in agreements. It could read 100% correct and I would still support questioning it...because government

[nikcers]

I read that they are already violating the terms by buying surface to air missiles from Russia. This deal has been a huge disinformation campaign since it was started.

[wizardwatson]

I thought it was ridiculous for anyone (esp on here) to slam him over it, because we all know the gov never tells the truth about what is in agreements. It could read 100% correct and I would still support questioning it...because government

Well, people around here knee-jerk on libertarian principle. And Ron Paul agrees with the deal. Rand Paul doesn't agree with the deal.

Oh, forgot this is Rand Paul Forum. I've redacted some of what I wrote.

[65fastback2+2]

Well, people around here knee-jerk on libertarian principle. And Ron Paul agrees with the deal. Rand Paul doesn't agree with the deal.

Oh, forgot this is Rand Paul Forum. I've redacted some of what I wrote.

I always considered true libertarian principle to be "keep your nose out of another country's business"

[TaftFan]

If Iran is seeking to get away from enforcement, away from inspections, then they obviously aren't truly committed to stopping their nuclear pursuits.

[juleswin]

The biggest mistake Iran ever made was to sign this piece of $#@! of a treat in NPT. Also, can't they just get out of the treaty by claiming they are recieving unfair treatment by the UN and the west? I am sure the treaty wasn't signed into perpetuity. And its not like anything would happened to you if you don't sign it, they just need to look to India, Pakistan, Israel etc for proof.

To me, I side with Ron on this, I think the harsh regulations is even too much for me. I would like to see the return of their seized assets and an end to sanctions immediately. Their #1 hater in the world have 200-300 nukes, I wouldn't blame them if they wanted to match that number to keep their country protected from invasion. Just imagine how safe Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya would have all been if they have their own set of ICBM nukes.

[wizardwatson]

If Iran is seeking to get away from enforcement, away from inspections, then they obviously aren't truly committed to stopping their nuclear pursuits.

Well, as Netanyahu pointed out, Iran gets like a 24 day notice before being forced to allow inspections in "sensitive" sites. Pretty lame standard of security.

I think it's clear that the nuclear side of the agreement is for show and the real impetus for the deal is financial. The banks want to pop the cherry on the investment opportunities there. There's few growth areas left in the world. And that one involves lots of guns as Russia has already made clear.

What did Rand say?

"They get stuff without doing anything, that's the problem I have."

Well, Rand, that's because there isn't anything TPTB expect them to DO except get investment money.

[Jan2017]

The biggest mistake Iran ever made was to sign this piece of $#@! of a treat in NPT. Also, can't they just get out of the treaty by claiming they are recieving unfair treatment by the UN and the west? I am sure the treaty wasn't signed into perpetuity. And its not like anything would happened to you if you don't sign it, they just need to look to India, Pakistan, Israel etc for proof.

North Korea was a signatory state . . . and wanted to opt out of the NPT,
but it is kinda in a holding pattern - they are not officially out yet as i understand.

There is absolutely no reason Israel should not also sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
if it truly wants to play by the rules and have Iran play by the rules as well.

[65fastback2+2]

North Korea was a signatory state . . . and wanted to opt out of the NPT,
but it is kinda in a holding pattern - they are not officially out yet as i understand.

There is absolutely no reason Israel should not also sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
if it truly wants to play by the rules and have Iran play by the rules as well.

wont happen because this is about the USA and Israel being able to bully around smaller countries.

Notice we never mess with pakistan lol

[juleswin]

Well, as Netanyahu pointed out, Iran gets like a 24 day notice before being forced to allow inspections in "sensitive" sites. Pretty lame standard of security.

My God, you are actually serious. 24 days is very reasonable to most people seeing as countries have secrets they would like to hide that is not nuclear related. Also its not like to can use bleach and erase out radiation in a facility that contains weapons grade nuclear material. I have a feeling that some people think you can assemble nuclear weapon on the run while the UN, US, Israel etc are watching you like a hawk.

