How the lifting of Iran sanctions is a victory for Rand Paul and libertarians

posted at 6:31 pm on January 17, 2016 by Taylor Millard

The lifting of Iran sanctions is a victory for Rand Paul and those of a more libertarian school of thought when it comes to foreign policy. Paul, who came out against the agreement in July, said in the second GOP debate he wouldn’t rip it up immediately because he wants to see if Iran will follow it.

“Should we continue to talk with Iran? Yes. Should we cut up the agreement immediately? That’s absurd. Wouldn’t you want to know if they complied? Now, I’m going to vote against the agreement because I don’t think there’s significant leverage, but it doesn’t mean that I would immediately not look at the agreement, and cut it up without looking to see if whether or not Iran has complied.”

The only other candidate to defend the agreement was John Kasich, but he’s completely backtracked from that position. He first told CNN days after the September debate it should take 51, not 60, votes to stop the deal. He also told CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday he was “sick” over the agreement.

[Kasich] said he’s “sick to my stomach” about the latest news in the Iran deal because he believes Iran will use the money to spread trouble in the Middle East and it will be too difficult to reinstate sanctions if they violate the agreement.

“If I were president today I would be meeting with every one of our allies around the world and saying we’re going to monitor this deal and if they violate one crossed T or one dotted I we’re going to slap the sanctions back on,” he said.

This is much different from Paul’s foreign policy because the Kentucky U.S. Senator seems more willing to make sure Iran is following the deal before completely tossing it out the window. That’s not a bad policy to take because it can establish trust between two longtime foes. It’s the same thing Ronald Reagan believed when his said “trust, but verify” over the U.S.-Soviet missile treaty of 1987. If the U.S. was willing to extend that policy towards the Soviets, shouldn’t the same be said for the Iranians? Paul seems to think so, as he told CNN last week.

“I still wonder whether or not they want to be part of the civilized world. But you still wonder about a nation that is using what appears to be video of our soldiers as pawns in a propaganda war…I do separate myself from many other Republicans in that I do hope the negotiation works. But we’re going to have to watch them like a hawk.”

It certainly seems like things are working with the Iran deal, but it’s only been six months. The U.S. (and its allies) are going to have to be watchful to make sure Iran keeps following the deal, until they actually become trustworthy (if that ever happens at all). Shikha Dalmia at Reason argued in July the nuke agreement isn’t great, but could end up helping the West in the long run even if it falls apart.

But here’s the thing, if Iran [doesn’t follow the deal], America and Israel et al will have a far stronger hand at that point to persuade the world to either reinstate the sanctions regime or join them in launching a military strike. Right now, if the deal falls apart, America/Israel will be isolated while the world slowly but surely restores ties with Iran. Obtaining international cooperation is not about trying to show the world that we are the good guys. It’s vital to the success of any effort to contain Iran.

So the best case scenario with the deal is that it’ll give the world 10 years of a nuclear-free Iran, during which, who knows, may be the country will make some small headway toward abandoning its mullahocracy and embracing democracy (which might make its possession of nuclear weapons somewhat less problematic). And the worst case scenario is that the whole thing will fall apart because of Iran’s duplicity, which will renew the world’s will do so something about it.

She’s got a good point, and it makes sense to “trust, but verify” when it comes to Iran. This is why the six month mark of the Iran deal is a win for Rand Paul because it shows there’s no reason to tear up the agreement right now, as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio want to do. It’s also worth noting this is a win for libertarians who prefer a more “dovish” foreign policy to those of the hawks. Libertarians have no problem using force when attacked (see Ron Paul’s vote in favor of the Afghanistan War in 2001 and Jesse Walker at Reason writing the September 11th terrorists should be hunted down and captured or killed). But libertarians aren’t in favor of war or reckless police action (drones) because innocent civilian deaths could result, along with whoever the villains are (see the drone strikes which have killed both terrorists and civilians). The lifting of Iran sanctions could end up meaning a U.S. war with Iran won’t happen, and less Americans are taken hostage. It could also mean more private businesses start doing work in Iran and more free markets get introduced to a horribly non-free market country. The more free markets are introduced, the more of a chance freedom actually gets introduced as well and Iran becomes more democratic. It’s also possible this all goes to hell in a handbasket with Iran, and we’re back to square one in a couple years. But right now, this is a victory which Paul and libertarians should enjoy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

suppose I could go back and find the reports of the various ways Iran was violating the agreement before, during, and after it was signed, but that’s annoying and you can do it just as well as I can.

