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

LA Times via Weasel Zippers ^ | 12/29/2011 | Paul West

[mk2000]

Reporting from 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.

Paul, one of the leading contenders to win next week's Iowa caucuses, said 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

[Georgia Girl 2]

Looks like Ron Paul stayed home and the Cuckoo bird showed up today.

[Billthedrill]

Paul is categorically wrong on the topic. Sanctions are and always have been an alternative action short of war, put in place not to advance conflict, but to avoid it. They also have been notably ineffective in doing so.

[humblegunner]

well then it’s ok. the la times didn’ t use txt speak, so paul isnt an a$$?

So you are in favor of folks making up any title they wish when posting here?

are you as nutty as he sounds?

I'm nutty for pointing out that the poster made up his own title?

Really?

[kosciusko51]

RP: I’ve got news for you. Since the takeover of the US Embassy in 1979, Iran has been at war with us. Perhaps we should recognize that fact.

[humblegunner]

See post #37 on right here, on this very thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2826472/posts?page=37#37

Now crawl back in your hole.

[Bryan24]

So, Ron, how do YOU propose to deal with a regime that has been exporting terrorism for 30 years continuously, have REPEATEDLY threatened to wipe Israel off the map, and now are on the cusp of gaining nuclear weapons?

What is your plan, Mr. Paul?

[humblegunner]

Ok, H, I am missing the difference.

It has been fixed, see post #37.

[Procyon]

His logic is batty. We're talking about an embargo on trade with Iran. We are not contemplating a blockade to prevent someone else from trading with Iran. An embargo is not an act of war. A blockade is.

Using RP's logic then in 1941 the US refusal to sell oil to Japan was an act of war and the Japanese were justified in attacking Pearl Harbor.

[JohnKinAK]

I'll preface this with the point that I don't support Paul, but a little history lesson is necessary for all to understand that sanctions can lead to war.

From the source pastfoundation.org

"An American embargo cut off shipments of scrap steel, raw materials, oil and high-octane gasoline, while freezing Japanese financial assets in the United States. The Japanese, having only a six-month supply of strategic fuel available for its armed forces, felt the only choice was to initiate the conquest of Southeast Asia, which meant inevitable war with America, Britain, and the Netherlands. Japan had seen the United States expand its naval authority in the Pacific in the late 1930s."

From debka.com
"The new round is expected to shear off 80 percent of the Islamic Republic's revenues. The European Union's 27 member-states meet in January to approve an embargo on Iranian oil, with effect on 25 percent of Iran's energy exports. Next month, too, President Barack Obama plans to sign into law an amendment authorizing severe penalties for foreign banks trading with Iran's central bank, CBI, including the loss of links with American banks and financial institutions. Tehran is expected to strike back hard by sowing mines in Hormuz and in the waters opposite the oil fields and terminals of fellow Persian Gulf oil producers, including Saudi Arabia."

Now you may return to your 2 minutes of hate. Me I'm making contingency plans for higher gas prices, much higher gas prices.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Is Iran a sovereign nation?

Have they signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

[B.O. Plenty]

So, what are you going to do if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination?

I know that there are people who flat out say that Ron Paul has no chance of winning,...there ain't no way..trust me, they say..Ron Paul will not be the nominee...

...but with all due respect, what if these people are wrong and Ron Paul in fact is the Republican nominee. What are we to do?...we can't just ignore this as an outcome.

You surely wouldn't vote for Obama, so what are you going to do?

...as for me and my family, we are going to support whoever wins the Republican nomination...I can't even get my mind to consider another 4 years of president Zer0....

...the only way I could "feel good" about another Zer0 4 is if the Senate and House were a veto proof Tea Party R majority.

[taillightchaser]

A little off the subject, but I seem to remember that when Reagan ran for president the libtards in the media blasted him constantly for being too old to be president. It was merciless. I’ve heard not one peep from these maggots about Paul being too old. Isn’t he the same or near the same age as Reagan was?
And BTW, the commander of the 5th fleet has said that blocking the Straight of Hormuz will not be allowed. Not to mention that if they block it, they will not be able to get their own oil out.

[crz]

He ran as a republican all these years for one reason. MONEY.

[DugwayDuke]

Once again the ‘brilliant’ RPaul distorts the truth. Sanctions are not an act of war and his analogy to China ‘blocking’ the Gulf of Mexico is completely misplaced.

A sanction is something that a country imposes upon itself saying that it will not trade with a country. The right to do that is implicit in the concept of free trade which I thought RPaul supported. After all, trade cannot be free if it can be compelled. Most importantly, sanctions do not involve the use of force.

A blockade, OTOH, has always been an act of war because it is the use of force to prevent all trade with a country.

[Paladin2]

"Since the takeover of the US Embassy in 1979, Iran has been at war with us."

Bingo!

Islam has been at war with us and our ancestors for much longer.

[Sarah Barracuda]

Well first of all, I hope for the sake of the Republican party, they come to their senses and not allow the party to get destroyed by this madman. If Ron Paul is the nominee, Obama wins anyway. I cannot and will NOT ever, ever vote for Barack Obama..it will go against everything I believe in. I loathe that man and everything he stands for, but I will also not vote for Ron Paul, because he is insane, his hatred towards Israel, absolutely not can I vote for him. I just hope and pray that he does not get the nomination, I really dont think he will, I think the only reason why he is doing as well as he is is because Democrats are going to vote for him. They see him as a big of a nut as we do, they would love for him to be the nominee. I live in California so Obama wins here by default anyway, but still, I want to at least vote for someone who has a chance of beating the Marxist Commie

[jpsb]

How can he be so right on many issues but absolutely insane on foreign policy? I just don’t get what he is trying to accomplish. Paul is way off base here, sanctions are not acts of war. True they sometimes do lead to war (see US sanctions on Japan 1940) they are NOT acts of war.

[hocndoc]

“Ron Paul is a great patriot to the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Gotta be the quote of the day!

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Paul is one of the biggest “Insiders” in Washington there is. He has very few rivals, in regards to all the PORK he has brought home to his district.

But his yells the loudest about those who are doing far less than he has done under the same label. He is a hypocrite.

[Sarah Barracuda]

I think the bottom line is, there is a reason why Democrats like him so much, that should be a HUGE red flag to anyone. They are always showing on Fox News the video of Ron Paul with the woman holding her little baby with a “Ron Paul For President 2012” T-shirt on and I wonder, does that woman have any idea what kind of man she is supporting..he thinks that Iran has every right to have nuclear arms, IRAN, does she understand what that means, I mean do people get it