Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday

[pcosmar]

where the FUCK ARE YOU GETTING THIS, where IN THIS BILL DOES IT SAY WE TAKE MILITARY ACTIONS against IRAN, if Israel attacks them?

You can bet we will when Israel gets it's nose bloodied.
And they have been picking this fight.

But this is all predictable,, and must happen. I just wish the US would stay out of it.
It is clear that will NOT be the case.

 

[tsai3904]

I didn't have as much of a problem with his statement on that since he was specifically talking about an "attack" on Israel. I have a problem with the idea that the U.S government should provide military support to Israel if they decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which is what I believe this resolution says.

Is it possible that Rand views "legitimate" self defense as Israel being attacked? Is that even a remote possibility given Rand's long held views against pre-emptive war?

 

[devil21]

Btw, did it occur to anyone that resolutions like this are specifically offered to point out who AIPAC needs to politically target in advance of any military action or possibly even to single out "pesky" politicians like Rand for smearing?

So say Rand votes against it. What's that mean? AIPAC gets to start targeting him now since they have solid ammo to use against him to smear him. Sure, the .01% that is the purist vote will be happy but the establishment then gets to tear him apart to the rest of the uninformed voting populace and blunt his power to be effective WHEN/IF such a military scenario arises. They can just say "Oh ignore that guy, Krauthammer says he hates jews."

Good lord, some people need to learn how politics works!

 

[Brett85]

Is it possible that Rand views "legitimate" self defense as Israel being attacked? Is that even a remote possibility given Rand's long held views against pre-emptive war?

I hope so. I would like him to address this and explain his reasoning for this vote, but I doubt he will.

 

[DylanWaco]

Btw, did it occur to anyone that resolutions like this are specifically offered to point out who AIPAC needs to politically target in advance of any military action or possibly even to single out "pesky" politicians like Rand?

So say Rand votes against it. What's that mean? AIPAC gets to start targeting him now since they have solid ammo to use against him to smear him. Sure, the .01% that is the purist vote will be happy but the establishment then gets to tear him apart to the rest of the uninformed voting populace and blunt his power to be effective WHEN/IF such a military scenario arises. They can just say "Oh ignore that guy, Krauthammer says he hates jews."

Good lord, some people need to learn how politics works!

This would be an entirely plausible explanation if Rand hadn't taken the stand he took on the previous bill and on Syria the day before, both hardline anti-AIPAC positions.

 

[Brett85]

Btw, did it occur to anyone that resolutions like this are specifically offered to point out who AIPAC needs to politically target in advance of any military action or possibly even to single out "pesky" politicians like Rand for smearing?

So say Rand votes against it. What's that mean? AIPAC gets to start targeting him now since they have solid ammo to use against him to smear him. Sure, the .01% that is the purist vote will be happy but the establishment then gets to tear him apart to the rest of the uninformed voting populace and blunt his power to be effective WHEN/IF such a military scenario arises. They can just say "Oh ignore that guy, Krauthammer says he hates jews."

Good lord, some people need to learn how politics works!

Right, but if that was Rand's thinking he would've voted for the first AIPAC resolution that was a 99-1 vote.

 

[sailingaway]

I just called you out for picking and choosing w/e fits to support your arguments with out looking at the whole thing, and you pull this.....

wooow, is the internet grow a pair, the fact that you can't defend your arguments and instead hide behind the "your hurt MY FEELINGS SO I WONT TALK TO YOU" card to not even argue and try to defend your point is pathetic.

cut it out.

 

[cero]

You can bet we will when Israel gets it's nose bloodied.
And they have been picking this fight.

But this is all predictable,, and must happen. I just wish the US would stay out of it.
It is clear that will NOT be the case.

yes and rand will be there to vote no against war with Iran.
besides this whole argument is dumb
Devil is right

Also says the resolution is not an AUMF and that any action on the part of Congress must go through proper Congressional procedure. What's that mean? It can be properly debated, properly voted on, and (hopefully) properly SHOT DOWN. Like the Constitution proscribes. Again, this is not the time for this battle....when the entire scenario is hypothetical and not even realistically likely to happen.

Also says the resolution is not an AUMF and that any action on the part of Congress must go through proper Congressional procedure. What's that mean? It can be properly debated, properly voted on, and (hopefully) properly SHOT DOWN. Like the Constitution proscribes. Again, this is not the time for this battle....when the entire scenario is hypothetical and not even realistically likely to happen.

Also says the resolution is not an AUMF and that any action on the part of Congress must go through proper Congressional procedure. What's that mean? It can be properly debated, properly voted on, and (hopefully) properly SHOT DOWN. Like the Constitution proscribes. Again, this is not the time for this battle....when the entire scenario is hypothetical and not even realistically likely to happen.

and lol at traditional negging me for calling him out, please gooo

 

[tsai3904]

I hope so. I would like him to address this and explain his reasoning for this vote, but I doubt he will.

So it's clear that it's vague right? If he doesn't address his position, wouldn't it be hard to emphatically say Rand supports pre-emptive war?

It's like that Feinstein amendment on indefinite detention where Rand, Mike Lee, McCain and Graham all voted for. People were saying Rand voted to allow indefinite detention but it was clear that Rand's intent was to prohibit indefinite detention. But since the amendment was vague, many people were claiming Rand sold out and voted for indefinite detention.