And why the $#@! are the Iranians listening to Israeli concerns? They are the ones who used inspectors to plant a virus which killed their scientists, they have conducted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in the past and all the while not even a signatory of the treaty. For the love of God, Iran get a $#@!ing back bone and stand up for yourself.

I think it's clear that the nuclear side of the agreement is for show and the real impetus for the deal is financial. The banks want to pop the cherry on the investment opportunities there. There's few growth areas left in the world. And that one involves lots of guns as Russia has already made clear.

What did Rand say?

"They get stuff without doing anything, that's the problem I have."

Well, Rand, that's because there isn't anything TPTB expect them to DO except get investment money.

Iran is just one small country, I can't imagine the concern over Iran getting a nuclear weapon taking a backseat to short term financial gains. Just imagine if this deal leads to Iran getting the bomb, that means the loss of ever being able to invade Iran and that is 100x more money loss than the puny financial gain from lift the sanctions

[Jan2017]

. . . this is about the USA and Israel being able to bully around smaller countries.

Notice we never mess with pakistan lol

Bullying with a very expensive price tag as well, especially for all the "fiscal conservative" neocons that get on to the GOP stage.

[Krugminator2]

To me, I side with Ron on this, I think the harsh regulations is even too much for me. I would like to see the return of their seized assets and an end to sanctions immediately. Their #1 hater in the world have 200-300 nukes, I wouldn't blame them if they wanted to match that number to keep their country protected from invasion. Just imagine how safe Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya would have all been if they have their own set of ICBM nukes.

Iran should not get nukes for the same reason mentally unstable people don't have the right to own guns.

Here is the big difference. If every country were like Israel and United States, the world would run perfectly. If every state were like Libya, Iraq, and Iran, the world would like Middle East does now, but more unstable.

[civusamericanus]

My God, you are actually serious. 24 days is very reasonable to most people seeing as countries have secrets they would like to hide that is not nuclear related. Also its not like to can use bleach and erase out radiation in a facility that contains weapons grade nuclear material. I have a feeling that some people think you can assemble nuclear weapon on the run while the UN, US, Israel etc are watching you like a hawk.

And why the $#@! are the Iranians listening to Israeli concerns? They are the ones who used inspectors to plant a virus which killed their scientists, they have conducted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in the past and all the while not even a signatory of the treaty. For the love of God, Iran get a $#@!ing back bone and stand up for yourself.



Iran is just one small country, I can't imagine the concern over Iran getting a nuclear weapon taking a backseat to short term financial gains. Just imagine if this deal leads to Iran getting the bomb, that means the loss of ever being able to invade Iran and that is 100x more money loss than the puny financial gain from lift the sanctions

The deal is set... Once Iran sanctions are lifted, Iran has been openly confirmed to be fast tracked as a "Ful Member" of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Russia and China's Anti-Nato Axis Alliance.

Iran as a Full Member of the SCO, means WAR with Iran is War with Russia, China, and soon India and Pakistan.

It's the "Silk Road" and the US has had its application rejected multiple times and we're essentially blackballed from participating, so the only thing to do is stagnate the rise of Eurasia's Hegemonic Empire.

But hey if people want to call it a bomb I guess that works, it's a good word to describe our impending Century or should I say Millennium of Humiliation.

So I guess who better to build a wall and provide us Bread and circuses, than Trump. His time has come with his daughter in the waiting, to be the youngest 1st woamn VP and youngest 1st woman president. Maybe Trump can get us in on the deal, what's the worst he could lose our sovereignty?

Sorry for the ramble... But here's a link about who STANDS together



https://www.the-newshub.com/politics...n-central-asia

[ClydeCoulter]

Anti-war, means take over assets of other countries? If other countries did that you the U.S. it would be considered an act of war, no?

What if Iran doesn't want to share its new handy dandy nuclear powered shield that goes up and nothing can come through? Huh? Has everything been invented and discovered already?

