It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Senate Approves Symbolic Rebuke of Iran

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:55 PM

Senate Approves Symbolic Rebuke of Iran

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a symbolic measure against Iran that is aimed at sending a message to the Islamic regime to end military tactics targeting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The Senate approved the nonbinding measure, sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., on a 76-22 vote.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:55 PM
This non binding resolution has some lawmakers concerned that it could be interpreted as Senate approval of the use of force against Iran.

I am still reading this, I added an article from which claims this senate action illegal.

Wow, talk about sensationalized headlines! go to the FNC home page and the headline that links to this story on their own site says this..

Iran's State-Run Terrorists

Revolutionary Guard designated a terror group

and this is what it looks like, it will probably change so I captured it.

MSM is so bad..
(visit the link for the full news article)

ED:added reference to FNC tabloid headline & capture

[edit on 2007/9/26 by JacKatMtn]

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:04 PM
Always interesting to see...

Who ponies up, and who doesn't on these votes:

NAYs ---22

Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2

McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

My hat is off to Hillary for doing the right thing, and I'm surprised that John and Barack were too busy doing something else to bother with the vote. The list of "Nays" speaks for itself.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:23 PM
Hillary is practically a neocon when it comes to anything involving Israel and it's enemies, so her vote for this silly resolution comes as no surprise.

This non binding resolution has some lawmakers concerned that it could be interpreted as Senate approval of the use of force against Iran.

And that's precisely what it will be used for, so kudos to the gutsy few that had the courage to vote against it.

...but I bet they won't be getting any $$ from AIPAC this year

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:52 PM
This war in Iran is going to be bad. I actually feel sorry for Iran about what's coming. But I feel sorry for us as well. Our country, as we know it, and the reign of "freedom" that our history has consisted of, will be no more.

Plain and simple, we just can't take another war. The economy can't do it, as far as us middle class people go. The people can't take it. The world can't take it.

The economy will crash. Freedoms will be taken away to prevent the uproar from the people. And World War III will erupt.

I sit and wonder to myself what the average American will think when all of our freedoms are gone and we're entrenched in World War III. I wonder if they'll be so ignorant that they think it'll be for their protection, or if they'll finally wake up, even though it'll be too late. Of course, I'd rather not find out the answer to that question, but I've always wondered..

But, anyways, I'm glad we still have at least a few people in our Congress who vote against things like this. But it makes me wonder why they don't band together and stop what's coming. They've got to be able to see what's going on..

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 03:01 PM
Just a matter of time I'm afraid. This is going to happen just like Iraq. It will delayed though until after the elections if it happens. I guess we will see. Look for a Spike in military recruiting, OPEC issues, and more talks of terrorists. Gas is going up get ready!

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:13 PM
Here is the 5pm version of the headline for the same story:

Iran's State-Run Terrorists?

sorry for disrupting my own thread but this FNC headline fiasco is a story in itself....

[edit on 2007/9/26 by JacKatMtn]

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by JacKatMtn

Sorry, but what is FNC?

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by Beachcoma

The abbreviation for Fox News Channel.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:38 PM
It was so obvious.. I'm embarrassed I didn't catch that. Thanks for the head's up MM

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:26 AM
the vote was on one of the many, many 'Amendments'
expected to be submitted to the new Defense Appropriations bill...

who knows if the little line item deeming Iran's 'Guard' as
a terrorist unit will make into the actual Bill in it's final form...

a lot of maneuvering, the votes are more political posturing
than significant policy decision...

when the vote on deeming Iran's Guard. is thoughtfully considered,
it will occur to the legislators that the administration will then have
the justification to send either regular Army & Marine units
~ or, better yet for the administration's neocon architects of war,

allowing commandos from the
'independent contractors' >Security Forces > Blackwater
to cross into Iran on 'missions'

[edit on 27-9-2007 by St Udio]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:32 AM
So what would happen if Russia stated that 'any attack upon Iran will be considered as an attack upon itself'

The same as the US has said to China about Taiwan.?

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:40 AM
Maybe if the U.S.stalls long enough israel will take the iniative and attack.Its more their problem in their backyard than ours anyway.And how about a little more help from the U.N.Security council...

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:40 AM
reply to post by Chorlton

then Russia would be 'condoning' terrorists....

the administration will spinn the border crossings into Iran as
attacks on terrorist bases ~ and not on the Islamic Republic of Iran...

seperating the two elements is Key
just like when the US sought out thw AQ in Afghanistan ...
then later included armed force against the Taliban govt, because
the Taliban supported/ allowed the AQ terror camps sanctuary...

same plan model to interceed on another soveriegn nation,
this time Iran

Russia & other Iranian supporters are being out maneuvered

[edit on 27-9-2007 by St Udio]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:15 PM
Given the behaviour of the Bush/Cheney Executive Branch, this will be just the thing they can point to as authorisation for attacking Iran. A declaration of war side-stepped again, a pre-emptive war strategy invoked yet again that retroactively allies the US government with the philosophy of the Third Reich and the former Soviet Union.

This is as horrifying as realising that it will make no difference who the next US President is because the major candidates are all in favour of war as the mechanism of resolving differences, war where the innocent suffer far more than the politicians.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:24 PM

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:39 PM

I am actually pretty suprised of mostly all candidates voting for this bill..
so much for their diplomatic efforts[in all the debates]

Mc cain really had something else on his mind[for he would definetly voted yes], Obama, not a good signal of not voting at all..

I wouldnt be suprised if more and more of these bills get pased now the world is tuned on this Birma situation..
I am not really into it, but how about the house of representatives?

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:42 PM
This one has got me doing the mental splits. I do believe they deserve the "Terrorists" designation but the idea of more War makes me weary.

The fact that France and Germany are coming around is interesting to me as well. It adds a lot of credibility to the idea Iran is hell bent on a Nuclear Weapon when those two agree. I wish there were a way to just turn off their technology and fence them in until they grow up and enter the Civilized World.

new topics

top topics


log in