Sanctions against Iran

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Reasoning, Apr 25, 2010.

  1. Reasoning
    Offline

    Reasoning Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    403
    Thanks Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +71
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP_ICpOXV-Q]YouTube - Ron Paul April 23 2010 : Iran Sanctions = Act of War.[/ame]

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdwHN2De33Q]YouTube - RON PAUL WAR PROPAGANDA! Today's Conversation Was Nothing But War Propaganda![/ame]

    As the drumbeat for military action against Iran grows louder, some members of Congress are calling to expand the longstanding U.S. trade ban that bars American companies from investing in that nation. In fact, many war hawks in Washington are pushing for a comprehensive international embargo against Iran. The international response has been lukewarm, however, because the world needs Iranian oil. But we cannot underestimate the irrational, almost manic desire of some neoconservatives to attack Iran one way or another, even if it means crippling a major source of oil and destabilizing the worldwide economy.

    Make no mistake about it: Economic sanctions are acts of aggression. Sanctions increase poverty and misery among the very poorest inhabitants of targeted nations, and they breed tremendous resentment against those imposing them. But they rarely hurt the political and economic elites responsible for angering American leaders in the first place.

    In fact, few government policies are as destructive to our economy as the embargo.

    While embargoes sound like strong, punitive action, in reality they represent a failed policy that four decades of experience prove doesn't work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message of liberty.

    It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately, involves the US government spending American tax dollars to prop up other nations.

    Embargoes only hurt the innocent of a targeted country. While it may be difficult for the leader of an embargoed nation to get a box of American-grown rice, he will get it one way or another. For the poor peasant in the remote section of his country, however, the food will be unavailable.

    It is difficult to understand how denying access to food, medicine, and other products benefits anyone. Embargo advocates claim that denying people access to our products somehow creates opposition to the despised leader. The reality, though, is that hostilities are more firmly directed at America.

    Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power." To imagine that we somehow can spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.

    For more than thirty years we have embargoed Cuba in an attempt to drive Fidel Castro from power. Yet he remains in power. By contrast look at the Soviet Union, a nation we allowed our producers to engage economically. Of course the Soviet Union has collapsed.

    Embargoes greatly harm our citizens. As the American agricultural industry continues to develop new technology to reduce costs and increase yields, it becomes more important for farmers and ranchers to find markets outside the United States to sell their goods so they can make ends meet. By preventing our farmers and ranchers from competing in the world market, we deny them very profitable opportunities.

    Government meddling is always destructive to the free market; people inevitably will make wiser decisions about how to spend their money, with whom, and when, than politicians in Washington. Embargoes simply do not accomplish the ends advocates claim to desire, and are extremely harmful to the well-being of Americans.

    Ron Paul
    April 18, 2006
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. JW Frogen
    Offline

    JW Frogen Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,165
    Thanks Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +1,206
    I don't think sanctions will work (and probably the Chinese and Russians will never allow any sanctions that bite anyway), the Iranian leadership does not care how much their people suffer, they want a nuclear bomb and the regional hegemony they believe it will grant them.

    If they get one there will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, the Sunni states will not sit back and just suck it up, they will respond in kind.

    This is in no one's interest, least of all the Iranian people's interest.

    If there is still time to strike by air and knock this program back for a decade, then it is time to strike.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Reasoning
    Offline

    Reasoning Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    403
    Thanks Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +71
    Who are we to decide which sovereign countries can and can't have technology that we've had for 60 some odd years?

    Please explain to me from where we get that authority?
     
  4. JW Frogen
    Offline

    JW Frogen Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,165
    Thanks Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +1,206
    Well they are violating the nuclear non proliferation treaty which they signed.

    Still, treaty or no, nations either act in the world to effect the type of world they want or they will be acted upon.

    There has never really been such a thing as isolationism ever since we jumped down from the trees and started throwing rocks at each other.
     
  5. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    There is no evidence they're violating the Non-proliferation Treaty, and even if they did have a nuclear weapon it would not grant them any kind of regional hegemony.
     
  6. JW Frogen
    Offline

    JW Frogen Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,165
    Thanks Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +1,206
    Not according to the UN.

    Still, if Iran is not then they should have no problem with unfettered inspections, right?

    If they get a nuclear weapon then they have the cover to assert pressure in countries with large Shia populations, such as Iraq or Bahrain, knowing those nations can not respond in kind, so the Sunni nations in the regions will respond in kind.

    Presto! We have a nuclear arms race in the world's most volatile region.

    I don't think that is a great idea.

    And given Iran has a record of supporting terrorists writ large, violating the sovereignty of fellow regional states such as Lebanon, it would be foolish to assume they would not pass on nuclear material to their terror proxies if they felt it to their strategic advantage.
     
  7. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    We are the guys not threatening to blow people off the map simply because they aren't Muslims.
     
  8. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Right. We're the guys threatening the Muslims because they won't do what we tell them.
     
  9. Reasoning
    Offline

    Reasoning Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    403
    Thanks Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +71
    That quote you're referring to has actually been proven to be a misquote but due to it's effectiveness as anti-Iranian propaganda has spread like wildfire.

    The actual quote was...

    "This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

    Seems like more than a minor difference in quotes to me...
     
  10. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    A rare gem of a speech from Dr. Paul, whose economic positions I abhor. "Neoconservatives" in America see in Iran's corrupt sham of a theocracy exactly the form of government they desire for the United States. The only problem is that, in their minds, Iran chose the wrong religion.
     

Share This Page