Logo

Richie Waves · 03-01-2013, 05:22 PM

I love that first paragraph.. really shows how Orwellian things have gotten for you lot.

I love how this is all going on at the same time they are making progress in talks... talk about undermining any chance at peaceful resolution. Which we all know will never happen anyway.

Quote:

A bipartisan group of senators on Thursday introduced a new resolution which says that the United States would back Israel militarily if the Jewish State were to attack Iran in self-defense.

The resolution was introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and is co-sponsored by 15 Senators, including Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York).

The resolution declares that the United States has a vital national interest in and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel; reaffirms the United States support for Israel’s right to self-defense; and urges that if Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States will stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

Speaking during a press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Graham said the resolution is necessary to show Israel that the U.S. will support it if it decides to use military force against the Iranian regime.

“We have no better friends in that part of the world than Israel,” said Graham. “Last year President Obama told the people of Israel, ‘We have your back.’ Our resolution builds upon that statement and makes it clear that if Israel is one day forced to protect themselves we will stand with Israel.”

President Obama is scheduled to arrive in Israel for his first visit as President next month, and the group said it hopes to pass the resolution before the trip.

The issue of a nuclear Iran is expected to be a top priority during Obama’s meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Senate Resolution: Back Israel if it Attacks Iran - Middle East - News - Israel National News

Roxie Marten · 03-01-2013, 05:35 PM

Sounds like a boiler plate defense agreement.
I think we have them with many nations.
If they are attacked, we will help.

I fail to see how it's Orwellian, unless we read two different books.
Orwellian implies a big brother state and this is about defending an ally.

Richie Waves · 03-01-2013, 05:40 PM

Ya know, I know most of you here are slobbering over another war, but this sort of a resolution is absolutely dangerous, you're putting your military into the hands of the same country that orcestrated the Levon affair. Basically, Israel is free now to carry out what false flag incident they wish so that its dog (you guys) will run in a clean up for them.

It's absolutely hilarious how blind you all are to that countries scummy ways... unbelievable.

Anyway, no one I know will be dieing to install a friendly dictator in the middle east. Enjoy.

BTW the Orwellian stuff I mentioned is the use of double speak.

Dancien Graves · 03-01-2013, 06:06 PM

You know Richie, every now and then I see what you're saying and I think "Yeah, I agree with that"

And then you go full retard.

Richie Waves · 03-01-2013, 06:22 PM

Whatever. keep the blind fold on, avoid making a stand, then, when the war is going and there's bodies coming back in droves, you can pretend you were opposed all along. Just like everyone done with the Iraq atrocities.

Dancien Graves · 03-01-2013, 06:35 PM

Actually I was against the Iraq war from the start. I'm also against going to war with Iran. Pretty vocal about it too. Must be your earplugs bugging you.

Richie Waves · 03-01-2013, 06:45 PM

Sic Semper Tyrannis : Top Ten Myths About Iran by Dr. Christopher Bolan

An interesting run down of the myths fed to the US public about Iran.

Dancien Graves · 03-01-2013, 06:50 PM

Preaching to the wrong person man. I don't care if Iran has nukes or if they don't have nukes. Far as I'm concerned every country has a right to defend itself.

Maggiedoll Alter · 03-01-2013, 07:15 PM

Sounds like they're essentially trying to get Israel to do their dirty work.

The Republicans want to attack Iran, but that's idiotic, so they're declaring support for Israel if they attack so that then they can say that they're supporting an ally instead of starting a war.

Personally, I'd really like to arm the Iranian women. I know it's not as simple as that, but Iran is one of several countries where if I think "What one thing might improve that situation?" "Women who can defend themselves" manages to top the list.

Jahar Aabye · 03-01-2013, 07:34 PM

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has already stated explicitly that if Israel launches a strike against Iran, the Iranian military will respond by attacking American military targets in the region, so any mutual defense agreement with Israel wouldn't change the ultimate outcome.

