Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday

[cero]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:6:./temp/~c113DRdvt6::

urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

I like how you ignored this part

(8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

SEC. 2. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.
Calendar No. 43

the one rand voted against is way worse than this one, as it said that PREEMPTIVE WAR was the only alternative left.


just shows how out of it you are to say this bill is worse than the bill that says we will go to war if Iran gets a nuke
please go.

 

[tsai3904]

Setting aside the trolling and counter trolling and setting aside my own views on Rand, can someone give me a good reason for Rand voting for this resolution when A. He had just spoken out against foreign policy consensus in a meaningful way the day before B. He had been the lone vote against a previous resolution with similarly dangerous language and C. He could have easily not voted up or down? What is the argument for voting for the resolution?

I think Rand agrees with a lot of the resolution. Rand has stated that an attack on Israel is an attack on US and that he doesn't think Iran should have nuclear weapons. Rand was also supposedly able to add the language of "legitimate" self defense and requiring Congressional authority to authorize force. Rand's been speaking out that if we use military force anywhere, Congress needs to vote on it.

The main disagreement with others here is if this resolution is supportive of pre-emptive war. I don't see it and it's extremely hard to believe that Rand all of a sudden supports the concept of pre-emptive war. It's more probable that Rand views this as preventing pre-emptive war by requiring a vote of Congress before anything happens.

 

[Brett85]

The passage makes it clear that whatever happens it comes back to Congress and does not authorize war, military action or anything else.

Then what's the point of voting for the resolution?

 

[Warlord]

Why? He just supports the platform Ron ran on in 2008 and 2012. There's nothing unreasonable about wanting to support candidates who hold to the principles of non intervention.

This resolution does not authorize any intervention. SO a non-interventionist can absolutely vote for this.

But no matter how many times you dont want to accept this.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Right You haven't got a clue what a war is kid. "Actually fight for our FREEDOMS!!!!!" God have I heard that one before.

That was the point. Fighting everywhere else is NOT "Fighting for our freedoms."

I bet people like you would have condemned the Founders as well when they revolted against England.

I don't support civil war. I support secession. Any war would be initiated by the Feds.

I'm pretty sure losing a "supporter" like you would be a massive boost to his campaign.

Good for Rand, and he'll probably get ten neocon supporters for every libertarian he loses. Don't you see where this leads? Rand Paul may win, but we won't, he'll rule for the neocons and not for us.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:6:./temp/~c113DRdvt6::

urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

This.

@TaftFan- If you support bombing Iran, I would never support you for any political position at the Federal level.

 

[supermario21]

Then what's the point of voting for the resolution?

Because it's a meaningless vote. If Rand votes no his presidential aspirations are gone. Rand speaks out against arming Syrian rebels in a 15-3 vote on the foreign relations committee but gets almost no praise, yet this meaningless vote comes up and people are ready to crucify him.

 

[DylanWaco]

If the bill is meaningless/non-binding how the hell can it be argued that it "requires" anything for further action?

 

[Brett85]

the one rand voted against is way worse that this one, as it said that PREEMPTIVE WAR was the only alternative left.

The one Rand voted against simply said that containment shouldn't be an option. It was also a non binding resolution that had no force of law, and it also contained the line "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

 

[cero]

I'd have to actually read the thing. I honestly don't know if TradCon is correct here, since I haven't read the other one. I know that this one sucked but for all I know the other one did too. I only read the one in this thread.

lmao please GET THE FUCK OUT, you are bitching and moaning about something you have no fucking clue about?
go back to the daily paul please.

 

[DylanWaco]

Because it's a meaningless vote. If Rand votes no his presidential aspirations are gone.

Then he's fucked because the previous 1 v. 99 vote he cast on the same issue was an AIPAC special.

 

[cero]

The one Rand voted against simply said that containment shouldn't be an option. It was also a non binding resolution that had no force of law, and it also contained the line "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

isn't that the same with this new bill?

 

[Brett85]

Because it's a meaningless vote. If Rand votes no his presidential aspirations are gone.

Oh please. That's ridiculous. Then I guess his presidential aspirations were gone when he voted against the last Iran resolution which was a 99-1 vote.

 

[supermario21]

Then he's fucked because the previous 1 v. 99 vote he cast on the same issue was an AIPAC special.

No, Rand will just be able to say that I want Congress to declare war.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why? He just supports the platform Ron ran on in 2008 and 2012. There's nothing unreasonable about wanting to support candidates who hold to the principles of non intervention.

I have stated that I could tolerate Rand's support for sanctions and defending allies, since even though I dislike those things, I don't view them as the same as actual war. I drew my line in the sand at actual war a long time ago. Every single senator failed me there. In ninety-eight cases, I wouldn't have supported them anyway. Rand Paul and Mike Lee lost a lot of my respect today.

Ron Paul probably is more pragmatic than me with endorsements, but he's a politician, and Rand is his son. I'm not in either situation and I see no reason to compromise even further for Rand. We need a better candidate.

 

[devil21]

Honestly, does no one here look up things for themselves?

http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/05/15/aipac/

I didn't ask for blogger spin. I asked for the text of the resolution that Rand voted against. TC brought it up, his job to provide source material when asked.

 

[Warlord]

The resolution DOES NOT authorize any military action or deployment. There is no INTERVENTION in it.

 

[Brett85]

isn't that the same with this new bill?

Yes. So why didn't Rand vote against this one as well?

 

[Brett85]

The resolution DOES NOT authorize any military action or deployment. There is no INTERVENTION in it.

You could technically say the same thing about the resolution that Rand voted against since it says "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

 

[DylanWaco]

This resolution does not authorize any intervention. SO a non-interventionist can absolutely vote for this.

But no matter how many times you dont want to accept this.

A resolution calling for support (perhaps even support of arms depending on how one reads it) of one foreign nation against another based on what sort of technology said nation develops is hardly a resolution devoid of interventionism. I get that it's non-binding, but let's be serious.

 

[cero]

Then he's fucked because the previous 1 v. 99 vote he cast on the same issue was an AIPAC special.

na you are wrong that bill where he voted 99-1 is very clear a vote against war, a vote against PREEMPTIVE WAR, so if they bring this up during election war, Rand can say he is against more wars which the american people agree with it.

but this new bill, this simply says that we stand with Israel if they get LEGITIMATELY attacked, which is true I guess.
imagine if they bring that shit against him in the debates SENATOR PAUL YOU VOTED AGAINST STANDING WITH ISRAEL WHATS THAT ALL ABOUT.