Vietnam. The war started with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Later that was repealed. The war continued based on other “implied” authorities for war.
I don’t think that would happen here (like if i had to bet), but i honestly don’t understand what’s wrong with being extremely cautious.
What it does say is that Congress is declaring it the policy of the nation to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
“Send the bombers! I’m just enforcing the will of Congress!”
I’m sure that there are many things that happen and which you don’t remember. Doesn’t concern me much, especially since other people can read the thread and work out for themselves just why it is that your argument is failing in the many specific ways that it is. As for your argument’s strange misplaced focus on AIPAC in a discussion of the US Congress, all I can say is that’s par for the course. While this isn’t the thread to indulge in Conspiracy Theories about shadowy cabals subverting the United States for the benefit of the Zionists, it is noteworthy that that’s your go-to framework to interpret US politics.
Meanwhile, the fact that you attempt to handwave the historical record on Iranian military actions against the United States with non sequitor babble about fear-mongering, while your argument itself is one series of fear-mongering nonsense after another, from nefarious presidents using sanctions authorizations to go to war to the US Congress acting only to satisfy the demands of the vile AIPAC beast, well…
It’s ironic.
This opposition to the sanctions bill brought to you by Shell Oil.
When you think of evading sanctions by buying a billion dollars worth of Iranian oil, think of Shell.
Take a look at the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. There was nothing ‘implied’ in it:
Bolding of course mine. If this bill had language authorizing the use of force, Paul would have a leg to stand on. It doesn’t, and he doesn’t. One may as well attach a ‘this bill in no way authorizes the use of force against Iran’ amendment to every bill that passes through Congress lest they be interpreted that way. Think of all the bills starting WWIII that Rand Paul hasn’t saved us from!
My point was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, repealed in 1971, did not end the Vietnam war.
I’m not saying this sanctions bill can be used to start a war, but could be construed to continue one (strenuous, but it’s happened). Vietnam, and the difficulty ending it (you couldn’t just repeal the authorization that started it), was my example to a poster asking for an example of something like this occurring before (i.e., something not meant to authorize forces, later being construed as an implied authorization of force).
…and Finn goes to the ad hominem. Complete with made-up facts!
Unsurprisingly enough, there were no “made up” facts and I didn’t commit an ad hominem fallacy. But I suppose changing things up from your fear-mongering, handwaving away facts that you can’t actually address, and Conspiracy Theorizing, to claims of persecution at my hands is as good a way to continue your argument as any.
What I read says: France, China, Russia, the USA, and although the article doesn’t mention it, South Korea, look to be the "AQ Khan"s of the nuclear (power generation) proliferation in the Middle East. Middle eastern nations are looking to be technologically advanced and the author wants us to shit our pants over it.
And speaking of AQ Khan, the ninja nuclear scientist, trophy hunter and cocky smuggler that makes princesses swoon, he seemed to only be important in the development of nuclear technology in N. Korea and Iran. What’s our influence with these countries? None? Do we have any influence over these Middle Eastern countries looking to harness their own power generation? I think we have plenty of pull over Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and many of the other countries in the region.
This nuclear (power generation) proliferation talk is hardly a concern unless you add a dash of bogeyman and a teaspoon of feverish imagination.
You can generate some serious wattage with all that handwaving. I also see you’re adopting the failed tactic of ignoring facts by resorting to sarcasm and shoveling bull.
A nuclear arms race in the Middle East would be a Bad Thing for blatantly obvious reasons. That you can not comprehend a reason why that might be, absent “bogeymen” and “feverish imagination”, does not speak well for your worldview.
The problem with repealing the resolution in 1971 was that Congress, having already sold it’s balls away in 1964 by authorizing the war, still didn’t have the balls to take the action needed to carry through on the repeal as more than a ceremonial act and end the conflict: defund the war. Tonkin fails completely as a resolution not authorizing the use for force later being an implied authorization of force. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution expressly authorized the use of force. The sanctions bill couldn’t be construed as allowing a continuation of a war that hasn’t yet been authorized. That would be a completely ex post facto reading of it, something legally not allowed. Trying to read it this way would require a future bill authorizing the use of force on Iran by Congress later being repealed and the sitting administration trying to perform the laughable attempt to claim a bill passed prior to the authorization of the use of force that did not in any way authorize the use of force supersedes the new bill de-authorizing the use of force.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution just isn’t applicaple to the current bill in any way.
Gulf of Tonkin absolutely authorized a war. It explicitly authorized a war. The current sanctions bill does not. I’m saying it’s possible that the sanctions bill can later be construed as an implied authorization of allowing forces to stay in Iran after some hypothetical explicit authorization is passed, and then repealed. As you said, Gulf of Tonkin was repealed, but the war did not end. Why? Why wasn’t it enough to stop the war by repealing the resolution explicitly authorizing it.
