Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday

[Christian Liberty]

Who said it doesn't matter how he votes?

The argument is how you INTERPET the bills...

You may see this as a vote for pre-emptive war while others will not...

Honestly? I don't think Rand Paul supports this in his heart of hearts. I think his dad raised him better than that.

But I'm not going to support someone who VOTES for aggressive war, whether he actually believes in it or not. I'm done with that game. And I'm more than happy to "Waste" my vote in the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party rather than to vote for evil. Rand had best pay attention to the liberty movement.

 

[Brett85]

Now that I read this resolution again, the resolution is actually far worse than it was before it was amended in committee. Before the resolution was amended, the resolution could've been seen as simply coming to Israel's defense if they get attacked. But after it was amended in committee in now says, "against Iran's nuclear weapons program." That wording wasn't included in the original resolution. The amended resolution is far worse than the original resolution.

 

[tsai3904]

Now that I read this resolution again, the resolution is actually far worse than it was before it was amended in committee. Before the resolution was amendment, the resolution could've been seen as simply coming to Israel's defense if they get attacked. But after it was amended in committee in now says, "against Iran's nuclear weapons program." That wording wasn't included in the original resolution. The amended resolution is far worse than the original resolution.

No, that makes it better by limiting US' actions to specific acts. If the "Iran's nuclear weapons program" wasn't included, they could conceivably use any excuse to support whatever action they want for any reason.

 

[Rudeman]

If he votes against it, I'll completely support that choice. He has a chance to get me to trust him here.



As much as I'm not really a fan of Afghanistan here, at least we were KIND OF attacked. We weren't really attacked by Afghanistan, but the original intent of the AUMF as Ron Paul understood it was to get the terrorists that attacked 9/11. Honestly, considering blowback, I'm not sure that was a good idea, but there was nothing wrong with it on principle.

Bombing Iran, on the other hand, is wrong and murderous on PRINCIPLE. There's nothing "Defensive" about that.

If this bill was worded like "If Iran uses nuclear weapons against Israel" or "If terrorists fly in from Iran and attack us" or something that might be different. But this bill clearly states that if Iran even tries to BUILD nukes we can attack them. No. you vote for this crap, I'm not voting for crap.

And yes, one vote can define crap. Not in every circumstance, but with something this serious, yes.

See right here you're going into what Ron Paul interpreted it as, what if Rand doesn't interpret this resolution as supporting pre-emptive war. Has Rand not been clear on his opposition to pre-emptive war? It even took you reading it twice to interpret it a different way.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Rand will have to vote in favor of this crap, or else his new Evangelical friends might suspect that he really is a libertarian after all.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Now that I read this resolution again, the resolution is actually far worse than it was before it was amended in committee. Before the resolution was amended, the resolution could've been seen as simply coming to Israel's defense if they get attacked. But after it was amended in committee in now says, "against Iran's nuclear weapons program." That wording wasn't included in the original resolution. The amended resolution is far worse than the original resolution.

Would you still vote for Rand if he votes for preemptive war?

 

[Brett85]

No, that makes it better by limiting US' actions to specific acts. If the "Iran's nuclear weapons program" wasn't included, they could conceivably use any excuse to support whatever action they want for any reason.

If it hadn't been amended the language would simply say "self defense," which would simply mean that we would only be coming to Israel's defense if they were attacked, since that's what "self defense" actually means. By including the phrase "against Iran's nuclear weapons program," it changes the resolution from one where we pledge to help out Israel if they get attacked to a resolution where we pledge to help out Israel carry out a preemptive attack against Iran.

 

[Rudeman]

Now that I read this resolution again, the resolution is actually far worse than it was before it was amended in committee. Before the resolution was amended, the resolution could've been seen as simply coming to Israel's defense if they get attacked. But after it was amended in committee in now says, "against Iran's nuclear weapons program." That wording wasn't included in the original resolution. The amended resolution is far worse than the original resolution.

I disagree, the initial resolution was much broader. The rewrite limits it to just Iran's nuclear weapons program whereas the original could be interpreted to mean that we should support Israel in any instance of defense (including the Iranian weapons program).

 

[Christian Liberty]

See right here you're going into what Ron Paul interpreted it as, what if Rand doesn't interpret this resolution as supporting pre-emptive war. Has Rand not been clear on his opposition to pre-emptive war? It even took you reading it twice to interpret it a different way.

You know what, honestly, I have a crapload more reason to take Ron Paul at his word than Rand. Granted, I trust Rand more than any other Senator, but Ron Paul's record was a lot longer and he NEVER compromised.

Plus, Ron voted right after 9/11. This is ten years later. There was more excuse to panic right after 9/11 than there is right now, if nothing else.

Ron Paul viewed what he did as self-defense. Which turned out to be wrong, but was actually plausible when he cast the vote. Ron Paul also regretted his.

There's NO WAY this resolution is about defense. Rand knows better, heck, honestly I think a five year old would know better. If Rand is really that dumb I don't want him in the White House.

 

[Brett85]

Would you still vote for Rand if he votes for preemptive war?

I'm not sure. I think this is a terrible resolution, but I'm still not sure if it's actually a vote for "preemptive war." The resolution does say this:

"Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

That doesn't make it a good resolution, but it does mean that this resolution couldn't be used as any kind of legal authority for an attack on Iran.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Which, Rand isn't that dumb. He's freaking brilliant. And so I hold him accountable. If he sucks up to the neocons, he's not worth my time. I'd rather stand on the sidelines than vote for evil. This is a critical one for me. Rand, stand strong!

