76 Terrorist Senators support war against Iran.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Link.

The question is "will the commander in chief give these 76 Senators their wish?"

If he doesn't, then there will be a coup committed by the true terrorists, the neocons. If he does, then the U.S. Federal Republic will still end as America can't afford to fight Iran's allies.

I should note that I was happy to see Rand Paul was not one of the 76 neoconservative terrorists.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Sure hope Pat is wrong about this one.



http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2013/03/21/goading-gullible-america-into-war/

"Goading Gullible America Into War"

As President Obama departed for Israel, there came a startling report. Bashar Assad’s regime had used poison gas on Syrian rebels.

Two Israeli Cabinet members claimed credible evidence. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said, “It’s clear for us that (gas is) being used. … This … should be on the table in the discussions.”

Yet, 72 hours later, the United States still cannot confirm that gas was used, and Syria and Russia have called on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to investigate whether it was used, and if so, by whom.

What’s going on here?

It does not require Inspector Clouseau to surmise this may be a fabrication to stampede the ever-gullible Americans into plunging into Syria to win the war for the al-Qaida-saturated Syrian rebels.

But sucking America into Syria’s civil war is only a near-term goal for the War Party, which is after larger game — greasing the skids for a U.S. war on Iran.

And lest we underestimate the War Party, the likelihood is they will get their war. For they have already gotten Obama to make concessions that are steering us inexorably toward such a war.

First, Obama was persuaded to declare it U.S. policy that, where Iran’s uranium-enrichment program is concerned, “All options are on the table!” Translation: Absent major concessions by Iran, proving she is not seeking a nuclear weapon, war against Iran is in the cards.

Yet, even as Obama parrots the mantra, “All options are on the table,” he has been persuaded to take off the table the option that won the Cold War, the George Kennan option of containment and deterrence.

Obama has been goaded into proclaiming that though America contained an evil empire that spanned 13 time zones and possessed thousands of nukes, containment cannot work with Iran.

Why not? Because the ayatollah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, we are solemnly instructed, are religious fanatics who could easily opt for committing collective suicide should they get a bomb — by using that bomb on us.

This, of course, is to attribute to Iran’s leaders an insanity they have never exhibited. Not in memory has Iran started a war. Saddam attacked Iran, not the other way around. When the Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, Ayatollah Khomeini himself ordered the Iraq war ended for fear America was about to intervene on Baghdad’s side.

Now we come to the sinister role of the U.S. Senate in setting the table for war. Consider what Senate Joint Resolution 65, crafted at AIPAC, the Israeli Lobby, and now being shopped around for signing by Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Robert Menendez, does.

SR 65 radically alters U.S. policy by declaring it to be “the policy of the United States … to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy.”

Obama’s policy — no nuclear weapons in Iran — is tossed out. Substituted for it in SR 65 is Bibi Netanyahu’s policy — “no nuclear weapons capability” in Iran.

Now, as Iran already has that “capability” — as does Germany, Japan, South Korea and other nations who have forsworn nuclear weapons — what SR 65 does is authorize the United States to attack Iran — to stop her from what she is doing now. Yet, according to all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran does not have a nuclear bomb program.

Critically, SR 65 goes further and “urges that if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should … provide diplomatic, military and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence.”

Translation: Should Bibi attack Iran, the Senate urges the U.S. military to join in that attack. SR 65 is a blank check to Bibi to go to war with Iran, with a U.S. Senate commitment to join him.

Coupled with House Resolution 850, which calls for crushing new sanctions, SR 65 is designed to so enrage and humiliate Iran that her delegates walk out of negotiations — and war inevitably ensues.

Here then is War Party calendar and countdown.

First, rule out containment and deterrence of Iran, though that policy won the Cold War. Second, rule in a U.S. war on Iran if Tehran does not yield to all our demands in nuclear negotiations.

Third, ensure the negotiations fail by repeated insults, threats, sanctions, and intolerable demands that so humiliate the Iranians that, enraged, they say “to hell with it” and walk out of the talks.

