Sunday, March 16, 2014

Family Feud: Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on Sanctions

From The Guardian:
Ron Paul slams US on Crimea crisis and says Russia sanctions are 'an act of war'
• Paul tells Guardian change in Ukraine is US-backed coup
• Views are opposite to those of son, Senator Rand Paul

The former Republican congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul has launched a scathing attack on what he calls a US-backed coup in Ukraine, insisting the Crimean people have the right to align their territory with Moscow and characterising sanctions against Russia as “an act of war”.

He also said providing economic aid to Ukraine was comparable to giving support to rebels in Syria knowing it would end up in the hands of al-Qaida.

The libertarian guru’s remarks in an interview with the Guardian are almost diametrically opposed to those of his son, the Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul, who has called for stiff penalties against Russia and declared: “If I were president, I wouldn’t let [Russian president] Vladimir Putin get away with it.”
Read the rest of the story here.


  1. RW, you should post Paul Craig Roberts' recent article attacking the war propaganda on Ukraine, neoconservative warmongers and guess who Rand Paul!

    Here's a snippet:

    "As some Americans have misplaced hopes in Rand Paul, it is just as well that he revealed in Time that he is just another fool prostituting himself for the neoconservative warmongers and the military/security complex. If Rand Paul is the hope for America, then clearly there is no hope."

  2. See the difference folks? It's not rocket science. Does this REALLY have to be explained to some people? Sheesh!

  3. If I may paraphrase, St. Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:

    Why Rand, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Crimea?

  4. If "sanctions are an act of war", then any nation which charges a tariff on US goods or regulates trade with the US has declared war on the United States. Hence, the US military has the right to counter-attack any nation which charges the US tariffs or regulates our trade.

    1. There is a difference between a minimal revenue tariff (which I would oppose anyway) and a deliberate prohibitive tariff against a country or countries(i.e. sanctions). It doesn't mean it necessitates a war or makes conflict inevitable, it just describes what most likely could be the consequences of economic warfare.

    2. The definition of "sanction" includes the word "threat", so it's based first on intimidation and used as a manipulative tactic.

      A tariff is a tax that is not the result of a threat, otherwise it would be called a "sanction" and the words would be no different.

    3. so basically you are admitting that if any protective tariffs by Russia for US goods, say 40% or more are found, then Russia has already declared war upon the US? That makes Rand a dove, he is not calling for military intervention.

  5. Rand is trying to be a non-interventionist- to the extent that he will remain viable for President. I disagree with the tactic (as, what good is victory if you dont fight the state's foremost evil). But, dont worry: the system wont let him get even close to winning