Dr. Rand Paul the only senator to vote against a war with Iran

[schneiderguy]

http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-senate-iran-756/

The US Senate voted 90-1 early Saturday on a non-binding resolution to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Voting against the resolution was Sen. Rand Paul, arguing that the bill was a de-facto declaration of war.

The measure, which was introduced several months ago by Senators Lindsey Graham, Bob Casey and Joe Lieberman, supports continuing to pressure Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program. The resolution advocates using methods other than containment to stop Iran, including exerting economic and diplomatic pressure. Senate Joint Resolution 41 “rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.” Senators expressed their fears regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

“We know that Iran would create access for terrorists – access for them – to these nuclear weapons, making the Middle East a nuclear tinbox,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal said before the Senate. “We cannot trust this regime. We know that fact beyond any potential doubt.”

The bill states that it should not be misinterpreted as an endorsement for military force or war. But as the only senator to vote against the resolution, Paul argued that the resolution would eventually lead to war with Iran.

“A vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of preemptive war,” Paul said before the Senate.

Passage of the resolution comes at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been pressuring the US for an answer as to what would prompt a US-led military strike against Iran.

Currently, the US is already imposing tough sanctions on Iran to limit its oil sales, hurt its economy and make it problematic for Iran to finance its nuclear enrichment program.

Iran has continuously insisted that its nuclear program is entirely for peaceful, civilian ends.

I am disgusted with the 90 senators voting in favor. Why do people in the U.S. think we can dictate terms to a country that is half the globe away?

 

[DaveSimmons]

> Why do people in the U.S. think we can dictate terms to a country that is half the globe away?

Because we know they are exporting weapons to Iraq, Syria, etc. and it's very plausible that at some point those weapons could include a suitcase nuke.

 

[Matt1970]

> Why do people in the U.S. think we can dictate terms to a country that is half the globe away?

Because we know they are exporting weapons to Iraq, Syria, etc. and it's very plausible that at some point those weapons could include a suitcase nuke.

I am against an all-out invasion but blowing the hell out of their Nuke capabilities would be a logical choice.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am against an all-out invasion but blowing the hell out of their Nuke capabilities would be a logical choice.

Not even the war mongering Bushistas were quite that stupid.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Not even the war mongering Bushistas were quite that stupid.

But your war mongering Democrat friends in the Senate are and thus this is why this resolution passed with only 1 vote against it. But hey keep calling Bush a war-monger while ignoring the votes (both this vote and the Iraq use of force resolution) of those you cheer for in the end.

 

[TerryMathews]

http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-senate-iran-756/



I am disgusted with the 90 senators voting in favor. Why do people in the U.S. think we can dictate terms to a country that is half the globe away?

Because we have the power, drive, and motivation to do so?

Isolationists in the late 30s made the same argument.

 

[OCGuy]

So because one senator said it was a "defacto bill of war", it was a vote to go to war?

Are you that stupid? Yes.

 

[Thump553]

Thread title is grossly misleading. Buying right in to Junior Paul's misstatement.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Somebody missed the words "non binding"

 

[Charles Kozierok]

...

...non-binding resolution...

 

[SandEagle]

Joe Lieberman? makes sense now.
get me the list. let me try to find out how many have dual citizenships.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

...

How much you want to bet that this thread continues although we both pointed out that it doesn't have anything to do with voting for war?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

How much you want to bet that this thread continues although we both pointed out that it doesn't have anything to do with voting for war?

Well, in fairness, even as a non-binding resolution, it's worth discussing why only one senator stood against this obvious political dog-and-pony show.

 

[cybrsage]

Joe Lieberman? makes sense now.
get me the list. let me try to find out how many have dual citizenships.

Here you go, it was all of them but Senator Paul, according to the OP. Just pretend the 9 who did not vote tacitly voted yes.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 

[Incorruptible]

And this again shows how all our politicians are corrupt and should be kicked out, we need more people like Dr Paul

 

[feralkid]

 

[Jaskalas]

I believe in using all force to stop nuclear proliferation. However, this is countered by our retarded political and military leaders who allow 'nation building' efforts. Wars then become costly 10x over their original price in both coin and blood.

Our leadership is unacceptable and thus I cannot vote in favor of them invading a lemonade stand.

 

[Incorruptible]

I believe in using all force to stop nuclear proliferation. However, this is countered by our retarded political and military leaders who allow 'nation building' efforts. Wars then become costly 10x over their original price in both coin and blood.

Our leadership is unacceptable and thus I cannot vote in favor of them invading a lemonade stand.

Iran doesn't want to nuke Israel like many have stated, its war propaganda so people will believe it and support the war

 

[Jaskalas]

Iran doesn't want to nuke Israel like many have stated, its war propaganda so people will believe it and support the war

You want to wait and see how Islam handles nuclear weapons. I really don't. I would rend the planet of the notion that third world kiloton bombs protect you. Pakistan being a prime target.

Make no mistake, Iran will be there sometime this decade. Maybe they'll be smart and not use or pawn them off to terrorists. Who's next? This is Russian roulette we're playing. Only it's not Russians we're playing with anymore. I can respect a sane adversary, but I cannot respect religious zealots whose primary act of war is martyrdom.

Nuclear proliferation among them is pulling the trigger. You keep hearing it click and nothing happens. Does that mean we're safe?

 

[jman19]

Originally Posted by cybrsage

I will take that bet. If Santorum wins [the nomination], you can leave the forum. If he loses, I will leave.

Not that I want to take this OT, but did cybrsage really say he would leave if Santorum didn't win the nomination?

 

[her209]

Not that I want to take this OT, but did cybrsage really say he would leave if Santorum didn't win the nomination?

Yep. Then he didn't leave. He's a bet welcher.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, in fairness, even as a non-binding resolution, it's worth discussing why only one senator stood against this obvious political dog-and-pony show.

That is most true. My opinion is that it was crafted with one purpose and that is for domestic consumption. We have the deaths in the ME, one minister calling for the execution of the idiot who made the film and is willing to pay 100k for it, the second largest party in Egypt calling for a ban by the UN on offending Muslims.

The arguments brought in on this forum about any other issues are completely irrelevant to the general populace. They don't want to see people like this getting their hands on nukes.

So Congress pulls out a party piece and makes sure it's non-binding because hell they don't want another excuse for an Iraq War. They get to look good, be seen as doing something (although it's a mystery what that actually is besides talking). A suspect a good many people will buy it.

Since neither party wants to be seen as weak they came up with this tidbit, a pretend solidarity, and everyone in DC is satisfied except for Paul. While he is off somewhere I don't want to go he does have a talent for understanding bullshit, and since he's part of one party more or less in name only, his fealty does not extend to all things at all times. He just wouldn't play in this sham, which it really is and he shows that he's not part of the pack.

 

[jman19]

Yep. Then he didn't leave. He's a bet welcher.

Weak. Very weak. The guy is just a troll.