US Senate: Will back Israeli attack on Iran

Orgoonian

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
730
WASHINGTON — Members of the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee have adopted "Senate Resolution 65," according to which the US will support Israel in case it is compelled to take military action and actualize its right to self defense in the face of an Iranian threat.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4368598,00.html

Woo hoo!
israel first eh comrades?


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?"
 
Text of resolution:

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

Congress--

(1) reaffirms the special bonds of friendship and cooperation that have existed between the United States and the State of Israel for more than sixty years and that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and among the people of the United States;

(2) strongly supports the close military, intelligence, and security cooperation that President Obama has pursued with Israel and urges this cooperation to continue and deepen;

(3) deplores and condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the reprehensible statements and policies of the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran threatening the security and existence of Israel;

(4) recognizes the tremendous threat posed to the United States, the West, and Israel by the Government of Iran's continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability;

(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;

(6) reaffirms its strong support for the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urges the President to continue and strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation;

(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.

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.
 
"Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

I don't think that section would've been added if Rand weren't in the Senate.
 
"Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

Since when do we need a declaration of war?
 
"Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

I don't think that section would've been added if Rand weren't in the Senate.

Is Rand voting for this crap? If he is I'd have to wonder how useful he actually is.
in self-defense

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.
 
Is Rand voting for this crap? If he is I'd have to wonder how useful he actually is.

I hope not. I'm just saying that they've included that line in every one of these resolutions since Rand held up a sanctions bill and insisted that the line be included in the bill.
 
12 out of the 22 co-sponsors of this bill are Democrats. Maybe we can put to rest the idea that the Democrats are any more anti war or any better than Republicans on foreign policy issues.
 
12 out of the 22 co-sponsors of this bill are Democrats. Maybe we can put to rest the idea that the Democrats are any more anti war or any better than Republicans on foreign policy issues.

I don't know. As bad as Obama's foreign policy has been, I would be surprised if we didn't get worse from John Mccain.

Obviously it depends on the Republican. Ron Paul was more anti war than even Kucinich was. Political labels don't really matter.
 
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.
 
Is Rand voting for this crap? If he is I'd have to wonder how useful he actually is.

Unfortunately, he did vote for it in the Senate committee. However, they did water down the wording before it was passed. I still don't like it though.
 
All this WARing/Attacking out of North Korea, yet, nothing from the world's totalitarian empires appear ready to attack them via gibberish US Senate Resolutions...

But IRAN has been the target... for they are the gasp of free enterprise banking to the FIAT world crap all the serfs/mundanes are forced to use, The schemes and scams by their puppet governments for the Banking Elite.

Qaddafi warned Arab leaders about it and... YOU'RE NEXT... too bad he didn't realize half the monarchy oppressive regime Arab nations are bought into FIAT international banking. Here's a cool video, when Qaddafi spoke to Arab leaders Doha, 2008, about western nations/US-NATO will be coming for them next... @ the 7:00 minute mark, the camera catches Syria president Assad laughing @ Qaddafi. Guess old Muammar was correct and ahead of the game, too bad the CIA/CFR/Mi6 recognized this and targeted him next and I presume Assad ain't laughing now.

They're playing the same game with Iran... read every word Qaddafi says... he knew the bullshit going on in this world, and 'team propaganda' created the world's next pariah to assassinate. On Deck... Evil dark-eyed Iranians.

 
Last edited:
Integrity is not passed down genetically, it is also not necessarilly the result of an ubringing. If Rand votes for this then I call hot air on his fillibuster and will consider him a lost cause. He did vote for it? Well, th-th-th-thats all folks.
 
Integrity is not passed down genetically, it is also not necessarilly the result of an ubringing. If Rand votes for this then I call hot air on his fillibuster and will consider him a lost cause. He did vote for it? Well, th-th-th-thats all folks.

He's already voted for sanctions on Iran and said that an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.

However, I'm pretty sure he didn't "vote" on this resolution. Things that pass unanimously without recorded votes are usually done with no one around and done by voice vote. Most times, its just one person saying aye since its assumed it will pass unanimously.
 
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.

Shut up you ignorant twat.
 
Integrity is not passed down genetically, it is also not necessarilly the result of an ubringing. If Rand votes for this then I call hot air on his fillibuster and will consider him a lost cause. He did vote for it? Well, th-th-th-thats all folks.

I can't say for sure. Is says that it passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously, and Rand is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But, it's possible he wasn't there to vote on it.
 
I'm ticked off. If you really did vote for this Rand, congratulations. You'rre on a thin tightrope with me. I am NOT AFRAID to give me first vote to the Libertarian or Constitution Party.

I'm watching and I hope everyone else is watching to. You're becomming too much of a Republican. Stop.
 
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.
 
Back
Top