House Votes today to Tie Obama's Hands on Iran

reply to post by Germanicus


Too bad environmentalists on the Left who hate nuclear power plants because of what happens in places like Chernobyl and Fukushima also seem to be for Iran having nuclear capablilities. Is that some kind of bizarro schizoid thinking or can you make some sense out of it?

reply to post by Germanicus


The "Great Persian People" have been killing each other off for centuries.

Yeah the US used a nuke, prior to a worldwide agreement signed by just about every member of the UN, or league of nations ( cant remember which incarnation it was around that time ) to NOT use them again!

How about this... how about you fools over in the EU stop giving people free stuff all the time and actually build up some military might so the US doesn't have to come and pick up the slack when you guys run out of bullets and bombs 60 days into a conflict. A conflict the EU pushed for btw.

maybe the US wouldn't have this reputation of policing the world, if the rest of the world could actually take care of itself, and stop calling us for a handout

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


It's a messy situation. Dems who oppose it will be vilified as "Israel haters".

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Jameela

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?

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

Please, lets not start blaming the American people. Healthcare law passed and the majority didn't want it.

Now this.

And yes, Obama can veto this or sign it.

If he veto's then good. If he signs it, then bad.

Also, we know that Iran is in the back pocket of the Soviet Union. It is no secret. Obama has been giving Russia the advantage since the latest START treaty. This is really very simple. There was a Cold War with Russia for a reason, and that was the huge nuclear capabilities of both countries.

China is also in this "axis" of powers. This cannot end well.


Infowars article on allliance
www.infowars.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Germanicus

 

Too bad environmentalists on the Left who hate nuclear power plants because of what happens in places like Chernobyl and Fukushima also seem to be for Iran having nuclear capablilities. Is that some kind of bizarro schizoid thinking or can you make some sense out of it?

How do you figure "environmentalists on the left" are in favor of Iran having nuclear capabilities? The people who think that are in an infinitesimally small percentage.

Originally posted by BellaSabre

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Germanicus

 

Too bad environmentalists on the Left who hate nuclear power plants because of what happens in places like Chernobyl and Fukushima also seem to be for Iran having nuclear capablilities. Is that some kind of bizarro schizoid thinking or can you make some sense out of it?

How do you figure "environmentalists on the left" are in favor of Iran having nuclear capabilities? The people who think that are in an infinitesimally small percentage.

Then who in Obama's left base are against this measure? Face it, Pelosi and Reid are very left-leaning socialists and members of DSA, and their base is decidedly more left than whatever Blue Dog Democrats may still be in Congress, if any at all.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Ha..........what do you mean "who"? You want a roster of names and how they are going to vote on this?

Originally posted by BellaSabre
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Ha..........what do you mean "who"? You want a roster of names and how they are going to vote on this?

Yes I am speaking in broad terms here, but left leaners do tend to be more of the environmentalist anti-nuke group. Please, I mean remember the Nuclear Freeze movement of the late 70's early 80's? Just be realistic in your assessment of things.

Just for the record, I am not for war any more than any one else, and I worry it could be WWIII. This is all driven by the CFR, the Bilderbergs, the Rothschilds, and so on. But the point here is that they arm both sides of every conflict and provide the solution as well, and they make money from it.

But if Iran has nuclear capabilities and it is under control of Russia and China, we do have big problems. Just be realistic about it.

Here's some info on the nuke freeze movement for your edification

Nuclear disarmament refers to both the act of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons and to the end state of a nuclear-free world, in which nuclear weapons are completely eliminated.

Major nuclear disarmament groups include Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Greenpeace and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. There have been many large anti-nuclear demonstrations and protests. On June 12, 1982, one million people demonstrated in New York City's Central Park against nuclear weapons and for an end to the cold war arms race. It was the largest anti-nuclear protest and the largest political demonstration in American history.[2][3]

en.wikipedia.org...

And who is Greenpeace? Why it is a major environmentalist group

The Greenpeace Environmental Trust was founded in 1982 with the objective of furthering public understanding in world ecology and the natural environment. This includes:

www.greenpeace.org.uk...

They are also leftist and socialist

heres more Democratic socialist stuff, and they have a Democracy Now clip on their page. So still want to argue this with me?

www.democraticgreensocialist.org...

Let's hope Obama has the balls to stand up to this... That is
really all we can hope, which is not too heartening.

reply to post by 200Plus

So, ON TOPIC, you think Iran should have nuclear weapons because America does? Or are you against everyone having nuclear capability? The genie doesn't go back into the bottle my friend.

Im for America minding its business.

I am also for America taking all the money that they spend on their military and slashing,not spending more. They use all that massive amount of room they have created in the budget to pay national debt and help fix the country for Americans. Thats what I am for.

And bashing your government is not "American-bashing".

PostScript-Jason Voorhees is awesome. Best slasher by far. Way better than Michael Myres.Rob Zombies Michael Myres is pretty awesome though. And yeah,Im feeling pretty slasher today

America should slash miltary spending.Not maintain or increase. You cant afford it.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Oh yes I know. The implications are quite frightening. I don't want Iran to have that caliber of WMD's. ( Factually, I don't want anybody to have them.)
But nor do I want a group of warmongers on the ready to begin something most of us don't want. And it's Iran. They have a messed-up government like everybody else, but are mostly a wonderful, peaceful people. Nobody wants to think about all the innocent citizens who live in Iran.

Originally posted by BellaSabre
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Oh yes I know. The implications are quite frightening. I don't want Iran to have that caliber of WMD's. ( Factually, I don't want anybody to have them.)
But nor do I want a group of warmongers on the ready to begin something most of us don't want. And it's Iran. They have a messed-up government like everybody else, but are mostly a wonderful, peaceful people. Nobody wants to think about all the innocent citizens who live in Iran.

