There is no lack of clarity. The bill doesn’t authorize war. It cannot be read to authorize war. The issue is a red herring, it is manufactured, it is wihout substance, without validity, and the amendment has no effect, changes nothing, does nothing.
You might as well hold up every bill in the United States Congress in order to insert language that those proposals do not legalize man-dog marriage.
And I asked 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? You’ve yet to answer the question. Do yourself a favor and look at bills where Congress authorizes the use of force. Want to know what they all have in common? They have language explicitly authorizing the use of force.
Are you nuts? Israel has nuclear weapons, fully capable of attacking any of its neighbors. Any of those neighbors who are not doing whatever they are capable of to protect themselves, even if it is via mutual assured destruction, are failing in their own duties.
You honestly believe that the possession of nuclear arms by Israel should not be a worry to its neighbors? Honestly?
And I’m still curious as to why the U.S. should take any more action against Iran than we did against Pakistan.
Not only what Dissonance said, but since the passage of the War Powers Act, any valid authorization for the use of force must specifically make reference to the War Powers Act itself.
One can look at section 2(b) of the 9/11 use of force resolution, section 3© of the 2002 Iraq resolution, or section 2© of the 1991 Iraq resolution. That is the legally required wording to constitute a use of force authorization. It is quite obviously not present in a sanctions bill.
I suggest that you study up on basic history, Frank. Mordechai Vanunu’s revelations did not, in point of fact, spark a regional nuclear arms race. Iran’s nuclear program has. Your focus on Israel is lamentable as it’s got very little to do with this dynamic. It was the other Arab states recently who were strongly urging the US to bomb Iran, and they are primarily concerned about Persian influence and Khomenist doctrine.
As for why we should take more action against Iran than we did against Pakistan, I’ve already detailed a rather specific list of consequences to Iran nuking up. Go re-read that post if you have questions, I suppose.
Really? What other ME nations are researching nuclear weapons, and which of those can be attributed to worries about Iran rather than Israel?
Gosh, the Arab states are urging the U.S. to bomb Persia. (Study up on history. Also please look up which nation most of the 9-11 hijackers were from.) Why should we care?
Your explanations are facile and inconsequential to the U.S. It is not the U.S. that you are attempting to support.
Frank, if you refuse to read cites provided in the thread, it’s not my fault.
No, Iran. And it can be well cited if you are ignorant of that fact. As for you not understanding that there is a very real Persian/Arab divide, your ignorant snark about “history” does no good for you, at all. Your ignorance of the dynamic between other Muslim states and the Khomenist doctrine also does you no favors. Your argument is cast in myopic terms that focus on Israel when you should be paying attention to the regional role Iran serves.
Yet again you are attempting to ignore facts that don’t fit with your argument. Believing that a regional arms race, heightened tension and possible open conflict in the ME is “inconsequential” to the US shows that you are not referring to the facts at all. That does not make your argument stronger.
But you see, you haven’t shown facts. You’ve shown opinions.
For instance, in what way did you expect Iran to not be Persian, and have Persian influence? Why did my pointing out that Iran is Persia cause you to change “other Arab states” to “other Muslim states”, and change your concern to Khomenist, and act as if I’m the one that doesn’t know history, when I’m the one who pointed it out?
Simply fictional. Your “for instance” points evince that you do not understand the issues being discussed.
I never said that I expected Iran not to “be Persian” or have “Persian influence”, but that your myopic reading of events where Israel’s nuclear program somehow provoked a nuclear arms race roughly 20 years later ignored the fact that Arab/Persian and Mainstream Muslim/Khomenist tensions were to blame for the current situation. Your “pointing out” that Iran “is” Persia is, first off, wrong as there is no nation of Persia, and it did not “prompt” anything at all, as I did not change “Arab states” to anything and had already pointed out the mainstream Muslim/Khomenist divide. The dynamic is both Arab/Persian and mainstream Muslim/Khomenist. Hell, there’s also a Wahhabist/Khomenist dynamic that’s important to observe.