 

[tsai3904]

If it hadn't been amended the language would simply say "self defense," which would simply mean that we would only be coming to Israel's defense if they were attacked, since that's what "self defense" actually means. By including the phrase "against Iran's nuclear weapons program," it changes the resolution from one where we pledge to help out Israel if they get attacked to a resolution where we pledge to help out Israel carry out a preemptive attack against Iran.

I see it differently.

If all you say is self-defense, that can mean self defense from hundreds of things. If someone from Iran shot a missile into Israel and this had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, this resolution can justify any action as coming to Israel's self-defense.

By adding "legitimate" and "nuclear program", you are limiting the actions of Iran that fit into that category.

 

[Rudeman]

If it hadn't been amended the language would simply say "self defense," which would simply mean that we would only be coming to Israel's defense if they were attacked, since that's what "self defense" actually means. By including the phrase "against Iran's nuclear weapons program," it changes the resolution from one where we pledge to help out Israel if they get attacked to a resolution where we pledge to help out Israel carry out a preemptive attack against Iran.

Self-defense is still there, in fact it was bolstered to now say legitimate self-defense and the support in legitimate self-defense is only limited to only be provided against the Iranian weapons program.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure. I think this is a terrible resolution, but I'm still not sure if it's actually a vote for "preemptive war." The resolution does say this:

"Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

That doesn't make it a good resolution, but it does mean that this resolution couldn't be used as any kind of legal authority for an attack on Iran.

They'd technically have to vote for it again, sure. But this is basically supporting the idea that a bombing of Iran is legitimate self-defense. I won't vote for anyone who believes that.

Since you're not sure, I'm guessing you at least understand my point. This is an ethical issue for me. To me this is even worse than being "pro-choice", since I believe it is worse to outright support killing people than it is just sit there and do nothing while people are killed. Heck, in some circumstances I think "Sitting there and doing nothing" is the right thing to do, although not in the abortion case. I NEVER support preemptive war, nor can I vote for someone who will. I can live with sanctions and bases, but outright voting for warfare is too much. If Rand Paul asked for my support after that vote, I'd simply quote Romans 3:8.

 

[T.hill]

True. I just read this over, if he votes for it I'm honestly probably done...

I initially thought it was just a "Defend Israel if they get attacked" resolution and I can live with that even though I don't like it. But advocating premptive war is just too much.

Rand: NO! Do not do this, or I am not going to vote for you. Period.


It will... Ron might be forced to do something he doesn't want to.

What? Whatever Rand does, whether initially perceived as good or bad usually has approval from Ron. Ron is probably in regular contact with his son and probably discuss politics more often than not.

Not to mention Rand and Ron literally are 99 percent the same in policy.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Self-defense is still there, in fact it was bolstered to now say legitimate self-defense and the support in legitimate self-defense is only limited to only be provided against the Iranian weapons program.

You can't use self-defense against a weapons' PROGRAM. Everything in this bill supports the ridiculous neocon definition of "Self-defense."

 

[tsai3904]

There's NO WAY this resolution is about defense. Rand knows better, heck, honestly I think a five year old would know better. If Rand is really that dumb I don't want him in the White House.

No one here supports this resolution but there's already people who disagree with you that this resolution is a vote for pre-emptive war.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What? Whatever Rand does, whether initially perceived as good or bad usually has approval from Ron. Ron is probably in regular contact with his son and probably discuss politics more often than not.

Not to mention Rand and Ron literally are 99 percent the same in policy.

Ron Paul will never support this crap. If RON Paul supported this crap I'd honestly just become depressed, and probably be inspired to run for congress myself so I could do better. But he won't. RON Paul is a man of principle. I'm not saying Rand is bad, he's a good man, but he's playing to win. There's only so much of that that I'm willing to support on ethical grounds. Ron Paul didn't give a hoot about winning.

Ron Paul called sanctions an ACT OF WAR. I don't even agree with Ron, but that's how seriously he regarded that. He's courteous to his son but that doesn't mean he supports the crappy things that Rand supports. And Ron will NEVER support a vote for preemptive war. They called him "Dr. No" for a reason, he didn't do this crap.

 

[Rudeman]

You know what, honestly, I have a crapload more reason to take Ron Paul at his word than Rand. Granted, I trust Rand more than any other Senator, but Ron Paul's record was a lot longer and he NEVER compromised.

Plus, Ron voted right after 9/11. This is ten years later. There was more excuse to panic right after 9/11 than there is right now, if nothing else.

Ron Paul viewed what he did as self-defense. Which turned out to be wrong, but was actually plausible when he cast the vote. Ron Paul also regretted his.

There's NO WAY this resolution is about defense. Rand knows better, heck, honestly I think a five year old would know better. If Rand is really that dumb I don't want him in the White House.

I'm not judging Ron's vote, you rightly pointed out that Ron based his vote on what he interpreted it as yet you're not willing to give Rand the same benefit. I've read this more than once and I'm still not sure how you guys are interpreting it as advocating pre-emptive war. Can one of you explain why you think it does?

 

[Christian Liberty]

No one here supports this resolution but there's already people who disagree with you that this resolution is a vote for pre-emptive war.

I'm not trying to be personally offensive here, to be clear. I just can't do this. Supporting Rand is honestly like riding a roller coaster, but I can deal with the big drops. I can't deal with outright flying off, if that makes sense.

Its obvious to me that this is supporting the neocon definition of "Self-defense." You can't use self-defense against a PROGRAM. If the bill said "If Iran does so and so to Israel, we will intervene" that would be just another "We'll defend Israel if they get attacked" statement. I don't like that, but I can live with that level of deviation. But that's not what it says. It clearly implies that Iran building a nuke (Most likely to stop us from creating another Iraq there) is an "Attack on Israel."

Sorry, Rand, but no. You won't get my vote if you do that crap.