Ron Paul: Sanctions against Iran are 'acts of war'

PERRY, Iowa -- Defending himself against charges of isolationism, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told voters in Iowa on Thursday that western sanctions against Iran are "acts of war" that are likely to lead to an actual war in the Middle East.

Iran would be justified in responding to the sanctions by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war.

Apparently alluding to Israel and its nuclear-weapons arsenal, Paul said that "if I were an Iranian, I'd like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them."

Link

I agree with Dr. Paul
Can't wait to read the comments about this.

It's one thing being on the outside looking in at the Iran problem, I'm sure it's a lot more messy than we can see.

I think Ron Paul is a good candidate but I think if he gets into office a lot of people will be let down. It's a lot easier to talk than act.

reply to post by samsamm9


i love this zinger:

Iran would be justified in responding to the sanctions by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war.

It's a real straight forward analogy, He should use it more often. It's so true...Americans aren't at all used to reflecting their own megalomania back at themselves, it's a dose of their own medicine.

Sanctions aren't an act of war. Sanctions are what are used in diplomacy to avoid war. They are used to bring rouge regimes into line without bullets flying and bombs dropping. The consequences of sanctions are many times very hard on people ... but that's the point.

BTW .. I dont' believe sanctions work. I'm thinking they are usually useless.

"I think the solution" to current tensions with Iran "is to do a lot less a lot sooner and mind our own business and then we would not have this threat of another war,"

Dr Ron Paul.

such a wise man

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by samsamm9

 

i love this zinger:

Iran would be justified in responding to the sanctions by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war.

It's a real straight forward analogy, He should use it more often. It's so true...Americans aren't at all used to reflecting their own megalomania back at themselves, it's a dose of their own medicine.

Actually Ron Paul uses a similar analogy all the time when talking about our Foreign Policy. How would we like it if China had troops stationed here? How would we like it if China flew drones over our land and killed people?

reply to post by MrWendal



yeah i've seen that before, i love it! it should be used as a television promotion!

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sanctions aren't an act of war. Sanctions are what are used in diplomacy to avoid war. They are used to bring rouge regimes into line without bullets flying and bombs dropping. The consequences of sanctions are many times very hard on people ... but that's the point.

BTW .. I dont' believe sanctions work. I'm thinking they are usually useless.

I disagree. I do not believe Sanctions are used to avoid war, they bring us closer to war. We have had sanctions on Cuba forever, is our relationship improved with Cuba because of Sanctions or has it remained hostile or gotten gotten worse?

We have had Sanctions against Iran forever. The relationship has not improved because of it. We had Sanctions against Iraq. Eventually we bombed the country. Sanctions did nothing to make way for use of diplomacy to improve the relationship. How has sanctions against North Korea improved the relationship between the countries?

Sanctions are just another way to bully a country and make it's people suffer to strong arm the leadership and bend them to your will. That's a far cry from Diplomacy which is defined as:

di·plo·ma·cy/diˈplōməsē/ Noun:
1.The profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country's representatives abroad.
2.The art of dealing with people in a sensitive and effective way.

There is nothing sensitive nor effective about Sanctions. It is an act of war.

ron paul understands devil's advocate very well. taking in different perspectives and understandings in co-relation with your own. very presidential qualities.

Sanctions do not work. They have in fact polarized many Iranians that have grown up under those actions. Imagine if China decided the USA needed to be sanctioned?

Lets say they decided to not send us any textiles? My guess it would be a matter of months before half the country was walking around naked and pissed off. We as a nation would use guns to get clothes

Lets say they decided not to send us any electronics? My guess it would be a matter of months before consumers would go through I-Withdrawl when their various electronics crap out. We as a nation would use guns to get I-Pads.

I could go on and on however the point remain the same. Sanctions do not work. They push those being pushed to anger and hatred. Kinda like Iran is pissed off.

I say it is high time to butt the heck out of the Middle East, they have been throwing rocks at each other forever. Let them continue doing so alone.

Sanctions are acts of war against a country because they serve to put a country at a tactical and strategic disadvantage that has military implications. Sanctions are aggressive in the sense that they project hostile relations inside the borders of an adversary. Think siege warfare.

War against Japan in WWII was sparked by very similar circumstances. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spearheaded a series of sanctions against Japan, which included the Export Control Act, giving the President the power to prohibit the export of a variety of materials to Japan, including oil. This gave Roosevelt the legal stance he needed to implement an oil embargo, an obvious act of war. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor simply brought the war out of the economic realm into the military sphere.

Iran is facing the exact same situation. Whereas the Obama Administration calmly portrays economic sanctions as “peaceful” solutions to political problems, they are anything but. The strategy here is to economically attack Iran until it responds militarily, giving the U.S. a fake moral high ground to “defend” itself, since the other side supposedly attacked first.

So, I'm bigger than you and have a larger arsenal at my disposal to back me regardless of what is good, right or true.

I have decided that it is in my best interest (and the children's) to starve you until you agree that my way is best for all of us. You don't really have a say but I want you to feel as if you do. I could unleash my arsenal on you or you could simply realize that my idea is best...and for the children. I know you may not agree now, but you'll eventually agree that I was right since I have wrapped myself in the flag of the children so I have to be right. If it turns out that I may have been in error, it's OK cuz it was for the children...

Sarcasm off.

Sanctions are what bullies use to make themselves seem justified to the myopic fans of said bully. At the end of the day, if you are on the receiving end of sanctions, you realize that you have to either bow down to the bully or you have to kick him in the nuts and hope to free yourself from the self-sanctimonious grasp of the bully. As long as you allow a bully to be one, he will never cease to be one.

reply to post by N3k9Ni

Sanctions are acts of war against a country because they serve to put a country at a tactical and strategic disadvantage that has military implications. Sanctions are aggressive in the sense that they project hostile relations inside the borders of an adversary. Think siege warfare.

