House Votes today to Tie Obama's Hands on Iran

source www.huffingtonpost.com...

Ok it's from the huff post, not my favorite source but still revealing.

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on a resolution designed to tie the president's hands on Iran policy. The resolution, which is coming up under an expedited House procedure, was the centerpiece of AIPAC's recent conference. In fact, 13,000 AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, on the last day of the conference, with instructions to tell the senators and representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution was #1 on AIPAC's election year agenda.

The resolution, which almost surely will pass on Tuesday, is telling the president that he may not "rely on containment" in response to "the Iranian nuclear threat." Since the resolution, and U.S. policy itself defines Iranian possession of nuclear weapons as, ipso facto, a threat, Congress would be telling the president that any U.S. response to that threat other than war is unacceptable. In fact, it goes farther than that, not only ruling out containment of a nuclear armed Iran but also containment of an Iran that has a "nuclear weapons capability."

I can readily see Obama and some Congressmen wanting to delay any action on the Iran/nuke issue until after the November election.

Will Iran become a major election issue? IMO the economy is more important and another war will make it worse.

I wish we would either s### or get off the pot.

When will somebody save us all from the evil American Government?

The Alien Nation is not ok.

let me understand clearly. The US is making a LAW making it illegal (?) to do diplomatic relations with Iran, and making it a LAW to go to war with Iran?

Originally posted by Jameela
let me understand clearly. The US is making a LAW making it illegal (?) to do diplomatic relations with Iran, and making it a LAW to go to war with Iran?

IF Iran ends up with nuclear capabilities, that sure seems to be what this ruling would do.

Wow.

Yet more freaking unrealistic craziness from our "leaders".

I say, sure, do it. As long as they also add a stipulation to the law that states their own kids, grandkids, wives, etc, are the first to be in line to be sent over to the war.

Seriously. That should be on every freaking bill regarding war or war-status that comes out of the capital.

Otherwise, it's a frigging sham, and they all know it. They care NOTHING for who they supposedly "serve" in their "public servant" capacity.

Seems the warmongering AIPAC does not want any diplomacy. Just wait till the warmongers come to this thread and say that Iran is not allowing diplomacy or Iran is not talking when AIPAC is the one not allowing the talking.

Originally posted by Jameela
let me understand clearly. The US is making a LAW making it illegal (?) to do diplomatic relations with Iran, and making it a LAW to go to war with Iran?

Without looking, one presumes this bill was sponsored by Israeli lackeys.

Edit - just did a google search for "AIPAC" to see what it was, and sure enough I was right.

Originally posted by Jameela
let me understand clearly. The US is making a LAW making it illegal (?) to do diplomatic relations with Iran, and making it a LAW to go to war with Iran?

No. The republican party is. Maybe the President can veto it.

Originally posted by BellaSabre

Originally posted by Jameela
let me understand clearly. The US is making a LAW making it illegal (?) to do diplomatic relations with Iran, and making it a LAW to go to war with Iran?

No. The republican party is. Maybe the President can veto it.

He doesn't have to. The house can't do anything more than make fancy speeches that do absolutely nothing unless the Senate also approves and passes the same thing to move to the President.

C'mon people...use some sense here. Our system didn't suddenly change overnight because some folks want to become so partisan they can't walk upright. It still requires the House and Senate (Each party controls one side in a true majority right now) and then the President. 2/3rd of that equation is Democrat and ALL 3 parts need to at least agree in grudging terms or something never becomes more than an idiot making a speech at a press conference.

Hate to break it to you folks, but war is diplomacy.

Does Iran need a nuke? Nope
Does India need a nuke? Nope

Why is one allowed to be nuclear and the other is not? Simple really. India plays politics like every other civilized nation. Yes there is back room deals and large amounts of money being shelled out. However they can be trusted to make AND KEEP agreements. Iran on the other hand, want to continue the tactics of the 5th century. We want to talk, no more talking, we want to talk, no more talking............... it is there way of doing what they want, buying time for themselves, and maintain thier cavemane like ideals of masculine power.

