Sanctions are an act of WAR

[Danno 1,228]

Any opinions on this topic?

-------------------------

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

United States House of Representatives

Statement on Motion to Instruct Conferees on HR 2194, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act

April 22, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct House conferees on HR 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, and I rise in strong opposition again to the underlying bill and to its Senate version as well. I object to this entire push for war on Iran, however it is disguised. Listening to the debate on the Floor on this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002 all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one trillion dollar war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely be an even more disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are astonishing.

We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and attack us? These "drones" ended up being pure propaganda - the UN chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on enemy targets. Of course by then the propagandists had gotten their war so the truth did not matter much.

We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's oft-repeated quip about Iraq: that we cannot wait for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud.

We need to see all this for what it is: Propaganda to speed us to war against Iran for the benefit of special interests.

Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of that treaty. Iran is not capable of enriching uranium to the necessary level to manufacture nuclear weapons. According to the entire US Intelligence Community, Iran is not currently working on a nuclear weapons program. These are facts, and to point them out does not make one a supporter or fan of the Iranian regime. Those pushing war on Iran will ignore or distort these facts to serve their agenda, though, so it is important and necessary to point them out.

Some of my well-intentioned colleagues may be tempted to vote for sanctions on Iran because they view this as a way to avoid war on Iran. I will ask them whether the sanctions on Iraq satisfied those pushing for war at that time. Or whether the application of ever-stronger sanctions in fact helped war advocates make their case for war on Iraq: as each round of new sanctions failed to "work" - to change the regime - war became the only remaining regime-change option.

This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to war on Iran. The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war according to international law. A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war against Iran. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to turn back from this unnecessary and counterproductive march to war.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Ron Paul is right. Of course the two major parties are going to do everything they can to have a war so they can broaden their power.

Edited April 25, 2010 by luckytxn

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Basd on what?

The economy isn't exactly in the kind of shape that voters would look kindly on yet another ME war. It's not as if the last one was a public relations success was it...

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

lol we are not going to go to war with Iran in the next 20 years and Iran knows this.

....i'll add this: unless there is a major terrorist attack within the US on the scale of 9/11 and it has strong proven links directly back to Iran....then its not a war...its the US airforce and the navy using up every bomb and cruise missile in their possession to strike what was once known as Iran.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Sousuke

[alienlovechild 75]

We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States.

Iran is not capable of enriching uranium to the necessary level to manufacture nuclear weapons. According to the entire US Intelligence Community, Iran is not currently working on a nuclear weapons program.

This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to war on Iran.

Iran launched a satellite into orbit. Now all they need is a nuke warhead small enough for a payload.

Paul must not consider Robert Gates part of the U.S. intelligence crowd.

Did anyone tell Ron Paul we've had sanctions on Iran for over 30 years without a war breaking out?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Iran launched a satellite into orbit. Now all they need is a nuke warhead small enough for a payload.

Paul must not consider Robert Gates part of the U.S. intelligence crowd.

Did anyone tell Ron Paul we've had sanctions on Iran for over 30 years without a war breaking out?

While we may have had sanctions, they've also not had the capabilities to make a serious 'punch' to the rest of the world.

Piss off a nation long enough, beat the hell out of them long enough, and eventually they'll hit back, and hit back hard. They may not be able to win a war, but they could do enough damage to make you re-think your entire policy standpoint for the next couple of decades.

This is why it's so dangerous if somewhere like N Korea ever obtained a nuclear weapon that could reach anywhere near US Soil as well...

[Danno 1,228]

While we may have had sanctions, they've also not had the capabilities to make a serious 'punch' to the rest of the world.

Piss off a nation long enough, beat the hell out of them long enough, and eventually they'll hit back, and hit back hard. They may not be able to win a war, but they could do enough damage to make you re-think your entire policy standpoint for the next couple of decades.

This is why it's so dangerous if somewhere like N Korea ever obtained a nuclear weapon that could reach anywhere near US Soil as well...

I'm middle of the road on this one.

Clearly it is just a matter of time until every country which wants a nuke can get one, so any confrontation w/ Iran will simply buy us time but not eliminate this _nuke genie_ which is now out of the bottle

So if we were successful with "persuading iran" to abandon their Nuke program, it would simply buy us time.... but time to do what?

And why is it Europe is not nearly as concerned as we are, they would be at greater danger.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm middle of the road on this one.

Clearly it is just a matter of time until every country which wants a nuke can get one, so any confrontation w/ Iran will simply buy us time but not eliminate this _nuke genie_ which is now out of the bottle

So if we were successful with "persuading iran" to abandon their Nuke program, it would simply buy us time.... but time to do what?

And why is it Europe is not nearly as concerned as we are, they would be at greater danger.

Because we're the ones who play the world's police and convince the UN to go along with any sanctions we put forth. We're the ones who take the biggest issue with Iran/the middle east. More of Europe follows our lead on this sort of thing, and many European nations have let it be known publically that they will follow our lead, but they don't necessarily agree with it all the time.

The question would come down to at the end of the day, would European nations stick with the US in a nuclear armed Iran, or would they back off and let us fly on our own.