The test of Congress’ delegation of war making authority power is whether there is any action by Congress sufficient to authorize or ratify the military activity in question.
I just think better safe than sorry. I totally understand why you don’t think a sanctions bill would apply. What I don’t really understand is why it’s such a big deal.
Your article is about nuclear power generation. It’s the writer that tried to make it about nuclear weapons proliferation. A fact isn’t a writer’s opinion. I think that’s why you get so confused. It did not change my opinion that a nuclear arms race is a consequence of an Iranian nuclear weapon. I do agree that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East or anywhere else could be bad.
No, it isn’t, and that claim indicates that you are attempting to handwave away details you don’t like. Claiming that nations around the ME are going to A.Q. Khan for help with peaceful nuclear programs beggars credulity. Claiming that nations in the ME have suddenly begun having a serious interest in nuclear technology after Iran’s program was discovered, and it’s because they all want greener electricity is downright comedic.
You’re reaching.
And it’s obvious.
To say nothing of the fact that Saudi Arabia has been making much more explicit statements these last few years about how they will probably develop nuclear weapons if Iran nukes up. Claiming that we’re dealing with “bogeymen” or “feverish imagination” is just more handwaving.
Because Congress continued to authorize appropriations bills paying for the war in Vietnam after repealing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. It was rather hard for them to claim they had stopped the war by repealing the bill and be taken seriously when they continued to authorize billions of dollars to be spent in said war. Repealing the Tonkin resolution was cynical pandering to the voters.
It’s a big deal because it leads to absurdities such as this thread and deifying Rand Paul as saving us from WWIII. Nothing in the bill could be interpreted as authorizing the use of force or war with Iran. There’s no need to add language saying it doesn’t aside from cynical pandering by grandstanding and making a big deal out of it. It’s not the people pointing out that Rand Paul is an idiot for inserting the amendment who are making a big deal out of it, it’s Rand Paul who is by inserting a non sequitur and grandstanding about it.
To be fair, it isn’t really handwaving.
It’s a strong amount of denial coupled with an intense desire to hear what one wants to hear. For example:
Person 1: “Iran getting nuclear weapons would be a really bad thing – somehow we need to stop them.”
Our Worthy Opponent: “Why are you advocating war?”
Person 2: “We’re not advocating war, we want to see if sanctions will work.”
OWO: “Oh, so you want war too! You know who else we had sanctions on? No, I’m not talking about Cuba. No, I’m not talking about Sudan. I’m not thinking of South Africa either. Dammit, stop bringing up Myanmar. Or Liberia, Ivory Coast, or Lebanon. What I’m talking about is Iraq – we had sanctions on them, and then Bush invaded. DOESN’T THAT PROVE MY POINT? Sanctions lead to war!!!”
Person 3: “You know, I’ve always wanted to go to Syria. I hear Aleppo is beautiful, and some of those castles are so interesting. It’s a shame that the government is brutalizing its people that way.”
OWO: “Oh, now you want to bomb them, too?”
I don’t see anything wrong with Rand Paul’s amendment. I think he wants us to stay out of Iran as much as his father does, and as much as I do. I would support the bill and after Bush’s 2 wars, I’m a little wary of quick declarations of hostility against another country. If Reid and the other Senators are really just doing sanctions, they should pass Paul’s amendment with the same speed and bi-partisanship as their original bill. Not that I think the bill would really stop 99 Senators from declaring war on Iran if they wanted to for any reason, but it should be there and it doesn’t hurt
Of course, just like if people really don’t want to fund lazy crackheads, they should sing welfare bills with amendments attached that say the welfare funds aren’t intended to go to people so they can buy crack.
Which, of course, doesn’t even get at the problem in perception. If we find ourselves having to add non sequitor pandering bullshit to every bill somehow related to Iran, what happens the first time we don’t? (Say, if Paul’s constituents evolve to the level of having functional frontal lobes…) Why, all of a sudden, it looks like we’ve finally snapped and we’re about to attack Iran. I mean, look at the bill, sure it doesn’t authorize force, but all the others that didn’t also authorize force had been Pauled by the Paulist. So surely the next sanctions bill that hasn’t been Pauled means that we’re finally going to go to war.
Terrible analogy. Crackheads don’t require Congressional approval to use crack. Presidents do require congressional approval to make war.
A welfare bill could not be misconstrued to legalize crack.
This bill could be misconstrued to authorize force. (“Send the bombers! I am just pursuing the declared policy of Congress to prevent Iran from getting nukes!”)
You keep using that word. I do not think it is spelled the way you think it is spelled.
How? Outside of hysterics, how could this bill be misconstrued to authorize force when nowhere in it does it contain language authorizing the use of force? I assume we’ve already gotten that Declaration of War paranoia out of your head, but perhaps that’s just wishful thinking on my part.