Count to 10 on January 17, 2016 at 8:52 PM

I haven’t found any. Perhaps you could do us a favor and list them.

Or admit that you cannot…

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2016 at 9:17 PM

It’s also possible this all goes to hell in a handbasket with Iran, and we’re back to square one in a couple years. But right now, this is a victory which Paul and libertarians should enjoy.

You’re not very informed, are you?

The head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps just announced that Iran has trained 200,000 young men all over to world to help fight the final battle between Muslims and non-Muslims, which will begin shortly, as soon as the Mahdi returns.

The Iranians are saying in plain language that they WILL try to bring about the end of the world, but for some reason you don’t believe them. I guess you think they’re pulling our leg.

This is why we’re now a second-rate power. We’re a nation of idiots rigidly adhering to ideologies that can’t address real-world problems.

A Chair of Some Kind on January 17, 2016 at 9:20 PM

This is why we’re now a second-rate power.

A Chair of Some Kind on January 17, 2016 at 9:20 PM

So, just who is a first rate power then…?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2016 at 9:32 PM

TBSchemer on January 17, 2016 at 8:55 PM

How did he determine these people are authoritarian in his polling or did he pull that out of his @ss?

wifarmboy on January 17, 2016 at 9:32 PM

You mean the sailors they released?

You mean the ballistic missile tests that, according to Breitbart at least, aren’t part of the nuclear deal?

Are you trying to tell me that belligerent rhetoric is part of the nuclear deal?

Or are ya, like the neocons in the Bush Administration, just cheerleading for another Middle East war…?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2016 at 9:12 PM

My my. So Barack and Hillary were wrong on this too:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0504/NPT-101-Is-Iran-violating-the-nuclear-treaty

unclesmrgol on January 17, 2016 at 9:55 PM

How did he determine these people are authoritarian in his polling or did he pull that out of his @ss?

wifarmboy on January 17, 2016 at 9:32 PM

Read the article:

In addition to the typical battery of demographic, horse race, thermometer-scale and policy questions, my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.

TBSchemer on January 17, 2016 at 10:02 PM

Here is Press Secretary Josh Earnest speaking on Iran:

The missile test that we did see over the weekend, are, we’ve got strong indications those missile tests did violate UN Security Council rules that pertain to Iran’s ballistic missile activities. Unfortunately that’s not new. We have seen Iran on on, almost serially, violate the international community’s concerns about their ballistic missile program and the UN Security Council resolution actually gives the international community some tools to interdict some equipment and material that could be used to advance their ballistic missile program and gives us the ability to work in concert with our partners around the world to engage a strategy to try to disrupt continued progress of their ballistic missile program.

So, they are building a ballistic missile, but not building a nuclear warhead to mate to that missile.

I’m sure the Israelis are completely calm about this, and are heartened by the other assurances by Mr. Earnest:

This is altogether separate from the nuclear agreement that Iran reached with the rest of the world. In contrast to the repeated violations, of the the UN security resolution as it pertains to their ballistic missile activity, we’ve seen that Iran over the past couple of years has demonstrated a track record of abiding by the commitments being made in the context of the nuclear talks.

But maybe not:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/17/us-sanctions-irans-ballistic-missile-program/78930672/

unclesmrgol on January 17, 2016 at 10:02 PM

Based on these questions, Trump was the only candidate—Republican or Democrat—whose support among authoritarians was statistically significant./em>

TBSchemer on January 17, 2016 at 10:05 PM

Iranian uses of ballistic missiles and “spherical implosion devices”. Nothing has changed about this since November 2011:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-11-08/Iran-nuclear-weapons-treaty/51125744/1

unclesmrgol on January 17, 2016 at 10:06 PM

Tbs-get a life.