Iran does not need a nuke and the way I see it is simple. A gun is not inherently evil, however I would not give one to a three year old. Maybe (just maybe), if Iran was to move forward into at least the 19th century they could be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by Jameela
let me understand clearly. The US is making a LAW making it illegal (?) to do diplomatic relations with Iran, and making it a LAW to go to war with Iran?

9 posts, and the word Israel only shows up once. Should The American Israel Public Affairs Committee be pulling these strings?

Originally posted by Jomina

Originally posted by Jameela
let me understand clearly. The US is making a LAW making it illegal (?) to do diplomatic relations with Iran, and making it a LAW to go to war with Iran?

IF Iran ends up with nuclear capabilities, that sure seems to be what this ruling would do.

Wow.

Yet more freaking unrealistic craziness from our "leaders".

I say, sure, do it. As long as they also add a stipulation to the law that states their own kids, grandkids, wives, etc, are the first to be in line to be sent over to the war.

Seriously. That should be on every freaking bill regarding war or war-status that comes out of the capital.

Otherwise, it's a frigging sham, and they all know it. They care NOTHING for who they supposedly "serve" in their "public servant" capacity.

this is the part I am concerned with most.. this is not saying if Iran developes a capability... they are saying even if they are 'capable' of capability..

In fact, it goes farther than that, not only ruling out containment of a nuclear armed Iran but also containment of an Iran that has a "nuclear weapons capability."

if this passes, it means they will make it a law to go to war with Iran, because right now they are saying that Iran is capable of a capability 'if' Iran wanted to.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Jameela
let me understand clearly. The US is making a LAW making it illegal (?) to do diplomatic relations with Iran, and making it a LAW to go to war with Iran?

9 posts, and the word Israel only shows up once. Should The American Israel Public Affairs Committee be pulling these strings?

NO!

Originally posted by 200Plus
Hate to break it to you folks, but war is diplomacy.

Does Iran need a nuke? Nope
Does India need a nuke? Nope

Does the United States? NO... and they are the only nutcases in the world to have USED one on a civilian population!

Hahaha yeah, because Obama is really a whiz on foreign relations. He could've just walked on the water over to Iran and simply sat down and talked with them and POOF everything would be ok.

Or more likely he'd try to pull another Libya - a billion dollar war with no congressional approval.

Having "been there - done that" I can agree with the congress passing a law, demanding this country to make war on anyone they please.

I say this because I am confident they will bring back the draft and they will be among the very first to sign up for duty on the front lines.

This is, of course, along with their wives, sons, and daughters at their side.

Anything less would show them to be cowards and un-patriotic.

Just found these pics from another site. www.beautifydesktop.com...

After seeing them, I can' blame those "leaders in congress" from wanting to bomb these people back to the stone age!!

I know you all think I'm one of the regular "hawks" on this site, but any law, and I mean ANY law that allows the president over-reaching powers in regards to war, is just plain wrong.

Also diplomacy is not war.

War is what happens when politicians fail at their job.

Originally posted by 200Plus
Hate to break it to you folks, but war is diplomacy.

Does Iran need a nuke? Nope
Does India need a nuke? Nope

Why is one allowed to be nuclear and the other is not? Simple really. India plays politics like every other civilized nation. Yes there is back room deals and large amounts of money being shelled out. However they can be trusted to make AND KEEP agreements. Iran on the other hand, want to continue the tactics of the 5th century. We want to talk, no more talking, we want to talk, no more talking............... it is there way of doing what they want, buying time for themselves, and maintain thier cavemane like ideals of masculine power.

Iran does not need a nuke and the way I see it is simple. A gun is not inherently evil, however I would give one to a three year old. Maybe (just maybe), if Iran was to move forward into at least the 19th century they could be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Im not surprised you would give a gun to a three year old.

Thank god most Americans are not like you. Most Americans can see this for the bs that it is.

And who the [SNIP]ing [SNIP] is America to say who can and cant do what? Who the [SNIP]? I find your superior condescending attitude infuriating. Its people like you that allow the evil American Government to get away with its endless atrocities.

And what do you know of the great Persain people?

Originally posted by beezzer
I know you all think I'm one of the regular "hawks" on this site, but any law, and I mean ANY law that allows the president over-reaching powers in regards to war, is just plain wrong.

