| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran sanctions first step to war: Ron Paul |
| 2011-12-01 |
| [Iran Press TV] US Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul says more sanctions planned against Iran over its nuclear program are leading down the destructive path of war. In an article titled, 'The Folly of Sanctions,' Paul sharply criticizes US foreign policy for imposing more sanctions against Iran and warned about its "unintended consequences." He explained that sanctions are not only acts of war according to international law, they are most often the first step toward a real war, starting with a bombing campaign. "Sanctions were the first step in our wars against Iraq and Libya, and now more sanctions planned against Syria and Iran are leading down the same destructive path," the presidential hopeful warned. "Sanctions against Iran are definite steps toward a US attack." The Texas congressman also wrote that "according to the ineffective International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report, just out this month, there is no evidence that Iran has diverted enriched uranium from the peaceful and lawful generation of power towards building a nuclear weapon." "According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he added. Paul also called on the US administration to use "diplomacy rather than threats and hostility" dealing with Iran. He also warned that more sanctions against Iran would have a direct effect on US economy. "The tougher sanctions currently under consideration would disrupt global trade and undermine the US economy, which in turn harms our national security," Paul wrote. He concluded that "this race to war against Iran and Syria is both foolhardy and dangerous." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #16 "Iran sanctions first step to war" Promises, promises.... |
| Posted by: Barbara 2011-12-01 15:18 |
| #15 Paul regularly appeared on Morton Downey's crackpot oriented show. He identified himself as a "Libertarian" and espoused laughable concepts of freedom, all of which encroached on the security of the majority. He is still a crackpot who deserves marginalization. I don't want war with the ayatollahs; I want annihilation. |
| Posted by: Sonny Scourge of the Poles9835 2011-12-01 15:12 |
| #14 "Ron Paul is not for a small goovernnment: he is for a small America." Word, JFM. Just like Bambi. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2011-12-01 14:38 |
| #13 James Delingpole commented elsewhere: Let's not forget how the [1979-1981] Iranian hostage siege finally ended: within moments of Ronald Reagan taking office the Iranians caved in. Was this because Reagan had promised Iran special concessions to sweeten the deal? Nope. Was it because Reagan promised – just as Obama's chief administrator at NASA more less confessed the other day – that the purpose of America's space administration would be from henceforward to spread peace and lurve throughout the Ummah? Nope. Was it because the Iranians sensed in the Gipper the kind of "strong horse" leader with whom it would be foolish to mess? You bet. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-12-01 14:32 |
| #12 A pol who believes Iranians with nukes are no problem.... |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-12-01 13:57 |
| #11 Stupid statements like this are why Ron Paul will never be president ... or vice-president ... or a cabinet secretary ... or a deputy undersecretary ... or a second assistant intern to the deputy vice-undersecretary in charge of polishing the linoleum. |
| Posted by: Mike 2011-12-01 11:06 |
| #10 They've been a thorn in our side but they are about to become a very real threat. The threat should be taken seriously and Paul is correct, sanctions are not serious, only provocative. What Paul gets wrong is that we should be preparing for serious action. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2011-12-01 10:36 |
| #9 We've been at war these SOB'n mullahs and dinnerjacket since 1979. It's about time to end it and be done with it once and for all. They are a thorn in our side and the rest of the world's. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-12-01 10:30 |
| #8 Act of War, in a way yes. A step in a process of hostilities, sure. Sanctions cause wars, no. If you are doing sanctions you are already not getting along. Sanctions work. Blockades work. But they only work if those involved are serious about them, otherwise you end up with UN food for oil money laundering and publically watching goofballs and losers piss and kick dirt on your gauntlet. Remember, Obama placed sanctions on Honduras (a sad chapter in a sad book) in order to directly influence their politics. They were influenced, and we did not go to war. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-12-01 09:23 |
| #7 Sanctions don't always lead to war. Anybody remember the U.S. war against Cuba? South Africa? Sudan? Me neither. |
| Posted by: American Delight 2011-12-01 09:03 |
| #6 FRom what I can see from the other side of the pond and what I can infer about his positions on American Civil War Ron Paul is not for a small goovernnment: he is for a small America |
| Posted by: JFM 2011-12-01 08:50 |
| #5 Sanctions will increase oil prices and screw the economy of the world even worse while the usual suspects find ways around them. Sanctions made Castro and Saddam rich and helped them solidify power while blaming the sanctions and the world for the ills they created. Sanctions need to be rethought. Blowing stuff up, or directly financing and training opposition works faster and better. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2011-12-01 08:36 |
| #4 Yumm, watermelon soup, served up fresh by Pauly. Its these fools who think that WWII happened because FDR put sanctions on Imperial Japan which then of course forced the benevolant Japanese to invade everything Pacific and Indian. Had the USA just allowed material to flow into Japan, them and the Chinese, who were such good friends at the time, could have come up with viable wind energy and Europe would be home to exotic penguins. Sit down Paul, I think the heat has gotten to your head. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-12-01 08:10 |
| #3 The other problem is that they think "diplomacy" can work. If so, the mullahs would have stopped long ago. Talk will never stop someone intent on an end. |
| Posted by: Spot 2011-12-01 07:59 |
| #2 "According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he added. That's the problem with libertarian purists. They think everyone else shares their "enlightened self-interest" outlook. When in fact there are some truly malevolent aggressors out there, whose self-interest is entirely hostile and barbaric. |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2011-12-01 01:30 |
| #1 Weak idiot. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-12-01 00:36 |