CWforFreedom on January 17, 2016 at 10:07 PM

I wanted Bush to bomb Iran back in 2002/3 instead of Iraq. Once he empowered theocratic Iran by destroying the Iraqi secular regime, I pretty much said screw it.

cimbri on January 17, 2016 at 10:07 PM

Based on these questions, Trump was the only candidate—Republican or Democrat—whose support among authoritarians was statistically significant.

TBSchemer on January 17, 2016 at 10:05 PM

I assume a predisposition toward anarchy is evidenced by answering the other pole on those questions? And which candidate wins the “anarchist” vote?

unclesmrgol on January 17, 2016 at 10:09 PM

Tbs-get a life.

CWforFreedom on January 17, 2016 at 10:07 PM

Oh I’m sorry, did I offend your authoritarian sensibilities?

TBSchemer on January 17, 2016 at 10:10 PM

I assume a predisposition toward anarchy is evidenced by answering the other pole on those questions? And which candidate wins the “anarchist” vote?

unclesmrgol on January 17, 2016 at 10:09 PM

No, predisposition toward liberty. Libertarianism (not anarchism) is the opposite of authoritarianism.

TBSchemer on January 17, 2016 at 10:11 PM

Meh, this is all a plus

That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.

Look after your health schemer. It’s way more important.

Schadenfreude on January 17, 2016 at 10:48 PM

You mean the sailors they released?

I wish people would stop acting like letting our sailors go, who should have never been held, is some kind of redeeming act by Iran! How stupid can you be.

You mean the ballistic missile tests that, according to Breitbart at least, aren’t part of the nuclear deal?

It’s been pointed out before but even the White House disagrees with Breitbart.

Here is Press Secretary Josh Earnest speaking on Iran:

The missile test that we did see over the weekend, are, we’ve got strong indications those missile tests did violate UN Security Council rules that pertain to Iran’s ballistic missile activities. Unfortunately that’s not new. We have seen Iran on on, almost serially, violate the international community’s concerns about their ballistic missile program and the UN Security Council resolution actually gives the international community some tools to interdict some equipment and material that could be used to advance their ballistic missile program and gives us the ability to work in concert with our partners around the world to engage a strategy to try to disrupt continued progress of their ballistic missile program.

Are you trying to tell me that belligerent rhetoric is part of the nuclear deal?

Nope. Deal or no deal, anyone with half a mind would know that such rhetoric needs to be taken seriously, Hitler proved that.

Or are ya, like the neocons in the Bush Administration, just cheerleading for another Middle East war…?

Another mideast war is coming and Obama made it twice as hard to win.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2016 at 9:12 PM

Gwillie on January 17, 2016 at 10:49 PM

Yeah boy, that Iran deal sure is great! Now they can add to the glut of oil on the market, knocking the bottom out, and spreading disaster throughout the financial sector, and the broader world economy. They can now do this legally thanks to Obama and Kerry. If it wasn’t for their brilliant vision none of this would be possible.

claudius on January 17, 2016 at 11:05 PM

Meh, this is all a plus

Schadenfreude on January 17, 2016 at 10:48 PM

Only if a totalitarian state is your goal.

TBSchemer on January 17, 2016 at 11:46 PM

whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious.

No wonder libertarians skew young males, it’s the ultimate “f*ck you” to parents.

Thank you TDS for confirming everything I believed about libertarians.

nobar on January 17, 2016 at 11:48 PM

Rand Paul supporters are nothing but Obama and Clinton supporters. In other words they are rats since they support military cuts and are against ground wars. They infiltrate the Republican party to make it like the Dems.
They should be deported to Guantonimo.

stealthpatriot on January 17, 2016 at 11:58 PM

It certainly seems like things are working with the Iran deal, but it’s only been six months.

Denial is strong with this one.

AesopFan on January 18, 2016 at 12:00 AM

No wonder libertarians skew young males, it’s the ultimate “f*ck you” to parents.

Thank you TDS for confirming everything I believed about libertarians.

nobar on January 17, 2016 at 11:48 PM

…says the authoritarian Trump supporter. No matter whether I have a daughter or a son, I will teach that kid to be independent, self-reliant, considerate, and curious.