Then, by default, the last “option” left for dealing with Iran — even if she still has not tested a bomb or enriched uranium to bomb grade — will be U.S. air strikes on Fordow and Natanz, cheered on by a War Party that dreams of this day and that war.

Preventing another generation of war dead delivered to Dover should be the first priority of American patriots.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

Read more by Patrick J. Buchanan
 
Last edited:

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Not clicking a lewrockwell link but I'll assume McCain is one of them.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
From the actual resolution:

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

The resolution itself speaks about further sanctions, not war or any sort of military action, unless Israel is attacked first.

Rockwell and Buchanan are simply fearmongering. Why? Because Obama is in office and not 'their boy.'
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
From the actual resolution:

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

The resolution itself speaks about further sanctions, not war or any sort of military action, unless Israel is attacked first.

Rockwell and Buchanan are simply fearmongering. Why? Because Obama is in office and not 'their boy.'


I know for a fact that Pat came out openly against the war with Iraq with similar articles when Bush was in office. So please take your veil assertions of racism and political bias elsewhere.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
I'd like to add that OPs based on opinion like this one along with sensationalism completely devoid of the actual facts, which so many seem to dive right into, is why P&N has become such an utter shithole.

Just stop it already people. Get a fucking grip.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
From the actual resolution:

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

The resolution itself speaks about further sanctions, not war or any sort of military action, unless Israel is attacked first.

Rockwell and Buchanan are simply fearmongering. Why? Because Obama is in office and not 'their boy.'
Given that in the past decade the US has:

1) Attacked and become entrenched in Afghanistan
2) Attacked Iraq over false pretenses and become entrenched there
3) Assisted militarily in Libya
4) Identified a red line in Syria that according to the House Intelligence Committee chair has now been crossed
5) Said nothing is off the table in Iran

It is very reasonable to conclude that the US is gearing up for war with Iran. Pat is not grasping at straws but simply using recent historical precedent and statements from leadership. I make no prediction as to if it will happen, if I had to bet my life on it I'd err cautiously on the side that it won't, but not by a large margin.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Link.

The question is "will the commander in chief give these 76 Senators their wish?"

If he doesn't, then there will be a coup committed by the true terrorists, the neocons. If he does, then the U.S. Federal Republic will still end as America can't afford to fight Iran's allies.

I should note that I was happy to see Rand Paul was not one of the 76 neoconservative terrorists.

The government is going to have to do "something" to justify increasing the military budget.

So why not fabricate something about iran, start a new war, have the federal reserve print more money out of thin air,,, and the cycle continues.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Link.

The question is "will the commander in chief give these 76 Senators their wish?"

If he doesn't, then there will be a coup committed by the true terrorists, the neocons. If he does, then the U.S. Federal Republic will still end as America can't afford to fight Iran's allies.

I should note that I was happy to see Rand Paul was not one of the 76 neoconservative terrorists.

Hmm this looks a lot like the resolution for regime change in Iraq that was passed in 1998 and signed by Clinton.

I guess we can expect an invasion of Iran by the end of the decade after they trump up enough lies to justify it to the american people.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
From the actual resolution:

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

The resolution itself speaks about further sanctions, not war or any sort of military action, unless Israel is attacked first.

Rockwell and Buchanan are simply fearmongering. Why? Because Obama is in office and not 'their boy.'



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Precursor to war

President George W. Bush often referred to the Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002.[8]

No authorization for the use of force. But none the less set our govt on a course for the use of force a whole 4 years later. And was used as a justification when it came time to push for war.
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
...terrorists.

montoya.jpg
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act



No authorization for the use of force. But none the less set our govt on a course for the use of force a whole 4 years later. And was used as a justification when it came time to push for war.
Nothing in this resolution calls for regime change or any sort of action other than stronger sanctions, unless Israel is attacked by Iran. If Israel were to be attacked by Iran the US would go to Israel's defense regardless of whether or not this resolution was passed.

