Here we go: Senate resolves to back Israel if they attack Iran

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
This doesn't really surprise me seeing as how all of our politicians are bought and paid for by Israel and AIPAC. Now, Israel has the green light to unilaterally start a war with Iran, knowing the US will be there to back them up.


US Senate: Will back Israeli attack on Iran

Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate votes in favor of resolution stipulating that US will support Israel in case it was forced to take military action against Iran


Members of the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee have adopted "Senate Resolution 65," according to which the US will support Israel in case it is compelled to take military action and actualize its right to self defense in the face of an Iranian threat.

The resolution stipulates that Israel will enjoy Washington's diplomatic, economic and military aid.

According to the resolution, sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez and Sen. Lindsey Graham, the US's policy is to halt Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Senate Resolution 65 has successfully gained the support of 70 of the 100 senators.

Ynet

Its only a matter of time now before we see US boots on the ground in Iran to clean up whatever mess Israel gets started.


edit on 4/17/13 by FortAnthem because:




posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 





was forced to take military action


I wonder in what manner their hand will be forced. Let's wait and see.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Make no mistake, that was the plan all along. Much like what happened in Iraq and Libya, the U.S. will not entertain oil being traded by any other means than the dollar standard. Any attempt at doing so will result in military action and regime change.

There are many other interests the U.S. has in Iran but that is the first and foremost. Ironically, I fear Iran's nuclear program is of very little concern to the United States but it's a great way to justify invasion.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I support America's help to Israel if Israel is attacked but if the Israel wants a war so badly, then please do it alone without America.All Americans should oppose this.

Maybe the Russia or China or any nations interested in peace/hate Israel should raise an army to give the Israel an ultimatum, you cross the line: you gonna get it. Samson Option ? Pleuuzzz....

edit on 17-4-2013 by mypan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 



I wonder in what manner their hand will be forced. Let's wait and see.


No, let's not. The American public deserves to see exactly what is in the resolution and it should be very clearly spelled out what constitutes "forcing their hand"....otherwise, that is extremely ambiguous and vague.

thomas.loc.gov...:S.RES.65:

This is all it says:


urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.


No definition of what constitutes "self defense" or what those "compelling" reasons would be.

To the above.....


Make no mistake, that was the plan all along. Much like what happened in Iraq and Libya, the U.S. will not entertain oil being traded by any other means than the dollar standard. Any attempt at doing so will result in military action and regime change.


Yep, but you have to protect yourself and the world, don't you? If the dollar were to collapse, not only would our economy tank further, but so would many other nations, all except a select few. I can't say I blame our leaders for taking action, but at the same time, you don't have to lie about it. I knew all along what our real reasons in Iraq were (and stated them here on this board). We're adults, we can take it, we don't need lies when the stability of the nation is at risk.
edit on 17-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Margaret Thatcher’s Funeral: Guest list



Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu


Coincidence ?

SOURCE

Whilst it is to be expected that dignitaries show up, is the timing a tad suspicious ?

Just a thought

Cody
edit on 17/4/13 by cody599 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack Iran.

The treat to Israel isn't really one of them.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


this is just giving them the greenlight to do it for us.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Just a couple of quick thoughts.

1.) A Senate resolution (which apparently hasn't been voted on by the entire Senate yet), cannot send one soldier, drone, or ship to Israel's defense. That's the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The resolution is similar to an opinion poll. What in the world can be meant by "Here we go?" Nothing can happen because of this resolution.

2.) If someone objects to the resolution, consider an alternative wording: "The US will not support military action by Israel against Iran." That tells Israel that they are on their own and needn't consider the opinion of the US in making military decisions. Does anyone see that as a good thing?

3.) Due to our foreign policy decisions of the last four years, the world is learning that it is dangerous to be our friend and beneficial to be our enemy. What message would it send if we stopped aid to Israel, either now or in the future?



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Add this too the gun control bill, and cispa and the lawmakers in washington have been busy beavers today taking advantage of the boston bombing and media confusion over the suspects status.