If you manage to trick some poor girl into accepting your seed, I’m sure you’ll want your kids to sit down, shut up, and respect your authoritah.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 12:25 AM

Only if a totalitarian state is your goal.

TBSchemer on January 17, 2016 at 11:46 PM

You’re such a poor loser.

Look after your health. It’s way wiser.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 12:43 AM

If little RP w/b authoritarian enough to win the Schemer would embrace, wait, authoritarian.

You’re just a dumbfruck with delusional spasms.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 12:45 AM

For Schemer

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 12:50 AM

You’re such a poor loser.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 12:43 AM

Yeah, I get pretty cranky when someone manages to successfully push the US towards totalitarianism.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 12:51 AM

If little RP w/b authoritarian enough to win the Schemer would embrace, wait, authoritarian.

You’re just a dumbfruck with delusional spasms.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 12:45 AM

No, because then he would be Donald Trump, and he wouldn’t have my support. Rand Paul gets my support because he’s the most pro-liberty candidate (by a wide margin) running in either major party primary.

I’m not like you. I don’t gravitate to cults of personality. I support the principle of liberty, and whoever is best able to advance that principle will have my vote.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 12:54 AM

For Schemer

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 12:50 AM

“Lost” in more ways than one. Fascism shouldn’t have a home in the US. The voters with these authoritarian leanings should GTFO of my country if they don’t want it to be free.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 12:56 AM

If you manage to trick some poor girl into accepting your seed, I’m sure you’ll want your kids to sit down, shut up, and respect your authoritah.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 12:25 AM

Well first they will learn the difference between a real choice and a false one.

Then, they will learn scripture inside and out.

After that, they will carefully study the story of their aunt (who follows your exact same line of thinking on child rearing) and why she is horrible debt for her age.

But long before that, there will be a massive exclusion of acceptable candidates for a wife, as I have uncompromising standards.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 12:58 AM

*In horrible debt.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 12:59 AM

Godwin 1
Schemer 0

Again

Get well Schemer, way more important.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:04 AM

Does Israel have a launch on warning policy with Iran?

goatweed on January 18, 2016 at 1:05 AM

GTFO of my country if they don’t want it to be free.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 12:56 AM

F you. YOU don’t deserve this country you fool.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:05 AM

The country is not free any more because you, dummy.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:06 AM

Well first they will learn the difference between a real choice and a false one.

Then, they will learn scripture inside and out.

After that, they will carefully study the story of their aunt (who follows your exact same line of thinking on child rearing) and why she is horrible debt for her age.

But long before that, there will be a massive exclusion of acceptable candidates for a wife, as I have uncompromising standards.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 12:58 AM

LOL. I look forward to the day your teenager rebels and comes out as an atheist.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:07 AM

Godwin 1
Schemer 0

Again

Get well Schemer, way more important.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:04 AM

Godwin’s law doesn’t apply when we’re debating over whether to actually implement the political philosophy of fascism in our country.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:08 AM

LOL. I look forward to the day your teenager rebels and comes out as an atheist.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:07 AM

I’ve learned from my parents mistakes, unlike you, evidently.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 1:09 AM

The country is not free any more because you, dummy.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:06 AM

Read The Road to Serfdom, and you’ll see why our country is no longer free. The nationalists are just as much to blame as the socialists.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:09 AM

I’ve learned from my parents mistakes, unlike you, evidently.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 1:09 AM

Can you learn from history? Pretty please?

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:14 AM

Can you learn from history? Pretty please?

Unlimited immigration doesn’t work, freedom isn’t free and only when we realize that most people don’t desire freedom can we advance as a nation-state.

There’s your history lesson.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 1:16 AM

Unlimited immigration doesn’t work, freedom isn’t free and only when we realize that most people don’t desire freedom can we advance as a nation-state.

There’s your history lesson.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 1:16 AM

You sound just like the progressives who think we can only “advance as a nation-state” if we “take care of the poor” by nationalizing more industries and confiscating more income.

You need to come to terms with the fact that you’re one of those people who doesn’t desire freedom. Yet, it was the freer countries, not the “powerful nation-states” that won both world wars. Freedom creates wealth, prosperity, and strength in ways you cannot predict.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:24 AM

Read The Road to Serfdom, and you’ll see why our country is no longer free. The nationalists are just as much to blame as the socialists.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:09 AM

First, thank you for owning up to the “dummy”.