Besides, I suspect that the main point of this is to make sure that the Iranian government feels more pressure to negotiate a peaceful solution such as giving up their remaining 20%+ enriched uranium except for the very small amounts they'd need for legitimate technologies. Just FYI, if the Israelis were itching for an excuse to start a war with Iran they could have used the Hezb'ullah conflict back in 2006 and they probably would have had at least a grudging admission from the UN that international law justified it (since Iran was arming and coordinating with Hezb'ullah, and that particular conflict had begunwith a Hezb'ullah attack on an Israeli military outpost).

I'm just saying, the Israeli military doesn't usually do this whole long buildup and threats before attacking,they usually just go in and strike. If they're doing public stuff like this, it's pure Clausewitz.

**Vivianne Draper** · 03-01-2013, 07:48 PM

Although the bill’s supporters have stressed that it is does not advocate war or use of force, the non-binding resolution’s language is strong.

Senate resolution would greenlight Israeli attack on Iran - Salon.com

Richie Waves · 03-01-2013, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahar Aabye

I'm just saying, the Israeli military doesn't usually do this whole long buildup and threats before attacking,they usually just go in and strike. If they're doing public stuff like this, it's pure Clausewitz.

Iran is a slightly different animal to the likes of the Lebanon and Gaza as well you know, though I suspect you're the type happy to let the rest of America think they are like Iraq.

Boiler plate my arse.

Richie Waves · 03-01-2013, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Like a previous Graham effort, the new resolution misstates U.S. policy as “to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability” (my emphasis)—phrasing the Senate overwhelmingly approved in another AIPAC-backed measure last September. The “capability” language sets a lower threshold for war than Barack Obama’s stated policy to “prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” fullstop

Yea, the language shift happened after the last IAEA report. The bar will continue to be lowered until Iran are basically backed into as tight a corner as Israel and their lapdogs in the US congress can get them.

Jahar Aabye · 03-02-2013, 12:24 AM

I think it also helps to put this into the context of American Constitutional Law. Under our Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, but only Congress can actually declare war. Additionally, even if the President were to deploy troops on an emergency basis or for non combat/support roles, Congress also controls the appropriations for the federal government (ie they get to dictate how much money the government spends), and in theory this could also be used to prevent the President from engaging in military conflict against the wishes of Congress.

So in this context, what this resolution accomplishes domestically is to assure the President that if the shit hits he fan, he has Congressional support up to and including the use of military force. Given the way that this Congress has attempted to obstruct the President at any opportunity, this is a fairly significant show of bipartisan support, and mostly makes the point that Congress considers this specific issue to be above the political power games.

(at the international level, as I said, this strikes me as being about convincing the Iranian government to negotiate, It may also be an attempt to assure other American allies that we have no intention of leaving our friends without support)

Richie Waves · 03-02-2013, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahar Aabye

So in this context, what this resolution accomplishes domestically is to assure the President that if the shit hits he fan, he has Congressional support up to and including the use of military force. Given the way that this Congress has attempted to obstruct the President at any opportunity, this is a fairly significant show of bipartisan support, and mostly makes the point that Congress considers this specific issue to be above the political power games.

Baaahahaha... oh lets enjoy this bipartisanship while it it lasts! yea, they won't agree about things like Americans educations, welfare, tax reform and other important domestic issues, but blowing a load of sand niggers off the face of the earth, suddenly everyone can agree.....

everyone knows you couldn't get a credit card between the two parties on foreign policy.. stop pretending otherwise, Jaher, it really hurts your status as the professor of everything.

Kara Spengler · 03-02-2013, 09:42 PM

Gee ... why am I not surprised to see who the OP was on an Israel thread?

Richie Waves · 03-03-2013, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kara Spengler

Gee ... why am I not surprised to see who the OP was on an Israel thread?

You brainwashed fucks. You deserve the scum government your stuck with.

Dancien Graves · 03-03-2013, 12:25 PM

I'm going to give this meltdown a 4.5

Do better.

Cincia Singh · 03-03-2013, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dancien Graves

I'm going to give this meltdown a 4.5

Do better.

