War with Iran and sneaky Senate Bills

Apparently, Rand Paul blocked quick bi-partisan bill on Iran in Senate and added just one sentence amendment:


Debate: is he a loon out of touch or one last courageous and principled Senator?

He’s an idiot, a conspiracy theorist, a homophobe and quite possibly a racist. So yes, he’s a loon that’s totally out of touch.
We’re also not going to war with Iran. Putting that declaration into a bill that wasn’t about war, but was about sanctions, is Grade A loonery.

I would vote for the latter…I’m not sure how his action would make him out of touch.

Despite the fact that the bill in question wasn’t a bill that sent us to war or authorized the use of force, you don’t understand how needing to say that it wasn’t a bill that sent us to war or authorized the use of force shows that he isn’t in touch with what the bill is about ?

I’m not going to re-iterate what the author of the second link said, but I agree with his points in general.

No, the bill said nothing about war. You said in your previous post ‘We’re also not going to war with Iran.’ My veiw, and I’m far from the only one, is that we are preparing for that war. Not that we are taking all of the logical steps to prevent a shooting war, mind you, but that we are getting those pesky steps out of the way so that we can start shooting.

I’m sure he understands perfectly the wording of the bill.

Oh, and in general, sanctions don’t work well anyway.

You mean, the absurdity about how “Rand Paul Stops War With Iran”, a war that hadn’t actually been started, wasn’t being started, and wouldn’t have been stopped by one kook congresscritter if it had actually been in the works?
The absurdity about how a sanctions bill “put America on a path toward open conflict with Iran?”
The absurdity about how Ron Paul acted “to prevent World War III from breaking out?”
The absurdity whereby sanctions are seen as being powerless unless “magic unicorns will crap rainbows all over the Iranian people?”

Do I really need to go on?

It’s just more idiocy and lunacy on the long, long, long history of The US Is Going To Go To War With Iran Tomorrow [sup]tm[/sup].

Your view is irrational, counter-factual, gainsaid by the evidence, and repeated the same nonsense we’ve been hearing since Bush was president. Further, of course sanctions work well. There’s a reason that Iran’s economy is being slammed and Iraq wasn’t able to operate freely. And, as a hint, it’s not because of those magic unicorns or their fecal emissions.

Don Quixote was a loon who was also courageous and principled. Rand Paul is a loon.

“A bunch of people can’t be wrong!”
-A bunch of people

More likely he is just a politician trying to score political points, and to use later to demonize those who vote against it.

Same as Legislatures that pass bills to prevent Sharia law, even when there is no danger of such a thing.

Nobody calls for War with Iran —



I find it really strange that so many people cannot tell the difference between the way Iran is being handled and the way Iraq was mishandled. Bush practically raced into war with Iraq- I don’t think the administration even allowed the Iraq and the weapons inspectors to finish destroying Iraq’s missiles. Bush gave a speech about his plans in October 2002, Colin Powell made his anthrax presentation at the U.N., and the invasion started in March. Obama has spent two years working the sanctions angle and he’s still doing so.

Actually, all of that makes him right in touch with his core demographic. :frowning:

Dont forget the years of sanctions. We’re maybe two steps away from bombing them.

I am glad there are representatives in our congress who understand the road we’re on is only cosmetically different than the last two decades. We’ll see how bad the baseless propaganda really is if a Republican becomes President.

Yeah, but those steps are “have any desire to go to war with Iran” and then “start preparing for war and, oh yeah, then start the war.”
These are, perhaps, not insignificant steps, Inbred.

When did our Representatives and Presidents start equating bombing with war? My whole life has been filled with bombings that weren’t “war”.

Um…flabbergasted. Bush what? Is he here? What does he have to do with anything? I’m trying to wrap my head around your argument…‘It’s completely different than when Bush was president! Except that this is the same stuff we’ve been hearing since bush was president!’

It’s only different in that the time line is slower. It’s plodding on toward inevitability. Sanctions are just one step, because they are used to say ‘See!! We tried sanctions! And they didn’t work! We need to bomb!’

Because no, they don’t work. Oh, they absolutely have the capability to destroy a nations economy. But they’re pretty pathetic at convincing a regime to start playing with My Little Ponies. Cuba? North Korea?

Gainsaid…nice. I actually liked that.

You are a part of a bunch of people a well. But I suppose your bunch of people can’t be wrong, because then mine would be right. My point was that feeling like the US is looking for perpetual armed conflict isn’t a fringe viewpoint. Looking back in history, it’s fairly well supported.

The military-industrial complex (recently supplemented by the homeland security-law enforcement-industrial complex) is real. The plain fact is that people make money off of wars. Wars employ people. Wars require ‘stuff’…a continually evolving arsenal of ‘stuff.’ Wars induce people to vote. There are many people who have in incentive to make sure that we have war.

And. It seems to me that one reason this may all be ok, is that it’s Obama’s administration. If it was a McCain White House **, I have little doubt that the board would be aflame with talk about ‘Bush III’ or ‘Iraq III’ etc.

Ya don’t say?
I’m mildly amused that you don’t understand the significance or relevance of “we didn’t even attack when Bush was president.” Additionally, the fact that “this is the same stuff we’ve been hearing such Bush was president”, and we haven’t attacked in a decade of this nonsense, should give you some sort of hint.

Ignorant, uninformed, myopic, counter-factual and absurd, yes.
But not fringe.

Oh, ok…I get it. The fact that we haven’t attacked them yet, even when Bush was president, makes my view

Of course we never will, what was I thinking? Hey, do Iran a favor; call them and let them know we’re never going to attack them. I’m sure they’ll appreciate it.

I see you’ve shifted from the “bunch of people think it” defense to the “Iran thinks it” defense.
Except, of course, considering the fact that Iran attacked US military forces on multiple occasions and murdered hundreds, with zero overt response from the US, the idea that they’re in any particular danger currently is less than plausible.

To say nothing of the fact that if they just stopped their nuke program and stopped supporting global terrorism, the risk would be a flat zero. But sure, you can worry that we’re about to attack Iran tomorrow. Just as we’ve been about to attack Iran tomorrow for the last decade.

I haven’t shifted my defense at all; I just think Iran would like to know so that they can quit building all of those inconvenient deep bunkers for their enriching facilities.

I guess we’re not developing huge bunker busters with Iran in mind, either.

Of course we’re not going to attack Iran tomorrow…we have to give the sanctions time to not work so we have an excuse! Or, we can hope that someone in their Navy does something really dumb and shoots at an aircraft carrier.

Ok what?