76 Terrorist Senators support war against Iran.

[Darwin333]

Can anyone tell me if there is anything that is actually binding in SR 65 or if any sort of new power is granted or compelled of the administration that it doesn't already have? I read a lot of words like "urges" and stuff but no "SHALL", the bill could "urge" the entire Senate to suck off a donkey and it would be just as legally binding as what I read in the post above.

 

[Darwin333]

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

Unless you are reading something that I haven't, the resolution doesn't set any policy. It simply "urges" a policy. Words like "urge" are virtually meaningless in law, if it said "shall" then you would have reason for concern.

 

[Fern]

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.

Strikes me as a fear mongering based on semantics/word play.

Seems to a resolution about preventing Iran from obtaining something it already has is useless. I.e., it would be stillborn because once that threshold has passed nothing is mandated. It is only mandated to "prevent" and you cannot prevent what has already happened.

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.

As others have noted, this is only a resolution to urge etc. I.e., it is 'PR'.

Although it has nothing to do with this resolution, I think we do have risk of entering the conflict should Israel go after Iran. I think many countries do.

From what I hear, but don't claim to know, if Israel were to attack Iran other countries may be drawn in if Iran were to retaliate by trying to shut down the straights and stop oil (and other) shipping. This is because Israel was said to lack the capability to defend the straights and/or sufficiently degrade Iran's military capability. Shutting down the straight cannot be tolerated by the world community.

So, if true and Israel attacks looks like we may have a very problematic situation thrust upon us. Likewise for most all countries.

But the resolution itself is a big 'nothing' IMO.

Fern

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

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.

I suppose it would make no sense to those who automatically assume the very worst of scenarios based on specious reasoning and a dose of fearmongering. Unfortunately that seems to include quite a few people here in P&N.

Don't count me as a member of that group. Certain members of this forum have been proclaiming we are going to war with Iran for at least as long as I've been a member here and surely for longer than that.

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.

There is more than a risk of military action being inflicted on Iran if it continues to follow down its current path; it's highly likely. This resolution isn't a pathway to that action though.

This resolution is nothing more than a Senatorial handjob to Israel. Does anyone in here think it is pure coincidence that it closely follows Obama's recent visit to Israel? It's a reassurance that the US and Israel are still besties and a notice to Iran that our support for Israel has not waned. It's all part of the International political game.

 

[PowerYoga]

NK before Iran imo.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

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.

Do you think the intent of the Iraq resolution by Clinton, et al, was to lay a foundation for war?

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.

The drone bombings are an offshoot of the war in Afghanistan, which really should be called the war against the Taliban. We no longer fight against Afghanistan and haven't since we toppled the Taliban there. Afghanistan was an inherited war and I'm glad Obama didn't abandon a cause that the US had already invested so much into.

Still having personnel currently in Iraq constitutes warmongering? So we are still warmongering in Germany and Japan too? afaik, we have as many, if not more personnel in those countries.

Libya? Wasn't the US a portion of greater UN and NATO actions?

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

Our policy is to support Israel. Exactly what that would consist of is speculation at this point. My opinion, which I have stated in here before, is that if Iranian nuclear facilities are attacked Iran will make a huge stink about it at the UN but it won't go beyond that.

I believe Iran is absolutely terrified at the thought of engaging Israel. If they tried and Israel kicked their collective asses to oblivion, a very likely scenario, they would never recover. After all of their snarling about Israel over the years they would be the laughing-stock of the ME; a toothless anklebiter.