(as far as +rep goes, I'll have to catch you later @juleswin)

[65fastback2+2]

Iran should not get nukes for the same reason mentally unstable people don't have the right to own guns.

just googled that in the constitution, and it returned error 404 file not found

[TaftFan]

Iran should not get nukes for the same reason mentally unstable people don't have the right to own guns.

Here is the big difference. If every country were like Israel and United States, the world would run perfectly. If every state were like Libya, Iraq, and Iran, the world would like Middle East does now, but more unstable.

I agree, and that has made me a heretic on these forums. Although I suppose I am safe in the Rand-zone.

I see libertarianism as primarily being about not violating rights. Nations don't have rights, and even if they did, I can't conceive a right to a nuclear weapon. I think by definition nuclear weapons may be an imminent threat.

Some will point out that other nations have them. True, and I don't defend that. I wish no nation did. But the practical issue is that once you have them, it is not easy to get rid of them. Some countries, including us, have decreased the number we hold. But you can never get rid of them completely because then you lose all power. Nuclear proliferation just means more of that. And nuclear proliferation in the hands of dangerous people...could also lead to WW3 (hardly a desirable libertarian outcome).

I am not a fan of sanctions because of the harm they cause to millions of people, especially over the long term. If you could be sure that Iran wouldn't react, then taking out the nuclear facilities would probably make the most utilitarian sense. But on the other hand, conflicts can quickly escalate and cause much more damage than sanctions ever could.

[Rad]

First antiwar.com rebuttal: http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/19/b...-condemnation/

Goodbye.

[Xchange]

Iran is just one small country, I can't imagine the concern over Iran getting a nuclear weapon taking a backseat to short term financial gains. Just imagine if this deal leads to Iran getting the bomb, that means the loss of ever being able to invade Iran and that is 100x more money loss than the puny financial gain from lift the sanctions

It also means that everything Iran has ever done, every move they have ever made, all the money spent, for what.
A spectacular suicide?

60% of Iran's population is under 30 and Pro-Western/ Pro-Science, think they are down for that?
They just want the sanctions lifted so they can drink Coke cola and not pay 1,500.00 ferns for a 5 yr old I-Pad

[Xchange]

Those in support of the Iran deal---Ron Paul, Former Shin Bet, Mossad, The CIA, 100 former US Ambassadors, the Pope, 26 Former US Generals, the UK, France, Germany and MI5.

Those against the deal---arm chair commanders and those US politicians beholden to the Israeli lobby.

Israel ex-security chiefs urge Netanyahu to accept Iran deal

Many Israeli ex-generals and former security chiefs have signed a petition urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the nuclear deal between world powers and Iran, which he strongly opposes.

The signatories include two former heads of the Shin Bet internal security agency, Ami Ayalon and Carmi Gillon; a former deputy director of the Mossad intelligence agency, Amiram Levin; the ex-chief of the Atomic Energy Commission Uzi Eilmann; and dozens of former generals and senior officers.

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-ex-secu...154215121.html

[jkob]

Diplomacy is always the answer, peace should be preserved at all cost.

[cindy25]

question-yes, better deal-such as hostage release-certainly. but Rand came out too early against the deal. he could have done it in a different way, linking it to hostage, or saying it should be a treaty.

Israel being for or against it should have no baring at all.

[Peace&Freedom]

We should remember that 1) controlling Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon is a phony issue, since US intelligence (all its agencies) has confirmed it's not trying to do so, and 2) the P5+1 Iran deal is a multilateral positioning tool, that deflates Israel's and the US fomenting of the phony issue. Iran is a significant regional power that is independent of US control, so it must be reeled back in, by pushing it as being a 'threat.' The war hawk's real goal has been to (as usual) co-opt another country by unilaterally fostering a pretext to justify military action (invasion, occupation, bombing) or isolation of the nation (sanctions, propaganda or belligerent "diplomacy").

