So… are you really confused as to whether or not that’s my point?
Or is it much like how, in order to show that Iran didn’t have anything to fear from us, I cited instances of how the US attacked American military forces on multiple occasions and collaborated with Al Quaeda and the US didn’t respond militarily… and you’ve continually been responding with variations on “Oooh, scary”?
You mean, the last quote,that doesn’t talk about nuclear energy, but points out that if Tehran’s nuclear programme is unchecked, there is reason for concern that it could in time prompt a regional cascade of proliferation among Iran’s neighbours.? That for some states, such as Saudi Arabia, an Iranian nuclear weapon would present a direct and dire threat? That for others, such as Egypt and Turkey, the threat is indirect, and more tied to concerns about the balance of power and loss of relative status and influence in the region. That once the any one of Iran’s neighbours were to seek to acquire nuclear weapons in response, there would be a cascade effect because it would put additional pressure on others to do the same, because of intra-regional security and status considerations?
Perhaps the part where it was stated that notwithstanding the legitimate energy and economic motivations behind this sudden region-wide interest in nuclear power, political factors also play an important role? That those political factors include an attempt by Sunni states which are trying to counter the rising sense of Shia empowerment following the 2006 Lebanon War? Perhaps how the single most salient political factor, however, is Iran’s development of dual use nuclear technologies, which motivates at least some of its neighbours to seek fledgling nuclear capabilities of their own?
Or, let me guess, you’re not looking at all that stuff, and you’re going to claim that the whole ‘energy efficiency’ thing is the long and the short of what’s going on in the Middle East, and the reason that 13 nations just happened to sign up for their own nuclear programs after Iran removed IAEA seals at Esfahan, after the IAEA announced that Iran was in non-compliance on safeguards and asked Iran to return to the negotiating table, after Iran removes IAEA seals at Natanz, and then Negroponte testified that US intelligence was worried about the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and the IAEA announced that it did not “have confidence that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes”. You would have readers believe that 13 ME nations just happened to decide that was an excellent time to look into green electricity.
So you’re ready to admit that the answer is “Nobody in a decision making role in the US government, and certainly not any language that appears in the bill in question”?
P.S. Are you aware that we’ve already discussed that quote, Dissonance included?
Have you not read your own thread?
Not only did I, I already pointed out the tactic you’d take to distort the facts. Unsurprisingly, not only was I right, you distortion was terribly predictable.
You’re not even providing interesting nonsense at this point, spoke. And anybody who’s not one of your fellow travelers and who reads the quote can actually see the paragraphs after the one you’re cherrypicking will not be fooled by your nonsense.
Naturally, just as how you pretended that a substantiated list of attacks on US forces by Iran and Iranian cooperation with Al Quaeda was really something about how “Iran is scary!” now you’re pretending that a citation which points out that political and military dimensions are driving the nations in the ME to investigate nuclear power are really all about green electricity. Ironically, while cherrypicking one quote which talks about nations professed reasons, you deliberately ignore all the others which talk about the nations’ actual reasons. And then you somehow manage to claim that I’m the one who hasn’t read something. Unsurprisingly, you’re pretending that passing mentions of general uses for nuclear energy are a discussion, while you ignore the actual discussion of the politics and military considerations involved.
Naturally, just as you were previously claiming that factual statements about Iran’s military activities were “Iran… scary!” now you’re claiming that factual statements about the nuclear situation in the Middle East is “setting one’s hair on fire.”
One is forced to wonder what your argument would be, were you to actually make one.
As can be expected, you are wrong.
I’m also not particularly in the mood to define “transliteration” for you, let alone “transliteration from Arabic to English.” Good bit of empty snark on your part though, I suppose.
So when you said he was the ambassador to the United States you were just speaking of the Greater Ambassador of the Saudi Arabian Consulate?
And as Spoke said, your quoted section specifies many valid and understandable reasons for Middle Eastern nations wanting to developing nuclear power.
I wonder why you didn’t quote this part from your article?
I mean, it was only two paragraphs later. Did it not support your hypothesis enough?
I understand that there’s a nonzero chance of some sort of nuclear weapons proliferation in the future, but the nature of the programs in all of the countries, except Iran, makes it unlikely because of their cooperating partners, and their relationships with the West. I don’t think an Iranian nuke would cause an arms race scenario. I don’t think there is any reasonable way to stop countries from developing nuclear power.
Also, not a single cite you’ve provided has gone beyond what I just stated; except for the hyperbolic ones written by you-know-who.
There are a number of living men who are or who have been the Saudi ambassadors to the United States. He is one of them.
I notice, of course, that you have deliberately ignored the sea of refutations that I just provided, from Al-Faisal’s actual role to your anger over a term you erroneously believed was just coined to your non-comprehension the fact that you accused one source of lying and tried to handwave his statements away with ad hominems when his factual claims were true…
Only if you are cherrypicking and ignoring what the cite actually says.
As for you not understanding why I didn’t quote the part about how they’re setting up the infrastructure for nuclear weapons programs but not making use of them yet? Well… either it was a nefarious plan for me to not quote yet more information that still supports my point, or you’re grasping at atomic fragments of dust that used to be straws. Could go either way.
