Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday

[Brett85]

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.

Yeah, you're not being unreasonable at all. You already gave Rand the benefit of the doubt a lot of times when you disagreed with his votes or his public statements.

 

[Christian Liberty]

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.

Good for him on the Syrian vote. But this isn't a utilitarian costs vs benefits thing for me. This vote makes me seriously suspicious of Rand, and even if he is just "Playing the game", I can't vote for anyone who votes for aggressive war on principle. I wish you guys the best but I just can't do it.

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."

To be fair, this one has that same meaningless line at the end. Just because it says not to construct it that way doesn't mean they won't, however.

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.

I didn't say anything about the other vote, only this one. TradCon mentioned the other sanctions vote. LEARN TO FREAKING READ!

I've also never been a member of the Daily Paul.

 

[Warlord]

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."

Um... is this what you're reduced to then? His vote against one and for one are two separate things. I bet he has his own reasons but i cant be bothered looking it up. This resolution is quite WEAK compared to previous ones they pass for Iraq and stuff. This doesn't even talk about regime change or anything and it says anything comes back to congress. This is a weak resolution. You're attempts to paint it otherwise have failed and your trolling exposed.

 

[Brett85]

but this new bill, this simply says that we stand with Israel if they get LEGITIMATELY attacked, which is true I guess.

No, the bill says absolutely nothing about an "attack" on Israel.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, you're not being unreasonable at all. You already gave Rand the benefit of the doubt a lot of times when you disagreed with his votes or his public statements.

Thank you! It feels like the voices of sanity are dwindling fast around here, and I'm glad to see there are still a few of us.

Honestly, if Ron Paul wasn't related to Rand I think Ron would condemn this vote. I STILL wouldn't be surprised if the RPI does so even if Rand personally doesn't say anything.

 

[Brett85]

Um... is this what you're reduced to then? His vote against one and for one are two separate things. I bet he has his own reasons but i cant be bothered looking it up. This resolution is quite WEAK compared to previous ones they pass for Iraq and stuff. This doesn't even talk about regime change or anything and it says anything comes back to congress. This is a weak resolution. You're attempts to paint it otherwise have failed and your trolling exposed.

I have to ask you this again. How can you call me a "troll" when you've already been banned from this forum for inappropriate behavior?

 

[DylanWaco]

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.

How am I wrong? You claimed the first bill was AIPAC special. Claimed Rand had to vote for this bill because fear of anti-semitism smear and this vote insulates him from that. Are you seriously pretending the crowd that does the smearing is going to say "boy that first Israel Lobby bill he was the lone voter against wasn't an anti-semetic vote, but this second one DEFINITELY WAS!" I can't imagine anyone even vaguely familiar with the way AIPAC and their various offshoots/fellow travelers operates would believe that.

 

[Warlord]

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.

The only concession is on nuke weapons but Rand has made this concession before and the resolution doesn't say military action to prevent them from getting it just "such action" (which can mean sanctions which he already supports). There is no regime change like the Iraq ones of time gone by and certainly no authorization for war, military deployment or anything else. It's pretty weak.

 

[cero]

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

lmmaooooooooooooo, so you are saying that the other bill is irrelevant because to quote you: "is non binding resolution that had no force of law"
but for this bill, you are throwing fits all over the place, even thou again to quote you is a "non binding resolution that had no force of law"
you are a hypocrite you know that...

also, for you to tell me that sending economic aid to Israel is WORSE than preemptive war with Iran, just shows how much of a tard you are.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Um... is this what you're reduced to then? His vote against one and for one are two separate things. I bet he has his own reasons but i cant be bothered looking it up. This resolution is quite WEAK compared to previous ones they pass for Iraq and stuff. This doesn't even talk about regime change or anything and it says anything comes back to congress. This is a weak resolution. You're attempts to paint it otherwise have failed and your trolling exposed.

What if Rand voted for a resolution suggesting that parents should be able to kill their two year old children but this resolution was simply a "Recommendation" for policy and was not binding. Would you still support him?

Its hard because EVERYONE, and I include myself in that category, has so much programming to get out of their heads, but what Rand voted for is literally worse than the fake resolution I invented last paragraph. This gives the COMMANDER IN CHIEF (Who obviously cares a LOT less about children than the average parent does about their own) to drop evil bombs on the Iranians' children, in order to stop them from getting a nuke for the purpose of protecting themselves from becomming another Iraq, like a certain REAL supporter of liberty pointed out (Thank you to Cajuncocoa for that video in the other thread.)

I don't claim to get everything right, but war with Iran is no freaking joke...

No, the bill says absolutely nothing about an "attack" on Israel.

 

[Warlord]

I have to ask you this again. How can you call me a "troll" when you've already been banned from this forum for inappropriate behavior?

Warlord studied the relevant rules following advice from his cousin.

 

[klamath]

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.

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.


This.