 

[Warlord]

Right, but if that was Rand's thinking he would've voted for the first AIPAC resolution that was a 99-1 vote.

tsai has explained to you the difference but you keep repeating this line.... why dont you read what tsai posted again and watch the youtube video he posted?

 

[cero]

cut it out.

ok....

but to be clear I called him out for nit picking, to justify his attacks on rand and then he refuses to acknowledged it....

 

[Brett85]

So it's clear that it's vague right? If he doesn't address his position, wouldn't it be hard to emphatically say Rand supports pre-emptive war?

Yes, but vagueness is a reason to vote against it, not for it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The thing about that is we usually allow some venting and actual attempts to figure out what is going on when some big event happens (at least unless it is really sensitive timing) even in that person's forum.

But at the end of the day, this is Rand's forum and it is here to support him, so if your purpose was to condemn Rand continually, rather than just finding out what is going on and reacting in the moment, this would not be the subforum to hang out in.

I'm just upset ATM. I don't intend to continually harp on it forever. If I cross any lines let me know and I'll back off. I don't have any intention of making trouble here (Well, actual trouble anyway, I'm not just going to agree with people when I think they're wrong, of course.)

Do you believe Rand when he says an attack on Israel is an attack on US?

I didn't have as much of a problem with his statement on that since he was specifically talking about an "attack" on Israel. I have a problem with the idea that the U.S government should provide military support to Israel if they decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which is what I believe this resolution says.

I still didn't like it, but I was willing to compromise that much. Not with what he just voted for.

That's setting the bar incredibly low, isn't it?

I question whether Rand could even restrain himself as much as Reagan at this point. I only hope so. Calvin Coolidge would absolutely blow him out of the water. Carter sucked domestically but he would probably blow Rand out of the water on FP as well.

I hope so. I would like him to address this and explain his reasoning for this vote, but I doubt he will.

He'd better do a DARN good job if he wants any of my support. As in, I can't see it happening. The Bill is painfully clear and it doesn't limit itself to an actual attack on Israel.

 

[Brett85]

I didn't say that Rand supports "preemptive war." I just said that he voted for a resolution that I view as a pledge to provide military support to Israel if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

 

[devil21]

Right, but if that was Rand's thinking he would've voted for the first AIPAC resolution that was a 99-1 vote.

Still waiting for you to post the text of the resolution you keep referring to. Maybe I missed it?

AIPAC would have loved it if Rand voted against this resolution. It would create a nice news cycle for slamming him, particularly after his polling numbers have been climbing steadily.

You can call him a flip flopper if that's your argument but the rest of this thread is full of such hyperbole that it's impossible to take you seriously.

 

[sailingaway]

but I called him out for nit picking, to justify his attacks on rand and then he refuses to acknowledged it....

It isn't your reason but your attacks that are the issue. You can say he is nit picking without:

you forgot this part you giant trolling piece of dodo

why the fuck are you just picking and choosing whatever suits your trolling needs?

wooow, is the internet grow a pair, the fact that you can't defend your arguments and instead hide behind the "your hurt MY FEELINGS SO I WONT TALK TO YOU" card to not even argue and try to defend your point is pathetic.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I didn't say that Rand supports "preemptive war." I just said that he voted for a resolution that I view as a pledge to provide military support to Israel if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Rand may well oppose preemptive war, but he just voted for a resolution that justifies it.

That's simply not cool, for the same reason that a nonbinding resolution recommending that parents kill their two year old children would still simply not be cool. And the reason for that is NOT because utilitarianism dictates that 99% of people wouldn't like it, its because its wrong! And so the same principles apply. Man up and vote principle. Don't vote for Rand Paul.

 

[Christian Liberty]

@TC- Those last two sentences, for the record, were more addressed at other people than they are at you.

 

[cero]

Rand may well oppose preemptive war, but he just voted for a resolution that justifies it.

That's simply not cool, for the same reason that a nonbinding resolution recommending that parents kill their two year old children would still simply not be cool. And the reason for that is NOT because utilitarianism dictates that 99% of people wouldn't like it, its because its wrong! And so the same principles apply. Man up and vote principle. Don't vote for Rand Paul.

did you finally read the bill? because those are some pretty strong assertions you are making there.

 

[tsai3904]

Yes, but vagueness is a reason to vote against it, not for it.

I agree with you and I wouldn't have voted for it.

What I have trouble with some is they don't take into account Rand's body of work (his speeches, votes, etc.).

When Rand said he supports drones killing a robber, it was 100% obvious to me given his filibuster and his fight against indefinite detention that he didn't support killing people with no due process or if it wasn't an imminent threat but some took Rand at his words and went around claiming that Rand supported killing people who just robbed a liquor store with no due process.

When Rand voted for that vague indefinite detention amendment by Feinsten, it was obvious to me that Rand wasn't intending to support indefinite detention given his past statements. It may have been a bad interpretation of the bill but I doubt his intentions changed.

It's the same in this situation for me. Just six months ago, Rand was on the floor arguing against pre-emptive war. This resolution is much different than the last one and it says Congressional approval is required. Given Rand's history, I highly doubt Rand changed his view on pre-emptive war.