Nor is this 2001. The American people are tired of war. Bush blew the government load in that respect and, other than Israel being directly attacked by Iran, the US public would not support the push for another one. What was Bush's famous mangling of the saying? "Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me - we can't get fooled again."
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
We've already set a precedent for going to war w\ countries over fictional wmd.. nothing to stop it from happening again.

Especially not when people know they were hoodwinked and still defend the actions.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
We've already set a precedent for going to war w\ countries over fictional wmd.. nothing to stop it from happening again.

Especially not when people know they were hoodwinked and still defend the actions.
Seems you truther types would be pushing for war with Iran based on trumped up charges. After all, if we do go to war with them for that reason it would validate your claims. If we don't, it only serves to reinforce what so many already think about you...that you're paranoid and delusional.

Nasty Catch-22, that.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Nothing in this resolution calls for regime change or any sort of action other than stronger sanctions, unless Israel is attacked by Iran. If Israel were to be attacked by Iran the US would go to Israel's defense regardless of whether or not this resolution was passed.

Nor is this 2001. The American people are tired of war. Bush blew the government load in that respect and, other than Israel being directly attacked by Iran, the US public would not support the push for another one. What was Bush's famous mangling of the saying? "Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me - we can't get fooled again."

Come on really? They lay down the ground work for war with this gem.

(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;

What pray tell is the logical end to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? You are arguing semantics as it may as well be regime change given Irans state goals of moving forward with their nuclear program.

As for tired of war. I dont see the American people telling Obama to stop warmongering in the middle east. In fact Obama was just re-elected and given a mandate according to liberals to continue or expand his policies. Policies that include warmongering around the world.

Given the choice between a nuclear Iran and war. I bet enough people in this country would get on the road to war.

Edit:Further it has been shown time and again that this govt believes pre-emptive attack is now defined at "self-defense". So not only are we laying groundwork for our own war. But if Israel "self-defends" itself by pre-emptively attacking Iran. We are going to war at the beckoning of another country.
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Come on really? They lay down the ground work for war with this gem.



What pray tell is the logical end to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? You are arguing semantics as it may as well be regime change given Irans state goals of moving forward with their nuclear program.
You would have a case if the resolution didn't end with:

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

As for tired of war. I dont see the American people telling Obama to stop warmongering in the middle east. In fact Obama was just re-elected and given a mandate according to liberals to continue or expand his policies. Policies that include warmongering around the world.
How many wars has Obama started? How many has he ended?

Claiming Obama is warmongering is disingenuous, at best.

Given the choice between a nuclear Iran and war. I bet enough people in this country would get on the road to war.

Edit:Further it has been shown time and again that this govt believes pre-emptive attack is now defined at "self-defense". So not only are we laying groundwork for our own war. But if Israel "self-defends" itself by pre-emptively attacking Iran. We are going to war at the beckoning of another country.
If it can be proven, with absolute certainty, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is close to producing one I have little doubt that some sort of military action will be taken whether this resolution passes or not.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
You would have a case if the resolution didn't end with:

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

Of course it doesnt authorize war. We all agree on that. It is laying the foundation for the war just like the regime change resolution of 1998.


How many wars has Obama started? How many has he ended?

Claiming Obama is warmongering is disingenuous, at best.

What, you dont consider the weekly drone bombings of people in foreign lands warmongering? Afghanistan is still going strong. iraq, have we truely left? How many "personel" are still in Iraq? Last count I heard tens of thousands. And what about dropping missiles on Libya and enforcing a no-fly zone? I think you need to open up your eyes and realize we are in many places around the world killing people under Obama.

If it can be proven, with absolute certainty, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is close to producing one I have little doubt that some sort of military action will be taken whether this resolution passes or not.

And when that happens and Israel does the "self-defending" what is our policy under this resolution?
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
TLC your position makes no sense here at all.

The US has already gone to war over fictional WMD, millions of Americans have no problems with that even with hind sight, and the president has said nothing is off the table with regard to Iran.

The US was almost certainly a contributor to STUXNET and so has already attacked Iran's nuclear program.

US also supports sanctions against Iran over its program.

I hope the US does not attack Iran over this but it is gravely naieve to think there isn't a risk of it.