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

Ah so you support an action that will result in war...... Some peace lover you are Yeaw I might have been reluctant to put the life of my family on the line to fight for TJ's right to get rich off the backs of slaves and to make sure he NEVER had to go before the muskets.

 

[cero]

How am I wrong? You claimed the first bill was AIPAC special. Claimed Rand had to vote for this bill because fear of anti-semitism smear and this vote insulates him from that. Are you seriously pretending the crowd that does the smearing is going to say "boy that first Israel Lobby bill he was the lone voter against wasn't an anti-semetic vote, but this second one DEFINITELY WAS!" I can't imagine anyone even vaguely familiar with the way AIPAC and their various offshoots/fellow travelers operates would believe that.

again read what the fuck i said, the first vote was a vote AGAINST WAR, which is way easier to defend if rand is attacked with it in 2016
but this bill, is a bill not about wAR but about standing with Israel if LEGITIMATELY attacked.

 

[tsai3904]

The last resolution Rand voted against had this line:

(7) rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran

Rand spoke out against this line because saying containment is not an option is an endorsement of pre-emptive war.

Listen to him speak out against pre-emptive war just six months ago:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFip8TclifU

This resolution doesn't say that containment is not an option and this resolution requires Congressional approval of force (which the last resolution did not). I still think it's more probable that Rand supports this resolution because he supports most of the language and that it actually tries to prevent a pre-emptive war.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Warlord studied the relevant rules following advice from his cousin.

You're referring to yourself in the third person. Multiple times. Either you're venom, gollum, or itshappening. Which one is it?


And where are you guys getting this "Attack" on Israel crap that TradCon correctly identified as non-existant?

 

[TaftFan]

The way I see it, Rand may turn off some hardcore supporters but if elected would probably have the most libertarian foreign policy in a century. But he has made clear he isn't a noninterventionist. Keep in mind that minarchists or constitutionalists automatically violate libertarian principles as well in the domestic spheres.

Following simple ideas like the following automatically reduce conflict and military spending while still allowing us to be safe:

*only Congress may declare war
*wars will be fought swiftly and to win, not nation build
*brinkmanship with other nations will only occur with those aggressively positioning themselves against us
*terrorism will be fought with special forces and letters of marque and reprisal

 

[sailingaway]

Um... is this what you're reduced to then? His vote against one and for one are two separate things. I bet he has his own reasons but i cant be bothered looking it up. This resolution is quite WEAK compared to previous ones they pass for Iraq and stuff. This doesn't even talk about regime change or anything and it says anything comes back to congress. This is a weak resolution. You're attempts to paint it otherwise have failed and your trolling exposed.

says the guy from May 2013 (?)

It is on all sides though. We can disagree without attacking forum members, and remember that attacks are against TOS.

 

[Brett85]

lmmaooooooooooooo, so you are saying that the other bill is irrelevant because to quote you: "is non binding resolution that had no force of law"
but for this bill, you are throwing fits all over the place, even thou again to quote you is a "non binding resolution that had no force of law"
you are a hypocrite you know that...

also, for you to tell me that sending economic aid to Israel is WORSE than preemptive war with Iran, just shows how much of a tard you are.

It's not economic aid, the resolution mentions "military aid," which means using military action to help them. I didn't say that the first resolution was meaningless but this one isn't. I was saying that if your argument is that Rand should just vote in favor of all non binding resolutions because they're all "meaningless," then he should've voted in favor of the first one as well.

 

[Warlord]

The last resolution Rand voted against had this line:



Rand spoke out against this line because saying containment is not an option is an endorsement of pre-emptive war.

Listen to him speak out against pre-emptive war just six months ago:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFip8TclifU

This resolution doesn't say that containment is not an option and this resolution requires Congressional approval of force (which the last resolution did not). I still think it's more probable that Rand supports this resolution because he supports most of the language and that it actually tries to prevent a pre-emptive war.

Rand's a neocon!

 

[Christian Liberty]

Warlord studied the relevant rules following advice from his cousin.

The last resolution Rand voted against had this line:



Rand spoke out against this line because saying containment is not an option is an endorsement of pre-emptive war.

Listen to him speak out against pre-emptive war just six months ago:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFip8TclifU

This resolution doesn't say that containment is not an option and this resolution requires Congressional approval of force (which the last resolution dis not). I still think it's more probable that Rand supports this resolution because he supports most of the language and that it actually tries to prevent a pre-emptive war.

No it doesn't try to "Stop" anything. A real freedom lover, such as Ron Paul, tries to "Stop" an aggressive war by opposing the aggressive war, and pointing out that Iran actually wants these weapons for its own protection.

If Rand Paul opposed this kind of thing six months ago, all that tells me is that DC corrupts me. I actually feel stupid now because the LewRockwell crowd and a couple of other ancaps pointed out to me that Rand would almost certainly sell out and I didn't believe he would. I was wrong.

I know he's iffy now, but I STRONGLY believe that by 2016, TradCon won't be supporting Rand anymore.