US Senate: Will back Israeli attack on Iran

[DeMintConservative]

I'll keep waiting till someone can cite which part of the law " bill actually says is that the U.S should help out Israel militarily if they launch a preemptive strike on Iran".

The bill I'm reading explicitly states self-defense ad verbatim.

Do I have the wrong version or something?

I suspect I'll wait forever.

Where exactly does the bill "construct such an attack as "Defense" and says we should help "Defend" Israel if they do it"? Like can we start using some citations here?

Now, it's not about the bill any more. It's just another pretext for the anti-Israel paranoiac crowd to scream. Proof: they flat out "read" things in the bill there simply aren't there.

Wh

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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.

I believe Jacob Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, and Dick Cheney are set to make quite a bit of money.

Fuck Israel.

 

[Brett85]

I'll keep waiting till someone can cite which part of the law " bill actually says is that the U.S should help out Israel militarily if they launch a preemptive strike on Iran".

The bill I'm reading explicitly states self-defense ad verbatim.

Do I have the wrong version or something?

I suspect I'll wait forever.

Where exactly does the bill "construct such an attack as "Defense" and says we should help "Defend" Israel if they do it"? Like can we start using some citations here?

Now, it's not about the bill any more. It's just another pretext for the anti-Israel paranoiac crowd to scream. Proof: they flat out "read" things in the bill there simply aren't there.

Wh

The bill states that a preemptive strike against Iran is "self defense." We aren't talking about coming to Israel's defense if they get attacked. The bill specifically mentioned a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. If Israel wants to strike Iran's nuclear facilities we shouldn't get in their way, but they shouldn't need our help.

 

[DeMintConservative]

The bill states that a preemptive strike against Iran is "self defense." .

Again, where?

I keep asking this.

At this point, I have to consider you're flat out making that up or that one of us simply has a wrong version of the bill.

Here's the version I'm reading:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...tack-on-Iran&p=4979604&viewfull=1#post4979604

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Again, where?

I keep asking this.

At this point, I have to consider you're flat out making that up or that one of us simply has a wrong version of the bill.

Here's the version I'm reading:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...tack-on-Iran&p=4979604&viewfull=1#post4979604

#5
#7
and #8

The last sentence is trivial. Since when have they needed a declaration of war?

 

[Christian Liberty]

The bill states that a preemptive strike against Iran is "self defense." We aren't talking about coming to Israel's defense if they get attacked. The bill specifically mentioned a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. If Israel wants to strike Iran's nuclear facilities we shouldn't get in their way, but they shouldn't need our help.

While I agree that its not our job to intervene, Israel has only itself to blame if Iran decides to try to bomb them back to the stone age in response.

Granted, Israel will end up winning, but they's be completely unjustified.

 

[Brett85]

Again, where?

I keep asking this.

At this point, I have to consider you're flat out making that up or that one of us simply has a wrong version of the bill.

Here's the version I'm reading:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...tack-on-Iran&p=4979604&viewfull=1#post4979604

I see your point now. It was another bill I was looking at before that included that language.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:5:./temp/~c113PGeZOX::

"(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."

 

[DeMintConservative]

#5
#7
and #8

The last sentence is trivial. Since when have they needed a declaration of war?

#5 reaffirms the US policy in regards to Iran's possessing nuclear weapons. One might agree or disagree with it, but it doesn't equate to a support for an aggression war.

#7 and #8 state that the US will support Israel in the case they take military action in self-defense. Exactly what I've been saying. Self-defense is written there. I have no idea how can people contort the facts like that. It's truly Orwellian and flat out scary.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

#5 reaffirms the US policy in regards to Iran's possessing nuclear weapons. One might agree or disagree with it, but it doesn't equate to a support for an aggression war.

#7 and #8 state that the US will support Israel in the case they take military action in self-defense. Exactly what I've been saying. Self-defense is written there. I have no idea how can people contort the facts like that. It's truly Orwellian and flat out scary.

I am not contorting facts. I believe you have been arguing that self-defense can be preemptive, correct? That is some troublesome logic. I'm not sure if you wish to debate the merits of Obama's imminent != immediate horseshit, but uh, yes it does. Preemptive strikes are authorized when there is a clear and present threat. Iran might could, would, in the future maybe have nuclear capabilities isn't it.

(5) reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy;

They love vague wording such as this. "Such action as may be necessary," huh? That's going to get us involved in another quagmire of a clusterfuck called Iran. More perpetual warfare that my senators (they don't deserve a capital) are all for. I can't figure it out. It really baffles me the level of support Israel gets. (when they are an invented terrorist State, and are not the same as the Israel from the Old Testament [The 12 Tribes]) For all the average American could know or care they might as well be in Uganda. And we'd be in Africa instead of the Middle East. White phosphorus or armored bulldozered displacement and Palestinian checkpoints != freedom. And I wonder why Genie Energy is given a contract to drill in the Golan Heights.

 

[DeMintConservative]

I am not contorting facts. I believe you have been arguing that self-defense can be preemptive, correct? .

No.

Never.

Not even close.

But don't let facts stop you.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465
I am not contorting facts. I believe you have been arguing that self-defense can be preemptive, correct? .