Ya know, why don't we settle all this the old fashion way. Every world leader that has something to prove gets in the coliseum in rome, puts on gladitorial outfits and goes at it. The people just want to survive, its the politicians, presidents, dictators, etc that are the greedy warmongering type.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack Iran.

The treat to Israel isn't really one of them.


Plenty of legitimate reasons to attack Israel also. War crimes/Crimes against humanity are two of them.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Just a couple of quick thoughts.

1.) A Senate resolution (which apparently hasn't been voted on by the entire Senate yet), cannot send one soldier, drone, or ship to Israel's defense. That's the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The resolution is similar to an opinion poll. What in the world can be meant by "Here we go?" Nothing can happen because of this resolution.


What a strange thing to say. Of course it means something. It's the Senate basically giving Obama their backing and support. He could do it anyway, sure, but that wouldn't go down too well with Washington OR the people. This gives any action legitimacy.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack Iran.

The treat to Israel isn't really one of them.


Is that so? I don't recall reading or hearing about any aggressive acts from Iran on our soil or against any Americans domestic or abroad. So could you please enlighten me as to what these reasons to attack Iran are. And please don't mention liberating the populace, human rights violations or their nuclear program because none of them are reasons to attack a foreign country.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Curio
 

Dear Curio,

Thank you. It is a rare day when someone accuses me of doing something strange. I am, normally, known for being dull and boring. Let me see if I can make my statement less strange.

I don't believe I ever said that the resolution has no meaning. My point is that the resolution by itself does not cause any action to occur. It does not spend money or move the military.

I don't see the importance of the Senate giving Obama their backing. Was there ever any thought that the Democrat controlled Senate wouldn't?

Why should Obama worry if he goes into fighting on his own? He did it in Libya with no one's backing, and it certainly didn't cause him any significant grief. The Senate will support him. Is he worried about the People's opinion?

As far as giving the action legitimacy, legally, no. This isn't a vote taken under the War Powers Act. He hasn't been given legal authorization to do anything he wants in the Mid-East.

I hope this goes someway to restoring my reputation for being dull and boring. "Just a guy," as the mini-profile says.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack Iran.

The treat to Israel isn't really one of them.


(Emphasis added...)

Couldn't help but wonder if that was a Freudian slip or a typo, given the line above it.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


What legitimate reasons do you have that would justify attacking Iran and losing American lives?

Of course there are many reasons based on emotions, politics, and religion but that does not make them legitimate.

What specific legitimate reasons do you have to attack Iran and allow American men and women to die in the process?



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sdocpublishing
 

I hope you don't mind ny jumping into your discussion with hopechest.

You've asked for "legitimate' reasons for attacking Iran and offered your opinion as to the illegitimacy of some reasons. What is the authoritative source for "legitimate" reasons? How does one know if a reason is legitimate? And will all countries hold off war until they have a "legitimate" reason, or just the US?

The loss of American lives? Drones, bombers, and missiles don't put many American lives at risk.

In the US, justifiable homicide includes killing when a person would have a reasonable fear of an imminent attack, etc., etc., (sentences of legal qualifications added). Does that count as a "legitimate" reason?

Or can we just say, as every other country has always said: "It's in our Nation's best interests."



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Thank you for replying and your participation is welcomed.

Hopechest states there are legitimate reasons to attack Iran and I find that statement to be vague. I am asking for the specific legitimate reasons behind the statement.

I find the statement that we should attack in the interest of National Security to be equally as vague and not worthy of the death of American Soldiers.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
american lives
don't forget Irans huge Jewish population who refuse to move to Israel
a US attack would be a holocaust like the kind nazis like

not to mention all the innocent Iranians



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

I'm always on the lookout for new information.

don't forget Irans huge Jewish population who refuse to move to Israel
How huge is it? I haven't seen any estimate higher than 25,000, most are about 20,000 and decreasing.

And, of course, they refuse to move because they are in the locations their ancestors were in even before Mohammed was born.






top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join