Second, you arrogant hack. I read that a long time ago.

I know exactly why our country is no longer free and you are part of the problem, hack.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:24 AM

Yet, it was the freer countries, not the “powerful nation-states” that won both world wars.

I guess the early 20th century and all of it’s progressive administrations never happened.

And you accused me of being unable to learn from history.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 1:25 AM

The lifting of Iran sanctions is a victory for Rand Paul and those of a more libertarian school of thought when it comes to foreign policy.

Are you sure you want credit for that?

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 18, 2016 at 1:26 AM

You sound just like the progressives who think we can only “advance as a nation-state” if we “take care of the poor” by nationalizing more industries and confiscating more income.

And when I say this, it means we cease caring about the interest of others (progressives will always call the poor others) over ourselves.

You need to learn victimology 101.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 1:27 AM

My my. So Barack and Hillary were wrong on this too:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0504/NPT-101-Is-Iran-violating-the-nuclear-treaty

unclesmrgol on January 17, 2016 at 9:55 PM

Check the dateline on your link, genius…

JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2016 at 1:33 AM

First, thank you for owning up to the “dummy”.

Second, you arrogant hack. I read that a long time ago.

I know exactly why our country is no longer free and you are part of the problem, hack.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:24 AM

Then re-read it until you accept the truth of Hayek’s arguments. Chapter 15 could be re-titled “Why Donald Trump is Wrong.”

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:43 AM

For all the losers

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:44 AM

All chapters “Why the Schemer is a loser and a traitorous hack”.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:48 AM

Ayn Rand wouldn’t even want to have dinner with any of you morons.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:48 AM

I guess the early 20th century and all of it’s progressive administrations never happened.

And you accused me of being unable to learn from history.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 1:25 AM

Freer. Not totally free. And of course, we’re still suffering under the weight of the precedents that Wilson and Roosevelt set. Trump would likely set even worse precedents.

Electing Trump would only be destructive to the goal of making our country free again. Don’t pretend you can find the proponents of liberty by selecting for race, national origin, or religion. The advocates of liberty mark themselves openly, calling themselves “libertarians.”

If you want a free country, put a libertarian in the White House.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:49 AM

Gwillie on January 17, 2016 at 10:49 PM

I wish people would stop acting like letting our sailors go, who should have never been held, is some kind of redeeming act by Iran! How stupid can you be.

What, exactly, do you think we would do if our Navy took an Iranian vessel that sailed, inadvertently or otherwise, into US waters?

Probably just what they did. Secure the crew, search the ship, and then release them. With or without the boat.

Unless, of course, someone was looking to start a war.

The missile test that we did see over the weekend, are, we’ve got strong indications those missile tests did violate UN Security Council rules that pertain to Iran’s ballistic missile activities.

“UN Security Council rules” =/= nuclear deal, as evidenced by the new sanctions we just put on Iran for that activity

Deal or no deal, anyone with half a mind would know that such rhetoric needs to be taken seriously, Hitler proved that.

Actually, it was Hitler who was famous for tearing up non-aggression treaties in the face of compliance by adversaries. Funny where that would put the warmongering hawks now, isn’t it?

Another mideast war is coming

Rah-rah-rah…!!

JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2016 at 1:55 AM

Rough weekend?

Naw. Look, I have a nice open thread coming up for the Dem debate which will be the overnight thread. I don’t agree with Taylor on this but let’s all fix up a nice martini and move on with our lives.

Jazz Shaw on January 17, 2016 at 6:54 PM

Kinda nice being just a commenter. It means I can say this is one of the stupidest things proudly posted on Hot Air in a long time, and not be accused of disloyalty.

Taylor, if you really want to protect the reputation of Rand Paul and libertarianism, you would never want to take credit for an agreement that Iran is guaranteed to cheat on. And has already been cheating on.

Any time I want to make a point about the naivete of some libertarians, I now have a perfect example.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 18, 2016 at 1:57 AM

All chapters “Why the Schemer is a loser and a traitorous hack”.

