RPI and LRC Blog: Senate Votes Unanimously Toward War Against Iran

[kcchiefs6465]

I'd be a lot more concerned if they were talking of regime change like they used to do with Iraq but they don't.

They do on Syria though. This is a major distraction.

That's supposed to be the outcome of these tough sanctions... that the people will rise up against their government. Worked flawlessly in Cuba.

We are the aggressors. It needs to stop.

We can't even get unanimous approval on something trivial. The partisan hacks exchanging banter. It amazes me how much support Israel has. (100%) Seemingly more support than the American people whose interests definitely aren't promoted with the same fervor. Annoys me to no end.

 

[asurfaholic]

I can't understand why Rand would vote for this... What's the reasoning?

 

[cajuncocoa]

That's supposed to be the outcome of these tough sanctions... that the people will rise up against their government. Worked flawlessly in Cuba.

We are the aggressors. It needs to stop.

We can't even get unanimous approval on something trivial. The partisan hacks exchanging banter. It amazes me how much support Israel has. (100%) Seemingly more support than the American people whose interests definitely aren't promoted with the same fervor. Annoys me to no end.

Maybe someone needs to start a pro-American lobby, as AIPAC has done for Israel.

 

[tsai3904]

I can't understand why Rand would vote for this... What's the reasoning?

Probably because he supports sanctions on Iran and supports defending Israel if they're attacked. He's made public statements to those effect.

I think what made Rand comfortable with this resolution is they added his language that requires Congressional approval to authorize force. All speculation on my part.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

It amazes me how much support Israel has. (100%) Seemingly more support than the American people whose interests definitely aren't promoted with the same fervor. Annoys me to no end.

Much of the "aid" sent to Israel from the US each year U-turns back into the coffers of the hacks (through front orgs and such) in the form of campaign donations and lobbyist favors. This, of course, influences more officeholders to climb onboard the gravy train.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Much of the "aid" sent to Israel from the US each year U-turns back into the coffers of the hacks (through front orgs and such) in the form of campaign donations and lobbyist favors. This, of course, influences more officeholders to climb onboard the gravy train.

And Lockheed Martin.

It doesn't go to the average Israeli, that's for sure.

More subsidies and government/corporate collusions. I am convinced that it will not end until the dollar collapses and we are bogged down in another war/s. Then a new world currency will be created and we can start all over again. Good times.

 

[69360]

I can't understand why Rand would vote for this... What's the reasoning?

He had section 8 stuck and his language added. It made the president get congressional approval and not be able to act unilaterally. It makes the whole thing more of a paper tiger. Congress would be liable if military action went badly or became costly.

Face the facts here. Rand voting against this would have made him dead in the water in the GOP primary and he did the best he could considering. It was going to pass anyway.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

He had section 8 stuck and his language added. It made the president get congressional approval and not be able to act unilaterally. It makes the whole thing more of a paper tiger. Congress would be liable if military action went badly or became costly.

Face the facts here. Rand voting against this would have made him dead in the water in the GOP primary and he did the best he could considering. It was going to pass anyway.

Bowing to AIPAC will not advance liberty.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Even though the guy who's responsible for the resolution (Lindsey Graham) definitely wants war with Iran.

And some people immediately start denying it. Seriously, I'd be surprised if there were any country that Graham didn't want to go to war with. Actually, he's already stated that the war is "Everywhere" so I guess there ISN'T such a country.

Would it really be too much to ask to simply get one person into the Senate who will consistently vote against garbage like this?

Would it really be too much to ask to get enough voters that don't hate Muslims? (And I say that as a devout Christian who believes that you need to believe in Jesus Christ in order to get into heaven.)

[

Not even Graham talks about regime change in Iran or invading that country and replacing Kohemni. No one does. They dont want to do that. It's just his usual bluster.

They DO talk about Syria. They like a weak target.

Graham wants both. Rand Paul probably doesn't genuinely want either, but he's playing games with human life with this vote and I'm not going to endorse it by checking his name on the ballot.

They'll beat the drums until the time is right.

Or provoke Iran until Iran strikes back and call it justified.

There will be close to 100% support for a military effort. (in Congress, that is. Though the general public couldn't tell you the capital of Iran and would probably blindly suck their thumbs towards a draft as well)

I won't be "Fighting for our Freedoms".

Yes, he did.

I can't understand why Rand would vote for this... What's the reasoning?

He's falling into the establishment trap...

Probably because he supports sanctions on Iran and supports defending Israel if they're attacked. He's made public statements to those effect.

I think what made Rand comfortable with this resolution is they added his language that requires Congressional approval to authorize force. All speculation on my part.

It wasn't just sanctions and self-defense here, unless you consider building a nuclear weapon to be an act of aggression (I actually do, technically, by Rothbardian/Blockean logic of the "Reasonable man" but both the United States and Israel have broken this rule already and we all know Iran isn't ACTUALLY going to use it except possibly if they get attacked.)

@The Mods- PLEASE do not put this in Rand Paul's forum. I really don't want to hear from the Rand Cultists about how we shouldn't be posting in Rand Paul's forum when I point out that Daniel McAdams was completely correct here...

 

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe someone needs to start a pro-American lobby, as AIPAC has done for Israel.

It already exists, its called RPI!

 

[sailingaway]

And some people immediately start denying it. Seriously, I'd be surprised if there were any country that Graham didn't want to go to war with. Actually, he's already stated that the war is "Everywhere" so I guess there ISN'T such a country.