No.

Never.

Not even close.

But don't let facts stop you.

From the one who seemed to have taken a slight offense that only a partial quote was used, this is somewhat ironic.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 are you referring to if not a preemptive strike?

And feel free to respond to the other parts of post #49.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Here's what the bill actually says:

(7) declares that the United States has a vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel, and reaffirms United States support for Israel's right to self-defense; and

(8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

Here's the text of the imaginary bill people have been talking about ITT:

(7) declares that the United States has a vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel, and reaffirms United States support for Israel's right to pre-emptively attack Iran; and

(8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action against Iran, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

It's hilarious.

The right to self-defense is one of the pillars of non-interventionism and the NAP/NIF principles. Otherwise it'd be pacifism and non-violence principle.

The bill explicitly qualifies "in the case of self-defense".

Yet, people managed to completely disregard that little fact.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Sigh.

 

[DeMintConservative]

From the one who seemed to have taken a slight offense that only a partial quote was used, this is somewhat ironic.



What are you referring to if not a preemptive strike?

And feel free to respond to the other parts of post #49.

I'm referring, as it's explained, that self-defense is not non-violence. That self-defense is taking countermeasures. As I said: Self-defense implies action from the victim part. You take military action in self-defense by using military action as a countermeasure to an attack.

This isn't hard to understand.

I stopped reading right after that first sentence because I have little patience for paranoiac strawmen.

To be clear: self-defense is not "being attacked, period" - which was what I was contesting. Self-defense doesn't mean violence can't be used against others. Asking "how can you take military action in self-defense?" - which was what I was contesting - is nonsensical.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 From the one who seemed to have taken a slight offense that only a partial quote was used, this is somewhat ironic.

I stopped reading right after that first sentence because I have little patience for paranoiac strawmen.

This is very ironic.


I'll say it in the kindest, simplest way I can. Israel should not have a damn thing to do with me. Us funding over $30,000 for every man, woman, and child there. Us funding Iron Dome missile defenses. Us in turn funding our own weapons manufacturers by way of giving Israel aid that is in turn spent here. (where certain Congressmen's districts are) You can dismiss it all. I'm just 'paranoid.' You won't address my points whatsoever so whatever.

If the Uganda proposal would have passed, I bet the Middle East would look differently. Africa would be headquarters though; Where the 'radicals' dwell.

 

[Brett85]

I'm referring, as it's explained, that self-defense is not non-violence. That self-defense is taking countermeasures. As I said: Self-defense implies action from the victim part. You take military action in self-defense by using military action as a countermeasure to an attack.

This isn't hard to understand.

I stopped reading right after that first sentence because I have little patience for paranoiac strawmen.

To be clear: self-defense is not "being attacked, period" - which was what I was contesting. Self-defense doesn't mean violence can't be used against others. Asking "how can you take military action in self-defense?" - which was what I was contesting - is nonsensical.

Did you see the resolution I posted that's almost exactly the same but refers to "Iran's nuclear facilities?"

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Hey, can I get a bunch of people to agree to recognize my neighbors property as being mine if I go sit there, then if they, or their friends, come at me I can defend myself?

edit: If I can hold it long enough, with lots of help, well, all the other stuff about it being theirs is old history.

 

[DeMintConservative]

This is very ironic.


I'll say it in the kindest, simplest way I can. Israel should not have a damn thing to do with me. Us funding over $30,000 for every man, woman, and child there. Us funding Iron Dome missile defenses. Us in turn funding our own weapons manufacturers by way of giving Israel aid that is in turn spent here. (where certain Congressmen's districts are) You can dismiss it all. I'm just 'paranoid.' You won't address my points whatsoever so whatever.

If the Uganda proposal would have passed, I bet the Middle East would look differently. Africa would be headquarters though; Where the 'radicals' dwell.

But why don't you defend that without making up that this bill affirms the US will back an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran? When it clearly doesn't - it's in the case of self-defense and it's explicitly, ad verbatim, stated in the bill.

That was my only point in this thread. Do you actually disagree with anything I said? I don't think so.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

But why don't you defend that without making up that this bill affirms the US will back an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran? When it clearly doesn't - it's in the case of self-defense and it's explicitly, ad verbatim, stated in the bill.

That was my only point in this thread. Do you actually disagree with anything I said? I don't think so.

I actually just showed up to the conversation. I was somewhat annoyed by your, "I'm surprised people here aren't aware of the Six Day War," etc comment. You didn't seem to be aware that Israel is on stolen land. (as well as the other war crimes committed) Frankly, I don't like that we funded and armed them in the first place. Not because of crackpot theories but because of factual evidence of what they've done and their creation.

The first two graphics probably will need saved to view them. I don't think it will show up correctly here. It's a good summary of the area and creation of Israel over the last 100 years or so.

 

[DeMintConservative]

I actually just showed up to the conversation. I was somewhat annoyed by your, "I'm surprised people here aren't aware of the Six Day War," etc comment.

Actually I never mentioned the Six Day War.

I mentioned the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and the Yom Kippur War.

Don't you agree Israel has a right to self-defense that they exercised in those wars?