Yes, I have nothing against Iran's people by any means. I just look at this from the geopolitical standpoint of how Iran lines up with China and Russia and I do not trust either of them. Even if we thought the Obama admin was courting Iran to be on the side of the US, Russia and China are not going to give up so easily. This all gets complicated by enmity between Israel and Islam, with Israel classically being an ally to the US and Iran being an ally to Russia. Obama has been going about alienating our biggest allies in that region. What reason can he have for that other than to be ummmmmm acting on the wrong side. ? We also know that Soros and the Unions were backing the Egyptian uprising and we know that is a strategic place. Why would Obama encourage an uprising which gives more power to the Muslim Brotherhood while taking down all the pro Western leaders? Is anybody thinking here? And again, why did he NOT support the student uprising in Iran, but instead supported leaving that regime in place? I think these questions need to be addressed.
What is the answer? To have a nuclear Iran? Will that make the whole world safer?

Also, I think TPTB are setting it all up for major destruction and loss of life.

I'm literally speechless. IF Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, believe me they would have one by now. And if they were going to use it, Israel would have been bombed a long time ago. They probably couldn't have developed nuclear weapons themselves, but there are plenty of old Soviet Bloc nukes on the market...Quite a few; more than I am comfortable with, personally.

This is why I don't buy that "Iran is evil" and wants to destroy America. Iran has said the same things America and Israel have said...that they will retaliate in an attempt to wipe the country off the map, but only if they are attacked first. If we go to war with Iran, it will not be over quickly. One of my hobbies is studying military strategy, and I can tell you that Iran is one of the worst possible countries to invade, due mainly to the terrain and positions of major cities and military bases, and the fact that it would be relatively easy to defend.

Plus, Iran has capabilities to put up a fight in the air theater, unlike just about any other country America has faced since WWII. The Vietnamese had Russian fighters during the war in Vietnam, and they actually did quite a number on America's jet fighters, but ultimately we wrestled air superiority out of their hands. Iran is modernized, and their military is modernized. I am not sure to what extent, but I know they have been building it up for some time now, and they have the funds to purchase a large variety of weapons and technology from countries like Russia. I wouldn't be surprised if the US hasn't sold them weapons at some point in the not-so-distant past.

Anyway, the point is that this resolution is completely idiotic, and will probably end up doing more harm than good. The problem with politicians in Washington is that they have no idea what is going on in the real world. They don't even understand the dynamics of their own country and its citizens, so what makes them think they are capable of tackling world issues? And why wait until now, and choose this particular point to tie Obama's hands? I can think of some other times they could possibly have done this, but they wait for this issue. Amazing.

Rosenberg wrote for Media Matters and now has his own blog

mjayrosenberg.com...

Wow so much to correct here....The "FEDERAL" government has wanted to attack Iran since the Reagan administration.Usually the Joint Chiefs in appropriate officialize say no.As presidents before Bush Jr have.This stupid end run if authorized by the current socialist in office SHOULD be rejected,even by his twisted logic there is no reason for an all out war,Just a limited strike.That is all that should be done.
There is mounting evidence our votes are being ignored.So to say a given policy is acceptable because ones political affiliations are the same is bogus.I am an Independent so I'll vote as I please.I also suggest as a form of protest EVERYONE should do so as it would send a chill up the s competing systems spines.Something we can all enjoy.
The Iranian Government have been the Patrons of terrorism since the Palestinians hit the Israeli athletes in Munich 1972.They have sponsored in spirit and materiel many efforts in this field.Much like the US and Russia in the Cold War.
My guess is: they can't fight a conventional conflict so world wide insurgency is their cup of warfare.
Again,to make devils out of average people is completely counterproductive.Not all Musims support the efforts.They (I believe) see our retaliations as way too overkill.
That is because the US has a limited history of insurgent combat.We strike with an iron fist where a sharp needle would do.Witness the drone strikes in Pakistan.Imagine the havoc an F117 strike would have done or a Ranger attack on Ossama.The enemy supremacists hide among their innocent citizenry,we still have to kill them until all terrorism is halted so we are adapting.If you look at the Future Warriors the Army depicts one is called The "Objective Force Warrior" ,SEALs and Delta are objective force warriors,perhaps the Army is seeking to expand these capabilities while diminishing it's conventional stance,just a guess here.
Unless these type of legislations succeed and the military backs the decision WWIII cannot happen without a massive provocation and I'm betting they are working on that particular "Northwoods Op" variant.

Last time I checked Congress doesn't have the authority to make a law without the president's approval. That is why the President has Veto Power and vice versa. The entire power structure of the US Government is built to prevent exactly what the OP claims is happening. Congress cannot tie the President's hands just like the President can't tie their hands.

Oh and also Congress can declare war all they want, but without the Presidents say so there is no war. The president can order the military to take action without the approval of Congress but not the other way around. The US military answers to the President end of the story.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Don't forget that Carter was a Tri Lateralist, Reagan was not TC or CFR, but there were CFR around him. TC and CFR are part of the Bilderberg complex which involves much more than just the US. There are foreign dignitaries and corporate leaders from many countries involved in Bilderberg. Bilderbergs want war.
Current Prez is also CFR, as is the First Lady.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Germanicus

 

Too bad environmentalists on the Left who hate nuclear power plants because of what happens in places like Chernobyl and Fukushima also seem to be for Iran having nuclear capablilities. Is that some kind of bizarro schizoid thinking or can you make some sense out of it?

Ha! I had not thought of that. thats funny. I agree.

Environmentalists

double

I am watching for the outcome if it came to a vote today.

Recent updates

www.niacouncil.org...

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, warns: "This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war, and could be the precursor for a war with Iran....it's effectively a thinly-disguised effort to bless war."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.antiwar.com...