Would it really be too much to ask to get enough voters that don't hate Muslims? (And I say that as a devout Christian who believes that you need to believe in Jesus Christ in order to get into heaven.)

[



Graham wants both. Rand Paul probably doesn't genuinely want either, but he's playing games with human life with this vote and I'm not going to endorse it by checking his name on the ballot.



I won't be "Fighting for our Freedoms".





He's falling into the establishment trap...



It wasn't just sanctions and self-defense here, unless you consider building a nuclear weapon to be an act of aggression (I actually do, technically, by Rothbardian/Blockean logic of the "Reasonable man" but both the United States and Israel have broken this rule already and we all know Iran isn't ACTUALLY going to use it except possibly if they get attacked.)

@The Mods- PLEASE do not put this in Rand Paul's forum. I really don't want to hear from the Rand Cultists about how we shouldn't be posting in Rand Paul's forum when I point out that Daniel McAdams was completely correct here...

Please don't attack Rand Paul supporters, many of whom are also Ron Paul supporters as cultists, however. Issue discussion is one thing, forum attacks are against TOS. In both directions.

 

[V3n]

I can't understand why Rand would vote for this... What's the reasoning?

It's just a bunch of lip-service - condemn this, reaffirm that, will stand with x.. the only part that had any meat in it was #8 which was struck and replaced "in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize" which is correct.

It's verbal meddling and a waste of time, but at the end of the day this doesn't really say anything different than Washington's been saying for decades. Definitely isn't a vote "Toward War" as the sensational headline would have one believe.

 

[torchbearer]

good to see the freak-out crew still out doing their job.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'd be a lot more concerned if they were talking of regime change like they used to do with Iraq but they don't.

They do on Syria though. This is a major distraction.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204531404577054911628578368.html

Not to mention that sanctions are an attempt to affect regime change, by worsening conditions for citizens so that they rise up and overthrow their government. Oh, and did you forget the Green Revolution? Neocons were crying in the media because Obama didn't use that to overthrow the Iranian regime.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/22/1059351/obama-green-revolution-romney/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR2010061106014.html

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/rick-santorum-obama-iran-green-revolution

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...amas-flawed-record-in-the-middle-east/263126/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/...lea-for-help-from-iranian-opposition-in-2009/

Not talking about regime change in Iran? You're just making stuff up.

 

[Spikender]

What a bunch of bull malarkey.

The lust for more bloodshed just never ceases to amaze me.

Gotta love sanctions: acts of war but not really which hurt no one but innocent Iranian citizens who will suffer.

Whether Rand got what he wanted into there or not, he should've voted against it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Please don't attack Rand Paul supporters, many of whom are also Ron Paul supporters as cultists, however. Issue discussion is one thing, forum attacks are against TOS. In both directions.

My apologies...

 

[Christian Liberty]

What a bunch of bull malarkey.

The lust for more bloodshed just never ceases to amaze me.

Gotta love sanctions: acts of war but not really which hurt no one but innocent Iranian citizens who will suffer.

Whether Rand got what he wanted into there or not, he should've voted against it.

How is refusal to trade with a nation and those who do trade with them an act of war?

I have to say I don't agree with Ron on this one, although I agree with him on sanctions being stupid and I think this vote had more to it than just sanctions.

 

[Warlord]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204531404577054911628578368.html

Not to mention that sanctions are an attempt to affect regime change, by worsening conditions for citizens so that they rise up and overthrow their government. Oh, and did you forget the Green Revolution? Neocons were crying in the media because Obama didn't use that to overthrow the Iranian regime.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/22/1059351/obama-green-revolution-romney/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR2010061106014.html

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/rick-santorum-obama-iran-green-revolution

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...amas-flawed-record-in-the-middle-east/263126/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/...lea-for-help-from-iranian-opposition-in-2009/

Not talking about regime change in Iran? You're just making stuff up.

Gingrich is not a senator, president, defense secretary or general. None of whom are talking about regime change in Iran either in their language or resolutions.

I agree sanctions are bad but it's not a regime change policy. Several countries suffer under this tyranny. They dont want regime change in N. Korea either but sanction the crap out of it.

Sanctions have never brought down a government!

 

[Spikender]

How is refusal to trade with a nation and those who do trade with them an act of war?

I have to say I don't agree with Ron on this one, although I agree with him on sanctions being stupid and I think this vote had more to it than just sanctions.

http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/introtoforeignpolicy/a/what-are-sanctions.htm

Sanctions hurt the poor and innocent and do nothing to really stymie whatever potential threat a nation poses. To me, it is an act of war; think of it like surrounding a castle in Medieval times and starving out the enemy until they can no longer resist. Except in this case, the only people that it will hurt will be the unintended targets: the innocent civilians. Or as the government calls them, collateral damage.

Not to mention that these aren't just trade sanctions, these are International Sanctions that have been placed against Iran. Those cover a lot more than just trade, and can cover diplomatic, economic, and military sanctions.

 

[Spikender]

Gingrich is not a senator, president, defense secretary or general. None of whom are talking about regime change in Iran either in their language or resolutions.

I agree sanctions are bad but it's not a regime change policy. Several countries suffer under this tyranny. They dont want regime change in N. Korea either but sanction the crap out of it.

Sanctions have never brought down a government!

My point exactly. Sanctions don't hurt tyrannic governments, they hurt the people that are already suffering under tyrannic governments.