This has allowed the US to unilaterally define the issues being negotiated, and unilaterally define if the target country is 'breaking' the agreements. Surprise, surprise, the targeted people are always painted as violating a deal, so the process merely serves as a vehicle to justify furthering a military or isolative response. The P5+1 has monkey-wrenched the neocon march to war, as it involves 5 other nations plus the UN monitoring Iran's compliance, which takes away the war hawk argument that Iran couldn't negotiate, and the US/Israeli propaganda ability to unilaterally determine that Iran was violating the deal. This cuts off the disingenuous use of the diplomacy to create a pretext for militarism.

So supporting the agreement is a defacto method of neutralizing the war machine. Both Pauls know this, but Rand is playing politics to maintain cover from charges he is 'weak on defense.' Rand can afford to oppose it as the agreement is going to survive Congress, and is already accepted by the other nations.

[wizardwatson]

My God, you are actually serious. 24 days is very reasonable to most people seeing as countries have secrets they would like to hide that is not nuclear related. Also its not like to can use bleach and erase out radiation in a facility that contains weapons grade nuclear material. I have a feeling that some people think you can assemble nuclear weapon on the run while the UN, US, Israel etc are watching you like a hawk.

And why the $#@! are the Iranians listening to Israeli concerns? They are the ones who used inspectors to plant a virus which killed their scientists, they have conducted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in the past and all the while not even a signatory of the treaty. For the love of God, Iran get a $#@!ing back bone and stand up for yourself.



Iran is just one small country, I can't imagine the concern over Iran getting a nuclear weapon taking a backseat to short term financial gains. Just imagine if this deal leads to Iran getting the bomb, that means the loss of ever being able to invade Iran and that is 100x more money loss than the puny financial gain from lift the sanctions

Well, I was a trained radiation protection specialist in the army, so I do actually know a lot of what is involved. And one thing I know, not that you need to be anything close to a nuclear scientist to know this, is that you don't splash radioactive material on the floor necessitating "bleaching it out" but you do keep the stuff in movable containers.

And my second point, the more important point really, wasn't that "the nuclear side is for show" meaning that no one cares if they get a bomb. It meant that it probably isn't even a real threat and they simply needed the "show of compliance" to justify relieving sanctions on an enemy of the state.

Iran is a "terrorist sponsor". By putting the focus on nuclear compliance in the deal you take the focus off the non-compliance with our foreign policy and justify letting allied banks put money into Iran via the deal.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Bibi makes a convincing argument that the billions and billions that will be freed up, not to mention resources in general, will escalate the war situation in the region. So from an objective anti-war stance, the deal is questionable. From a purely libertarian stance obviously you can argue for the deal, but from an anti-war stance I'd say Rand's position is justifiable.

Well, if this deal makes it easier for Iran to support Lebanon and the Palestinians, that would probably make it harder for Bibi to launch one of his genocidal little wars against them. So that incentive structure would make war less likely and therefore the deal would be antiwar.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I read that they are already violating the terms by buying surface to air missiles from Russia.

How is that violating the terms? I thought the deal made it easier for Iran to buy conventional weapons from other nations. That's a reason Rand gave for opposing it. This sounds like exactly what the deal was designed to do.

[nikcers]

How is that violating the terms? I thought the deal made it easier for Iran to buy conventional weapons from other nations. That's a reason Rand gave for opposing it. This sounds like exactly what the deal was designed to do.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2598...l-joseph-klein

[wizardwatson]

Well, if this deal makes it easier for Iran to support Lebanon and the Palestinians, that would probably make it harder for Bibi to launch one of his genocidal little wars against them. So that incentive structure would make war less likely and therefore the deal would be antiwar.

I'm not really getting into a debate on the finer points. I don't know the situation well enough war-wise. I honestly don't follow foreign policy hardly at all anymore.

All I've really said is that Rand's position seems justifiable to me given certain interpretations. It's defensible based on what I know at this point.

To reiterate, this is all I really said:

From a purely libertarian stance obviously you can argue for the deal, but from an anti-war stance I'd say Rand's position is justifiable.

I'm not saying Ron is wrong and Rand is right. I'm saying given the fact that we're in a sea of lies, convincing arguments can be made on both sides.