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 1:48 AM

Seriously, what’s your rebuttal to Chapter 15?

Here are some good excerpts:

“If the resources of different nations are treated as exclusive properties of these nations as wholes, if international economic relations, instead of being relations between individuals, become increasingly relations between whole nations organized as trading bodies, they inevitably become the source of friction and envy between whole nations.

Economic transactions between national bodies who are at the same time supreme judges of their own behavior, who bow to no superior law, and whose representatives cannot be bound by any considerations but the immediate interest of their respective nations, must end in clashes of power.

If we were to make no better use of victory than to countenance existing trends in this direction, only too visible before 1939, we might indeed find that we have defeated National Socialism merely to create a world of many national socialisms, differing in detail, but all equally totalitarian, nationalistic, and in recurrent conflict with each other.”

“The problems raised by a conscious direction of economic affairs on a national scale inevitably assume even greater dimensions when the same is attempted internationally.”

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:59 AM

Taylor, if you really want to protect the reputation of Rand Paul and libertarianism, you would never want to take credit for an agreement that Iran is guaranteed to cheat on. And has already been cheating on.

Any time I want to make a point about the naivete of some libertarians, I now have a perfect example.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 18, 2016 at 1:57 AM

When they cheat, we deal with that then. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions people have spent a few more years trading and building commerce, rather than killing each other.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 2:02 AM

Taylor, if you really want to protect the reputation of Rand Paul and libertarianism, you would never want to take credit for an agreement that Iran is guaranteed to cheat on. And has already been cheating on.

Any time I want to make a point about the naivete of some libertarians, I now have a perfect example.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 18, 2016 at 1:57 AM

When they cheat, we deal with that then. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions people have spent a few more years trading and building commerce, rather than killing each other.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 2:02 AM

If we’re not already holding them accountable, we won’t magically start holding them accountable because they violate some provision. Nope, it will just be the same excuses.

The ugly truth about this world is that the only way a nation has peace, is if it’s too strong to tangle with. Peace through strength is the only kind of peace there is.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 18, 2016 at 2:17 AM

If we were to make no better use of victory than to countenance existing trends in this direction, only too visible before 1939, we might indeed find that we have defeated National Socialism merely to create a world of many national socialisms, differing in detail, but all equally totalitarian, nationalistic, and in recurrent conflict with each other.”

IOW, the world will continue spinning unabated.

Not impressed.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 2:23 AM

Don’t pretend you can find the proponents of liberty by selecting for race, national origin, or religion.

Now you’re at the point where you are denying that profiling doesn’t work.

Human nature remains an inconvenient fact for libertarians.

nobar on January 18, 2016 at 2:30 AM

http://rotter.net/User_files/forum/569ca4810c297dc22.jpg

Thank you Obama, cry libertardians. You saved us from the Lizard people and the Ebil Juice. Give all our monies to the Mullahs, who are freedom loving brown people just like in the video games we play all day long without leaving our mother’s basement to see the evil Zionist daylight.

Masih ad-Dajjal on January 18, 2016 at 4:02 AM

As Rand and Obama were celebrating victory with a beer summit, neither aware of the high-pitched sound of the falling Iranian bomb, they raised their glasses, the press cheered as camera’s flashed, and then…the TV screens went dark….

Don L on January 18, 2016 at 7:20 AM

If you manage to trick some poor girl into accepting your seed, I’m sure you’ll want your kids to sit down, shut up, and respect your authoritah.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 12:25 AM

?????

Joseph K on January 18, 2016 at 9:58 AM

I read the article looking for the punchline.

The agreement is working? What kind of skittles-farting unicorns have you been riding Taylor?

Immolate on January 18, 2016 at 10:14 AM

As Rand and Obama were celebrating victory with a beer summit, neither aware of the high-pitched sound of the falling Iranian bomb, they raised their glasses, the press cheered as camera’s flashed, and then…the TV screens went dark….

Don L on January 18, 2016 at 7:20 AM

Schadenporn?