Nahhh Richie is too personally offensive and conversationally crippled to rate anything higher than a 2 on the 1-10 meltdown scale.

Dancien Graves · 03-03-2013, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cincia Singh

Nahhh Richie is too personally offensive and conversationally crippled to rate anything higher than a 2 on the 1-10 meltdown scale.

Cincia Singh - East German Judge

Richie Waves · 03-03-2013, 03:33 PM

This is the country you'll be sending kids to die for:

Israel introduces 'Palestinian only' bus lines, following complaints from Jewish settlers Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

**Aimee** · 03-03-2013, 10:02 PM

I started writing why I'm critical of this proposed resolution, as I think it would tend to destabilize the situation. "Attacking in self defense" needs to be more carefully defined, as it could be assumed to including preemptive strikes just on suspicion. It reminds me of the excuses for the invasion of Iraq.

But when I see the thread was started by Richie, and how he train wrecked it by using it as an excuse to post hateful crap against all the Americans in SLU, he has made it very hard to discuss the proposed resolution critically without seeming to support his extreme anti Israel and anti USA campaign.

So my concerns about the Senate resolution have been eclipsed by my intense dislike of Richie's posts.

Being "right" about an issue has many ego traps to beware of, such as arrogance and using it as an excuse to bash people around the head.

If Richie honestly just wanted to draw our attention to the dangers of this proposed resolution, he could have done so sensibly and would have got many "Agrees" including one from me. Instead he just gets a big "Fuck off Richie, you're a pain in the arse".

Roxie Marten · 03-03-2013, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimee

I started writing why I'm critical of this proposed resolution, as I think it would tend to destabilize the situation. "Attacking in self defense" needs to be more carefully defined, as it could be assumed to including preemptive strikes just on suspicion. It reminds me of the excuses for the invasion of Iraq.

But when I see the thread was started by Richie, and how he train wrecked it by using it as an excuse to post hateful crap against all the Americans in SLU, he has made it very hard to discuss the proposed resolution critically without seeming to support his extreme anti Israel and anti USA campaign.

So my concerns about the Senate resolution have been eclipsed by my intense dislike of Richie's posts.

Being "right" about an issue has many ego traps to beware of, such as arrogance and using it as an excuse to bash people around the head.

If Richie honestly just wanted to draw our attention to the dangers of this proposed resolution, he could have done so sensibly and would have got many "Agrees" including one from me. Instead he just gets a big "Fuck off Richie, you're a pain in the arse".

If the resolution would been about any nation in the world except Israel.
He wouldn't said a word.

Another one of Richie's typical anti Israel rants

Jack Belvedere · 03-03-2013, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimee

I started writing why I'm critical of this proposed resolution, as I think it would tend to destabilize the situation. "Attacking in self defense" needs to be more carefully defined, as it could be assumed to including preemptive strikes just on suspicion. It reminds me of the excuses for the invasion of Iraq.

But when I see the thread was started by Richie, and how he train wrecked it by using it as an excuse to post hateful crap against all the Americans in SLU, he has made it very hard to discuss the proposed resolution critically without seeming to support his extreme anti Israel and anti USA campaign.

Very nicely put! I have disagreements with this resolution also. But Richie's posts on Isreal are always so seethingly anti-American that I do not like to get involved in the discussions.

I guess I have a pretty politically incorrect opinion. Truth is I am sick and tired of the entire Middle East and my government's constant involvement in affairs there. They can keep arguing that they have to meddle for our own country's security but I'm just not really buying it anymore. I don't care if it is Isreal, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, or the butt-crack middle of the desert in Afghanistan. If the US government woke up one morning and said, Fuck them, let them fight their own battles, we are done, that would be fine by me. I know, I'm sorry, an opinion that ignores a lot of facts, but I claim it as my own.

Seyla Warden · 03-03-2013, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richie Waves

This is the country you'll be sending kids to die for:

Israel introduces 'Palestinian only' bus lines, following complaints from Jewish settlers Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

None of us are sending anyone anywhere. Unless one of you is secretly Obummer von Hitler?

