US Senate: Will back Israeli attack on Iran

[erowe1]

Question:
What if israel had Americans in top positions in parlament, foreign affairs,foreign intel,military spending,oh heck,positions in all committee's,control of the media,control of the movie industry,positions in the highest court,control of the top universities,and were trying to do a gun grab,would israel be America's "bitch?"

What are you getting at?

 

[Christian Liberty]

There were 80 Senators who co-sponsored the resolution, and Rand wasn't one of them, so it's possible that he doesn't support it. But, the only way that he didn't vote for it is if he wasn't in the committee room when this was voted on.

Why would he just not be in the room? I've heard of things like that happening before but I don't know why he wouldn't just vote or at least deliberately abstain.

I wouldn't be surprised if he supported it. He knows voting no won't do anything, so he might have just voted yes. That makes me scared of how much resolve he'd have in the White House, with much, much more power than he has now.

He who cannot be trusted with little cannot be trusted with much.

I'm still giving Rand the benefit of the doubt, but if he really did vote for this I am upset.

 

[Brett85]

Why would he just not be in the room? I've heard of things like that happening before but I don't know why he wouldn't just vote or at least deliberately abstain.

I wouldn't be surprised if he supported it. He knows voting no won't do anything, so he might have just voted yes. That makes me scared of how much resolve he'd have in the White House, with much, much more power than he has now.

He who cannot be trusted with little cannot be trusted with much.

I'm still giving Rand the benefit of the doubt, but if he really did vote for this I am upset.

I don't know. I looked at Rand's page, and it showed that he was at a Homeland Security committee hearing on the 17th, the same day that the Foreign Relations committee passed this resolution. It's possible that the two committees were in session at the same time and Rand was at the Homeland Security committee hearing. I guess we'll find out.

 

[pcosmar]

Regardless of Rands Vote,,or lack thereof, the US will fully back any and all of Israels stupidity.

We have done so for 60+ years. Rands vote one way or the other is irrelevant.

I would personally love to see him Oppose and Condemn it,, but that would be political suicide and I don't expect it.

WWIII will happen,, when it is time.

For the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who now restrains will do so, until he be taken out of the way.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

There were 80 Senators who co-sponsored the resolution, and Rand wasn't one of them, so it's possible that he doesn't support it. But, the only way that he didn't vote for it is if he wasn't in the committee room when this was voted on.

80!?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Are all 100 of them going to put on a uniform and gun and go protect Israel? Damn.

 

[DeMintConservative]

How the crap do you "Take military action in self-defense?" Self-defense means someone attacked you, period. Everyone who voted for this thing is an America-hating, peace-hating neo-progressive chicken hawk.

You take military action in self-defense by using military action as a countermeasure to an attack.

This: "Self-defense means someone attacked you, period" is beyond Orwellian.

No, self-defense doesn't mean someone attacked you period.

That's called being attacked.

Self-defense applies action from the victim part.

 

[DeMintConservative]

This is the number one reason why the Jews got kicked out of every country in Europe.They always want to use the country as a puppet to push their interests on the majority and then wonder what has happened when the blowback comes.

Nah, it was racism and the greed of those who hold political power. Jews, like, say, many early settlers in America, were convenient scape goats for times of hardship.

Not that there would a problem with anyone pushing their interests on the majority. Especially their right to protect their propriety and freedom of religion.

Patriotism is the last refugee of the scoundrel.

 

[Brett85]

80!?

Yeah, the vote will probably be 100-0 or 98-0. This is why we need to get Amash in the Senate. He's not quite where Ron is on foreign policy issues either, but he's a little bit stronger than Rand. I don't think he would vote for something like this.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You take military action in self-defense by using military action as a countermeasure to an attack.

This: "Self-defense means someone attacked you, period" is beyond Orwellian.

No, self-defense doesn't mean someone attacked you period.

That's called being attacked.

Self-defense applies action from the victim part.

What the crap are you addressing? Israel cannot attack Iran because of something that they might do in the future and claim that that's defense. Negative rep for either being a neocon or failing to comprehend what I posted.

Yeah, the vote will probably be 100-0 or 98-0. This is why we need to get Amash in the Senate. He's not quite where Ron is on foreign policy issues either, but he's a little bit stronger than Rand. I don't think he would vote for something like this.

I could go for Amash in the senate. What are the main differences between Amash and Rand Paul?