Immolate on January 18, 2016 at 10:15 AM

So the best case scenario with the deal is that it’ll give the world 10 years of a nuclear-free Iran, during which, who knows, may be the country will make some small headway toward abandoning its mullahocracy and embracing democracy (which might make its possession of nuclear weapons somewhat less problematic). And the worst case scenario is that the whole thing will fall apart because of Iran’s duplicity, which will renew the world’s will do so something about it.

Wow, great argument. Either they’ll change more in the next 10 years than they have in the last few decades, something no one foresees, so that we won’t care that they have the Bomb, or they’ll cheat and the world will discover a will it didn’t have prior to do something about it. Uh huh.

There’s a lot of wishing and hoping going on. Disappointing to see a writer here buy into this nonsense.

changer1701 on January 18, 2016 at 10:27 AM

What, exactly, do you think we would do if our Navy took an Iranian vessel that sailed, inadvertently or otherwise, into US waters?

Probably just what they did. Secure the crew, search the ship, and then release them. With or without the boat.

JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2016 at 1:55 AM

Clearly the first thing we’d do is violate article 13 of the Geneva Convention; and then violate article 14 just so we’d make certain we did a clear violation and there wasn’t any question if we’d violate the Geneva Convention…

Oh, sorry, I forgot.
Liberals like Obama think the Geneva Convention should apply to non-uniformed terrorists not part of any country’s military but NOT to US troops; I’m guessing you agree?

Or is there some other reason you’re cheering violations of the Geneva convention in treatment of US troops as good news?

gekkobear on January 18, 2016 at 10:57 AM

Clearly the first thing we’d do is violate article 13 of the Geneva Convention;

gekkobear on January 18, 2016 at 10:57 AM

Art 13:

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Humane treatment? I’ve not heard otherwise.

Death or endangered health? Not that I’m aware of.

Physical mutilation? Medical/scientific experiments? Nope.

Acts of violence? Intimidation? Haven’t heard about any waterboarding involved. so they are at least one up on us on that count.

Insults? Public curiosity? Well, they weren’t paraded through downtown Teheran, were they? Were they photographed? Yeah. Do you really think we wouldn’t photograph Iranian sailors taken from a boat that came into US waters? Of course we would.

And if this is the standard we now adhere to, I imagine you were howling during the Abu Grahaib era.

Reprisals? Nope. They were released forthwith.

Sounds like someone is warmongering…

JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2016 at 11:35 AM

LOL. I look forward to the day your teenager rebels and comes out as an atheist.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 1:07 AM

Bless your heart. You’re one of those Greedy Libertines who likes to call himself a Libertarian screaming ‘liberty!!!’, while meaning license, aren’t you? Completely unable or unwilling to see that the license is what makes a society ripe for collapse and takeover by those authoritarians you cry about.

Bless your heart.

pannw on January 18, 2016 at 12:01 PM

If we’re not already holding them accountable, we won’t magically start holding them accountable because they violate some provision. Nope, it will just be the same excuses.

The ugly truth about this world is that the only way a nation has peace, is if it’s too strong to tangle with. Peace through strength is the only kind of peace there is.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 18, 2016 at 2:17 AM

Accountable for WHAT? They haven’t done anything yet. Stop trying to jump the gun on war.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 3:51 PM

Bless your heart. You’re one of those Greedy Libertines who likes to call himself a Libertarian screaming ‘liberty!!!’, while meaning license, aren’t you? Completely unable or unwilling to see that the license is what makes a society ripe for collapse and takeover by those authoritarians you cry about.

Bless your heart.

pannw on January 18, 2016 at 12:01 PM

No, I’m a libertarian advocating for the same principles of liberty that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence for. My views represent the founding principle of this country. The American Revolution was fought against people like you, who think liberty is dangerous.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 3:55 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2016 at 1:55 AM

I wish people would stop acting like letting our sailors go, who should have never been held, is some kind of redeeming act by Iran! How stupid can you be.

What, exactly, do you think we would do if our Navy took an Iranian vessel that sailed, inadvertently or otherwise, into US waters?

Probably just what they did. Secure the crew, search the ship, and then release them. With or without the boat.

Unless, of course, someone was looking to start a war.

Well lets see what we’ve done in the past, Oh yeah we provided assistance and escorted them out of our waters without boarding their ship, without holding their people at gunpoint, without showing them on national television, without making them confess wrong doing, likely at gunpoint, on camera!… Unless of course we were already at war with them.