03-01-2013, 05:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
Roxie Marten Defying Gravity SLU Griefer Clan Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Western Sky Posts: 2,559 My Mood: SL Join Date: 2-18-04 Business: Dutch Annie's Brothel Client: Firestorm	Sounds like a boiler plate defense agreement. I think we have them with many nations. If they are attacked, we will help. I fail to see how it's Orwellian, unless we read two different books. Orwellian implies a big brother state and this is about defending an ally. __________________ I think I'll try Defying gravity And you can't pull me down...

03-01-2013, 07:34 PM	#10 (permalink)
Jahar Aabye Script Kitty Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Between our dreams and actions, lies this world Posts: 7,999 SL Join Date: 2/16/2007 Business: Black Operations Client: Singularity	Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has already stated explicitly that if Israel launches a strike against Iran, the Iranian military will respond by attacking American military targets in the region, so any mutual defense agreement with Israel wouldn't change the ultimate outcome. Besides, I suspect that the main point of this is to make sure that the Iranian government feels more pressure to negotiate a peaceful solution such as giving up their remaining 20%+ enriched uranium except for the very small amounts they'd need for legitimate technologies. Just FYI, if the Israelis were itching for an excuse to start a war with Iran they could have used the Hezb'ullah conflict back in 2006 and they probably would have had at least a grudging admission from the UN that international law justified it (since Iran was arming and coordinating with Hezb'ullah, and that particular conflict had begunwith a Hezb'ullah attack on an Israeli military outpost). I'm just saying, the Israeli military doesn't usually do this whole long buildup and threats before attacking,they usually just go in and strike. If they're doing public stuff like this, it's pure Clausewitz. __________________ He pulled a Captain Ahab and Jaharpwn'ed her. - Trout

03-01-2013, 07:48 PM	#11 (permalink)
Vivianne Draper Guess my gender *SLU Supporter* Not the droid yer looking for Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: DC Area Posts: 8,566 My Mood: SL Join Date: September 11, 2005 Blog Entries: 4	Although the bill’s supporters have stressed that it is does not advocate war or use of force, the non-binding resolution’s language is strong. Senate resolution would greenlight Israeli attack on Iran - Salon.com __________________ ~~~~~ Vivi's real life jewelry shop: http://www.etsy.com/shop/NaturalTreasuresbyDe AND http://www.naturaltreasuresbydeb.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-01-2013, 05:40 PM	#3 (permalink)
Richie Waves Banned "jon" he does it!! Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Offaly, Republic of Ireland Posts: 16,827 My Mood: SL Join Date: 27/06/2005 Client: Phoenix & imprudence	Ya know, I know most of you here are slobbering over another war, but this sort of a resolution is absolutely dangerous, you're putting your military into the hands of the same country that orcestrated the Levon affair. Basically, Israel is free now to carry out what false flag incident they wish so that its dog (you guys) will run in a clean up for them. It's absolutely hilarious how blind you all are to that countries scummy ways... unbelievable. Anyway, no one I know will be dieing to install a friendly dictator in the middle east. Enjoy. BTW the Orwellian stuff I mentioned is the use of double speak.

03-01-2013, 06:06 PM	#4 (permalink)
Dancien Graves Now with less padding Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 9,781 My Mood: Awards: 1	You know Richie, every now and then I see what you're saying and I think "Yeah, I agree with that" And then you go full retard.

03-01-2013, 06:22 PM	#5 (permalink)
Richie Waves Banned "jon" he does it!! Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Offaly, Republic of Ireland Posts: 16,827 My Mood: SL Join Date: 27/06/2005 Client: Phoenix & imprudence	Whatever. keep the blind fold on, avoid making a stand, then, when the war is going and there's bodies coming back in droves, you can pretend you were opposed all along. Just like everyone done with the Iraq atrocities.

03-01-2013, 06:35 PM	#6 (permalink)
Dancien Graves Now with less padding Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 9,781 My Mood: Awards: 1	Actually I was against the Iraq war from the start. I'm also against going to war with Iran. Pretty vocal about it too. Must be your earplugs bugging you.

