From the Los Angeles Times comes this article: “Sanctions against Iran are an act of war.“ Just because I hadn’t done so in a while, I decided to look up the term “act of war” as defined in the United States Code. Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113B defines it this way:
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
Now, I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that economic sanctions of the type the United States and nations in Europe are now considering against Iran do NOT include armed conflict between ourselves, the Europeans, and Iran. It does NOT include a legal declaration of war between the party nations; with armed conflict (unless, of course, if Iran decides to use its’ meager navy to close the Strait of Hormuz). I assume that Congressman Paul has access to the same information that I do, so I wonder why he would so misinterpret and mangle the term “act of war” in talking about sanctions against a country that has repeatedly threatened to attack other countries, undermine foreign governments, sell illegal arms to nations and transnational groups, and militarily block a trade route that allows 25% of the world’s oil to pass through it.
If you’re the type of person who thinks the Unites States should be isolationist and not be involved in the affairs of other countries (I wonder what Dr. Paul thinks of the United Nations; the headquarters of which is located in the US), then Paul’s position makes sense … I guess. BUT, if you’re someone like me who sees the world as being vastly interconnected, with events on the other side of the planet connecting in various ways and levels with everyday life here in America, his position has to make you scratch your head in puzzlement.
I hope, personally, that this man doesn’t become President; not just in 2012 … but at any time.