The missile test that we did see over the weekend, are, we’ve got strong indications those missile tests did violate UN Security Council rules that pertain to Iran’s ballistic missile activities.

“UN Security Council rules” =/= nuclear deal, as evidenced by the new sanctions we just put on Iran for that activity

So you’re OK with Iran having missiles that could reach any of our allies in Europe, and some day us, just as long as they don’t get a nuke for ten years?

Deal or no deal, anyone with half a mind would know that such rhetoric needs to be taken seriously, Hitler proved that.

Actually, it was Hitler who was famous for tearing up non-aggression treaties in the face of compliance by adversaries. Funny where that would put the warmongering hawks now, isn’t it?

Actually he only did that after Munich, so my point still stands, no one took his threats seriously so they signs papers to shut him up… It didn’t work then it will not work now…

Another mideast war is coming

Rah-rah-rah…!!

It’s not Rah-rah-rah, It’s Pray for the best prepare for the worst. Stop pretending, it isn’t safe!

Gwillie on January 18, 2016 at 4:09 PM

Gwillie on January 18, 2016 at 4:09 PM

Well lets see what we’ve done in the past, Oh yeah we provided assistance and escorted them out of our waters without boarding their ship, without holding their people at gunpoint, without showing them on national television, without making them confess wrong doing, likely at gunpoint, on camera!… Unless of course we were already at war with them.

Of course, you have examples of this? Or are you merely engaging in rectalspeak?

So you’re OK with Iran having missiles that could reach any of our allies in Europe, and some day us, just as long as they don’t get a nuke for ten years?

First, sounds like a Euro problem, to me. Second, just an example of how they are not abrogating the nuclear deal, contrary to the claims of some prevaricators around here.

Actually he only did that after Munich, so my point still stands,

That you want to be like Hitler, and tear up non-aggression pacts that our adversaries are, by all accounts, adhering to.

Got it…

JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2016 at 5:25 PM

Of course, you have examples of this? Or are you merely engaging in rectalspeak?

Having been in the Navy (Yes the US Navy) for two years, I know what we are taught to do in such a case, in fact it’s accepted maritime law to assist ships in distress when you are not engaged in hostilities with the nation of origin, even if they stray into your waters. Boarding and capturing the crew of such a vessel would not be considered assisting. Why are you fight this, they were wrong and pretending they did the noble thing isn’t going to pass muster.

Actually he only did that after Munich, so my point still stands,

That you want to be like Hitler, and tear up non-aggression pacts that our adversaries are, by all accounts, adhering to.

Got it…

You just let my point hit you in the nuts didn’t you? OK Here it is, again, a little slower this time, Hitler lied, he lied to everyone and everyone knew it but they wanted to play that everything is hunky dory even thought it wasn’t so they kept giving him papers to sign and saying peace in our time all the while war kept getting closer and closer. Don’t forget that the whole time Hitler was building an arsenal in violation of international agreements (plural) he was saying “We have a right to self defense”. Sound familiar?

JohnGalt23Ali Khamenei’s useful idiot on January 18, 2016 at 5:25 PM

Gwillie on January 18, 2016 at 9:27 PM

First, sounds like a Euro problem, to me. Second, just an example of how they are not abrogating the nuclear deal, contrary to the claims of some prevaricators around here.

JohnGalt23Ali Khamenei’s useful idiot on January 18, 2016 at 5:25 PM

Well if your allies and trading partners are under threat from a rouge nation with long range missiles, you kinda don’t want the nation threatening them to get nukes even ten years from now.

Gwillie on January 18, 2016 at 9:34 PM

Do you really think we wouldn’t photograph Iranian sailors taken from a boat that came into US waters? Of course we would.

JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2016 at 11:35 AM

Do I really think the Government would take video and release it to news outlets for political gain?
Some might, but I’d say they’re violating the Geneva Conventions as well.

I’d like to think they’re not stupid enough to violate international agreements for political gain… but you’re right some would.

That’s a good thing, right?
Or do you mean something else… again?

gekkobear on January 19, 2016 at 9:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2