 

[Brett85]

I could go for Amash in the senate. What are the main differences between Amash and Rand Paul?

Not a lot, but Amash has been a little bit better on foreign policy issues, voting against at least some of the Iran sanctions, and being more outspoken about closing down foreign bases.

 

[DeMintConservative]

What the crap are you addressing? Israel cannot attack Iran because of something that they might do in the future and claim that that's defense. Negative rep for either being a neocon or failing to comprehend what I posted.

I'm addressing what you posted:

How the crap do you "Take military action in self-defense?"

I explained how: you're attacked, you take military action.

Just like Israel did in 1948 in Arab-Israeli War or in 1973 in the Yom Kippur War.

Don't you agree Israel has a right to self-defense?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm addressing what you posted:




I explained how: you're attacked, you take military action.

Just like Israel did in 1948 in Arab-Israeli War or in 1973 in the Yom Kippur War.

Don't you agree Israel has a right to self-defense?

I never disagreed with you. I said self defense means you were attacked. I didn't say it means you have to just sit there and take it. Self defense means your opponent struck first.

I don't know what happened in those wars so I can't comment, but if Israel was attacked first, they had a right to do what they needed to do to repel the invasion and attain peace.

An Israeli strike on Iran would be an act of aggression by Israel. Yet the US is idiotically calling such a thing "Self defense".

 

[DeMintConservative]

I never disagreed with you. I said self defense means you were attacked. I didn't say it means you have to just sit there and take it. Self defense means your opponent struck first.

I don't know what happened in those wars so I can't comment, but if Israel was attacked first, they had a right to do what they needed to do to repel the invasion and attain peace.

Well, I'm surprised that some people here don't know what happened on those wars.

In any case, it seems you agree that Israel has a right to self-defense.

If so, can you explain what's exactly your disagreement with a bill that states that? Because in your first post, it seemed you disagreed with the text that states Israel's right to self-defense.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

In any case, it seems you agree that Israel has a right to self-defense.

If so, can you explain what's exactly your disagreement with a bill that states that?

Its own self defense, which means the U.S. not involving itself in a conflict that is between Israel and Iran.

 

[Brett85]

If so, can you explain what's exactly your disagreement with a bill that states that? Because in your first post, it seemed you disagreed with the text that states Israel's right to self-defense.

There would be nothing wrong with this bill if that's all it said, but what the bill actually says is that the U.S should help out Israel militarily if they launch a preemptive strike on Iran.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Its own self defense, which means the U.S. not involving itself in a conflict that is between Israel and Iran.

Sure, but how is that related? I made absolutely clear I was referring to the point about Israel's right to self-defense because of what that poster wrote in his first post. I even asked him what were his disagreements with the bill because in [his] first post, it seemed [he] disagreed with the text that states Israel's right to self-defense. (in fact, it seemed he disagreed with the entire concept of taking military action in self-defense, but he's since cleared that out)

Oh wait, it seems you edited my post to leave out those relevant parts.

People might have reasons to oppose this bill (basically the part expressing US's support for Israel in case they act in self-defense, although I find that a bit silly because Israel's status as a MNNA makes it entirely redundant), but most of the arguments being used here are strawmen. There's nothing in this bill that supports Israel using aggression or preventive military force against Iran.

 

[DeMintConservative]

There would be nothing wrong with this bill if that's all it said, but what the bill actually says is that the U.S should help out Israel militarily if they launch a preemptive strike on Iran.

Where?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I'm surprised that some people here don't know what happened on those wars.

In any case, it seems you agree that Israel has a right to self-defense.

If so, can you explain what's exactly your disagreement with a bill that states that? Because in your first post, it seemed you disagreed with the text that states Israel's right to self-defense.

There would be nothing wrong with this bill if that's all it said, but what the bill actually says is that the U.S should help out Israel militarily if they launch a preemptive strike on Iran.

Yeah, there's literally nothing there that actually says "Israel has a right to self defense." Even if it did, of course, there's no need for America to confirm this, but that's completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

Literally everything in that bill is about American involvement. I can't really say which part when its the whole thing.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It doesn't specifically say Israel should attack Iran, but it does construct such an attack as "Defense" and says we should help "Defend" Israel if they do it.

We're letting Israel dictate our foreign policy and it needs to stop. OPPOSE.