03-01-2013, 06:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
Richie Waves Banned "jon" he does it!! Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Offaly, Republic of Ireland Posts: 16,827 My Mood: SL Join Date: 27/06/2005 Client: Phoenix & imprudence	Sic Semper Tyrannis : Top Ten Myths About Iran by Dr. Christopher Bolan An interesting run down of the myths fed to the US public about Iran.

03-01-2013, 06:50 PM	#8 (permalink)
Dancien Graves Now with less padding Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 9,781 My Mood: Awards: 1	Preaching to the wrong person man. I don't care if Iran has nukes or if they don't have nukes. Far as I'm concerned every country has a right to defend itself.

03-01-2013, 07:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
Maggiedoll Alter Pedantic Geek Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Maryland Posts: 2,823 My Mood: SL Join Date: 1/30/2008 Business: Perception	Sounds like they're essentially trying to get Israel to do their dirty work. The Republicans want to attack Iran, but that's idiotic, so they're declaring support for Israel if they attack so that then they can say that they're supporting an ally instead of starting a war. Personally, I'd really like to arm the Iranian women. I know it's not as simple as that, but Iran is one of several countries where if I think "What one thing might improve that situation?" "Women who can defend themselves" manages to top the list.

03-02-2013, 12:24 AM	#14 (permalink)
Jahar Aabye Script Kitty Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Between our dreams and actions, lies this world Posts: 7,999 SL Join Date: 2/16/2007 Business: Black Operations Client: Singularity	I think it also helps to put this into the context of American Constitutional Law. Under our Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, but only Congress can actually declare war. Additionally, even if the President were to deploy troops on an emergency basis or for non combat/support roles, Congress also controls the appropriations for the federal government (ie they get to dictate how much money the government spends), and in theory this could also be used to prevent the President from engaging in military conflict against the wishes of Congress. So in this context, what this resolution accomplishes domestically is to assure the President that if the shit hits he fan, he has Congressional support up to and including the use of military force. Given the way that this Congress has attempted to obstruct the President at any opportunity, this is a fairly significant show of bipartisan support, and mostly makes the point that Congress considers this specific issue to be above the political power games. (at the international level, as I said, this strikes me as being about convincing the Iranian government to negotiate, It may also be an attempt to assure other American allies that we have no intention of leaving our friends without support)

03-03-2013, 12:25 PM	#18 (permalink)
Dancien Graves Now with less padding Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 9,781 My Mood: Awards: 1	I'm going to give this meltdown a 4.5 Do better.

03-03-2013, 03:33 PM	#21 (permalink)
Richie Waves Banned "jon" he does it!! Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Offaly, Republic of Ireland Posts: 16,827 My Mood: SL Join Date: 27/06/2005 Client: Phoenix & imprudence	This is the country you'll be sending kids to die for: Israel introduces 'Palestinian only' bus lines, following complaints from Jewish settlers Israel News \| Haaretz Daily Newspaper

03-03-2013, 10:02 PM	#22 (permalink)
Aimee Senior Member *SLU Supporter* Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 399 Client: Firestorm	I started writing why I'm critical of this proposed resolution, as I think it would tend to destabilize the situation. "Attacking in self defense" needs to be more carefully defined, as it could be assumed to including preemptive strikes just on suspicion. It reminds me of the excuses for the invasion of Iraq. But when I see the thread was started by Richie, and how he train wrecked it by using it as an excuse to post hateful crap against all the Americans in SLU, he has made it very hard to discuss the proposed resolution critically without seeming to support his extreme anti Israel and anti USA campaign. So my concerns about the Senate resolution have been eclipsed by my intense dislike of Richie's posts. Being "right" about an issue has many ego traps to beware of, such as arrogance and using it as an excuse to bash people around the head. If Richie honestly just wanted to draw our attention to the dangers of this proposed resolution, he could have done so sensibly and would have got many "Agrees" including one from me. Instead he just gets a big "Fuck off Richie, you're a pain in the arse".

Logo

Site Navigation