Of course, the following quote is relevant to your tactics, as well:
Quick - do you know where in the bill it states language similar to “the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force,” or “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.” or “Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”
I’m entirely positive you don’t know where it says anything remotely similar, so feel free to take from now to eternity looking for such language. You know, language that Congress actually uses when authorizing the use of force.
I’d say we made some progress, but I’m sure you and Spoke will keep spouting hysterical paranoid nonsense.
As I mentioned before on various other threads, the issue is never “facts” but the process of thinking where certain people use the richness of the language to obfuscate the matters to such a degree that one does not know anymore what’s a fact or an assumption or a conclusion.
Still, as crazy as it might seem, I seek clarity.
Therefore, to summarize convergence of “calling for war in Iran” and my own OP (Rand Paul blocking the bill by adding an explicit line) the essence of the bill is that it inks its focus on “nuclear capability” that Netanyahu and AIPAC were pushing for vs. Obama’s own definition of so called “red line” that is “nuclear weapon”.
In short, move to quickly (and sneaky) legalize shortcut to war with Iran hit a bump.
No, those of us pointing out that the bill doesn’t authorize war, that Iran has nothing to fear from the US in absence of continuing its nuclear program without the Additional Protocol and that there’s we’ve already seen the first steps of a regional nuclear arms race? We’ve got facts.
Those who are arguing fiction, fear, and fallacy?
Y’all don’t.
No, it doesn’t.
As this wasn’t an authorization of force, and you can’t show how it was an authorization of force, and there’s no possibly way to misread it as an authorization of force, rather obviously an imagined “shortcut to war” can not have hit a bump any more than an eight headed pixy dragon could get a cold.
Quick - let’s read some existing law on the matter: “The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to deny Iran the ability to support acts of international terrorism and to fund the development and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them…”
OMG does that existing law mean that an invasion is already authorized?!?!?!11? And it was authorized in 1996 when the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act was passed and signed into law by Bill Clinton?!?!?!
No, of course not. Because statements of policy or intent do not, cannot, and have never conferred legal authority to go to war. There is no ambiguity here.
On the other hand, it’s so much fun to read about “authorization” for the war. Like there is this post-WW2 tradition - not to mention Constitutional requirement - for POTUS asking Congress for authorization to wage a war. It’s quite laughable the way the whole argument is being done like some people live in a parallel world or something.
The part that you quoted is in the “Findings” part of the bill. A finding cannot authorize anyone to do anything – they simply state the reasons why Congress believes action on an issue is necessary. It is illustrative language of no legal consequence.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. We seem to find different parts of this debate funny – I find it funny because opponents of the bill come up with a fictional, non-existent problem with the legislation and talk about how important it is that the imaginary problem be dealt with. It’s actually quite like Republicans talking about how important it is to crack down on voter fraud, even though it has been shown factually that voter fraud is not an actual problem.
The issue of the checks and balances on the war power is extremely complex. What is clear is this: (1) that Rand Paul’s amendment literally does nothing and will not in any way settle that debate; and (2) the amendment does not prevent Obama or any future president from attacking Iran if they are determined to do so, for good reasons or for bad ones.
The only thing that Rand Paul has accomplished is delaying passage of a bill, and that delay benefits multinational oil corporations that do business with Iran. Politics, strange bedfellows, etc.
Does an appropriations bill contain explicit language for authorizing the use of forces? That has been relied on to “authorize” a war after the actual authorization was repealed.
An appropriations bill strictly written to only fund a war in country X, has been relied on to “authorize” a war in county Y.
An explicit statement/bill that no more funds can be spent in country X, has been used to “authorize” a war in country X. (It was vetoed by the President).
I don’t think this sanctions bill authorizes a war with Iran. But I don’t think the above explicitly authorized a war either. I’m not stupid to think a sanctions bill is on the same level of logic as the above, but I’m not convinced it’s as crazy a notion as everyone on here is making it seem. I can see how a President might use it as one of many inferences that supported a lead up to and is able to maintain a war that no one (Congress) longer wants. Personally, I would think it’s stupid for a President to make that argument, but lots of Presidents make stupid illogical things happen all the time.
For example, I would think it’s less illogical/stupid than saying we’re not committing hostilities against Libya so the WPR doesn’t apply, even though we’re still bombing Libya. I mean, that was used and worked. Why would anyone pre-emptively need to explicitly say bombing a country = hostilities, when it’s seems so obvious. And yet, it would have helped.
If you do not think that the checks and balances on the war power is on the very short list of the most difficult issues in the Constitution, then you haven’t thought about the Constitution very much. Congress can declare war, but the President can also use the military to defend the country (see, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”)
Unless Joe Lieberman somehow finds himself in the White House, what he wants is irrelevant. Joe Lieberman and his friends do not get to decide whether to bomb Iran or not; you should know that Senators don’t get to give the military orders. So as far as what they want, I believe they think bombing Iran is a good idea. I think it is a terrible one. I think Obama also believes that bombing Iran would case more problems than it would solve, which is why it hasn’t happened.
But just to prove there is no horse to dead to beat, I will repeat this again because you don’t seem to understand it yet: Rand Paul’s amendment has no impact whatsoever, in any miniscule way at all, on deciding whether there will be an attack on Iran. It is an utterly irrelevant amendment that does absolutely nothing. It is incapable of stopping an attack on Iran because the amendment means nothing, says nothing, and does nothing.