War against Japan in WWII was sparked by very similar circumstances. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spearheaded a series of sanctions against Japan, which included the Export Control Act, giving the President the power to prohibit the export of a variety of materials to Japan, including oil. This gave Roosevelt the legal stance he needed to implement an oil embargo, an obvious act of war. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor simply brought the war out of the economic realm into the military sphere.

Iran is facing the exact same situation. Whereas the Obama Administration calmly portrays economic sanctions as “peaceful” solutions to political problems, they are anything but. The strategy here is to economically attack Iran until it responds militarily, giving the U.S. a fake moral high ground to “defend” itself, since the other side supposedly attacked first.

That is the best post I've read to date on ATS.

Bravo and well said.

Well; are they not designed to weaken the target country before going in ?

Ron Paul keeps losing points with me...his isolationism is almost akin to communist isolationism...First, he says, he wouldn't interfere if Nazis were trying to take over the world, an entirely impractical course to take, and now he says economic sanctions on Iran is "economic warfare"?? SOOO? What is this goof on?

If Iran is left alone, they will reach the point where they will have their nuclear bomb, and then, Israel would no longer have their strategic leverage against Muslim countries - and this is what Iran and the Islamic group of countries want. If Iran gets that, not only is Israel in trouble, but American interests are jeopardized as well.

OK, I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I'm honestly asking. I don't understand Ron Paul's foreign policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to be saying that nothing can happen in the rest of the world that we care enough about to fight for.

Indeed, we have so little interest in the rest of the world that we will never do anything to influence world events.

This seems extreme to me. Do I understand him correctly? If we would try to influence other nations, and sanctions and war are off the table, what tools would we use? A speech? A UN resolution? Would we even be involved in the UN?

reply to post by charles1952

reply to post by dontreally

Wanted to add what you guys were saying and not just parrot, but I happen to agree with you both.

I'm concerned with the sense of isolationism that we're seeing. While it may benefit us in terms of agressive countries, what of our allies?
I speak of Israel, didn't Paul state he'd discontinue funds to them but he voted FOR funds for Hamas?
And what of North Korea?
Would we leave South Korea vulnerable with our isolationism?

And what of Taiwan? Would a Paul administration just give that country over to the Chinese?

These are questions I'd like to have answered.


ETA; What about our missile defense shields in Europe also?
Do we just turn over countries like Georgia back to the russian bear?

I have thought about this over the years a lot. I very much hate hypocricy and try to make sure if I am going to take a stand on something, that I have reasonably sure footing. On the matter of sanctions, I am in agreement with Paul to a point.

Sanctions have a limited lifecycle of effectiveness. When you are dealing with generation length sanctions (over 15-20 years), you end up with large groups of idealistic young people who see nothing but a foreign aggressor making everything more expensive. Guess what? They won't be mad at their own government for that.

Also, I find the idea of a federal government imposed ban on selling things to be unconstitutional and just plain wrong. Private boycotts, sure. But imposing federal government controlled restrictions on the market place seems a bit overreaching to me.

It is a difficult thing, though, because diplomacy does tend to involve a bit of tit for tat, including restricting what we buy and sell.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is a challenging view to understand, that is certain. It is not that it is crazy.. at least I don't think so. It is that it takes a great deal of humility and perspective to understand it. You have to get rid of ego and take a more holistic viewpoint to understand it.

This is by far a thinking person's view on the world.


I do have to ask. What gives us the right to say who is right or wrong? I mean, if the entire thing is based on subjectivism and opinion, why get mad when someone has a differing opinion?

Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by N3k9Ni

 

Sanctions are acts of war against a country because they serve to put a country at a tactical and strategic disadvantage that has military implications. Sanctions are aggressive in the sense that they project hostile relations inside the borders of an adversary. Think siege warfare.

War against Japan in WWII was sparked by very similar circumstances. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spearheaded a series of sanctions against Japan, which included the Export Control Act, giving the President the power to prohibit the export of a variety of materials to Japan, including oil. This gave Roosevelt the legal stance he needed to implement an oil embargo, an obvious act of war. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor simply brought the war out of the economic realm into the military sphere.

Iran is facing the exact same situation. Whereas the Obama Administration calmly portrays economic sanctions as “peaceful” solutions to political problems, they are anything but. The strategy here is to economically attack Iran until it responds militarily, giving the U.S. a fake moral high ground to “defend” itself, since the other side supposedly attacked first.

That is the best post I've read to date on ATS.

Bravo and well said.

Agreed , he Hit the Proverbal " Nail On The Head " with that Surmation .......Bravo 2 , Out !

reply to post by rogerstigers

Dear rogerstigers,

Nice to see you again. I like your post, but one part in particular stood out.

I do have to ask. What gives us the right to say who is right or wrong? I mean, if the entire thing is based on subjectivism and opinion, why get mad when someone has a differing opinion?

May I take an extreme example? We believe killing innocents is wrong and we punish it. Some Americans think killing innocents is OK. What gives us the right to say they are wrong? Our laws? But what if our laws are wrong?

Why do we stop to help people in trouble? Because it is the "right" thing to do? But that's just an opinion. Why do we send help to the suffering in Haiti? Because it's "right?" Why do we try to stop the killing of innocents in other countries through UN peacekeepers? If the UN can do it, why can't we?

I'm sorry to sound so confused, but I'm trying to say right and wrong are not always matters of opinion, and we should not do absolutely nothing in the face of evil. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph....."

With respect,
Charles1952