Also diplomacy is not war.

War is what happens when politicians fail at their job.

The goal is to take the president's discretion away from him because this president is unlikely to choose war when there are other options available. It is those options that the lobby is determined to block. It remains hell-bent for war.

this is not allowing the president over reaching powers in regards war, this is an informal open declaration of war. If this passes, it is no less than a declaration of war, because it is congress house and senate all saying they want war, (and they are representative of ALL American people) and do not support any president who would use diplomacy....the only thing missing is what day they will start bombing.

Originally posted by 200Plus
Hate to break it to you folks, but war is diplomacy.

Does Iran need a nuke? Nope
Does India need a nuke? Nope

Does the US need a nuke?

True quote from George W. Bush, former leader of the "free" world:

"Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."

So, this makes nations that develop weapons of mass destruction not free and not peaceful? Yeah, I totally agree.

Originally posted by Jameela

Originally posted by beezzer
I know you all think I'm one of the regular "hawks" on this site, but any law, and I mean ANY law that allows the president over-reaching powers in regards to war, is just plain wrong.

Also diplomacy is not war.

War is what happens when politicians fail at their job.

The goal is to take the president's discretion away from him because this president is unlikely to choose war when there are other options available. It is those options that the lobby is determined to block. It remains hell-bent for war.

this is not allowing the president over reaching powers in regards war, this is an informal open declaration of war. If this passes, it is no less than a declaration of war, because it is congress house and senate all saying they want war, (and they are representative of ALL American people) and do not support any president who would use diplomacy....the only thing missing is what day they will start bombing.

edit on 15-5-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)

If Obama signs it into law though, he'll be the one giving tacit approval for this. Regardless of what congress wants or doesn't want.

Don't you mean, House "Republicans" vote to tie Obamas' hands on Iran? Doesn't your source article state that all of the Democrats in the House opposed the bill and that 19 Republicans joined them in their opposition?

This is just another example of what now seems to be the new norm for the Republican party, which is to do everything in their power to insure that America doesn't find itself without a war to fight. Even during the Republican presidential debates, everyone except Ron Paul acted as though they couldn't wait to get America into a new war with Iran. I guess that in their minds, if you're not willing to drag America into another needless foreign war, then you must be weak on defense.

With this vote, the House Republicans have not tied Obamas' hands with respect to Iran. Your source article clearly states that the bill is dead in the water as soon as it reaches the Senate.

What the GOP/TP in the House has done, is to effectively tie the voting hand of the American voter to the Democratic lever in the voting booth come November and quite possibly, for years into the future. IMO, this vote just gets us one step closer to the complete elimination of the GOP as a viable political party. Especially when you couple this vote with their other recent initiatives to limit access to birth control for women, impose invasive procedures on women seeking a legal abortion, deny equal rights to the gay & lesbian community and most recently, their vote to cut social spending and redirect that money to the defense dept..

IMO, the best way to drum up support for Obama is to just let the GOP/TP continue do their thing and expose their true agenda for all to see. Just like Ron Paul, the Republican party is on the way out the door and IMO, the sooner the better.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Jameela

Originally posted by beezzer
I know you all think I'm one of the regular "hawks" on this site, but any law, and I mean ANY law that allows the president over-reaching powers in regards to war, is just plain wrong.

Also diplomacy is not war.

War is what happens when politicians fail at their job.

The goal is to take the president's discretion away from him because this president is unlikely to choose war when there are other options available. It is those options that the lobby is determined to block. It remains hell-bent for war.

this is not allowing the president over reaching powers in regards war, this is an informal open declaration of war. If this passes, it is no less than a declaration of war, because it is congress house and senate all saying they want war, (and they are representative of ALL American people) and do not support any president who would use diplomacy....the only thing missing is what day they will start bombing.

edit on 15-5-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)

If Obama signs it into law though, he'll be the one giving tacit approval for this. Regardless of what congress wants or doesn't want.

Congress is the representative voice of the American people. The American people, and every lawmaker in the country wants a law to go to war with Iran....

And it is ONLY Obama who is at fault should he sign it into law?