You didn’t point anything out Frank. You don’t even know what you’re talking about and that’s somehow convinced you that ignoring the facts is valid. You aren’t even aware that Israel didn’t spark the current nuclear arms race in the ME, and you don’t grok why Iran did. That betrays an ignorance of history and current events. Not comprehending the basic topic, you think you somehow pointed out that Iran was Khomenist. That’s also, of course, because you seem not to have read the thread. Way back at least a day or so ago I linked to Hezbollah’s Open Letter which makes clear that they’re a Khomenist faction.
~shrugs~
Finn’s defensive squawking about AIPAC gave me the notion to take a look at their website. I notice that AIPAC has a list of talking points (they even use that phrase) to convince Americans that Iran is a somehow a threat to them. The link to that page is entitled Iran’s Nuclear Program Is a Threat to America (Learn More).
Check out the video on that last link. It all sounds so familiar.
Like our policy toward North Korea over the last twenty years? And look how many wars THAT policy has got us into!
Please dial it back, both of you.
I really ought to be doing anything other than showing how FinnAgain cites what I’ve come to think as probably lies as evidence and quotes the writings of a conspiracy theorist. It’s almost like an April Fools joke.
The author of the article, one Amir Taheri, getting back to this guy later; let’s look at the opinion piece linked to by FinnAgain.
Paragraph one is entirely factual and linked to by FinnAgain in an earlier post.
Paragraph two could be factual…he doesn’t actually state where these visits to the royal AQ Khan were reported; they could be widely reported at the time (Linked to earlier).
Let’s see where the bullshit really gets started, paragraph 3:
This is supposedly evidence that the arms race has started! The quoted part contains a lie: The Iranian nuclear ambitions are much older than 2004. I would guess the 25 countries he mentions do not base their government decisions on American news reporting. 25 countries, 10 in the “greater” (first time I’ve heard that term) Middle East are looking to build power plants.
paragraph #4
Saudi Arabia is developing nuclear power infrastructure with the USA. The earlier part of the paragraph dealt with the Gulf Council, or 6 of 10, of the nations in the Middle East. One of the others is likely Turkey, so that’s 7 of 10. 7 of 10 nations in the greater Middle East are close partners with the USA.
paragraph#5
8 of 10. Egypt is working with France in their peaceful nuclear program. The rest of the paragraph quotes Hosni Mubarak. I think he used to be Egypt’s dictator.
paragraph #6 and 7. These paragraphs re-iterate that Arab nations want to develop a nuclear power industry. They also clearly show the USA and France are using standard measures to protect against nuclear weapons development. Some of these measures have been offered to Iran.
paragraph #8, 9 and 10. Qatar and Iraq: window-shopping and some people are considering window shopping, respectively. That’s what an arms race is. It’s not building thousands of nuclear weapons over the course of 40+ years, it’s an Iraqi parliamentarian talking.
The rest of the article states as facts that Iran has a deal with China to build nuclear power plants, that there is a pan Arab push to build nuclear power plants, and that Saudi Arabia does not trust Iran. It then cleverly mixes it all together into a series of cause and effect sentences to give the impression of an arms race.
As for the author, here is a link to his lies and conspiracy theories: Amir Taheri, the liar.
So still no support for your Conspiracy Theory that the bill is “pandering” to “Israel and AIPAC”, and unable to find proof you’ve decided to go on the offensive, sling ad homs, and toss non sequiturs like they were candy. Makes sense.
Nothing in it is a lie, and what does is indicate that you are now reduced to calling facts “lies”? You are misreading the actual quote, as it did not say that Iranian nuclear ambitions weren’t older, but that they “hit the headlines”. That you are reduced to inventing a claim that wasn’t made and debunking it in order to show a “lie”, well…
But no. Starting in 2003 it did indeed hit the headlines, with the IAEA pointing out
Iran had undeclared nuclear materials and programs, among other things. So I suppose if you’re really desperate, you could argue that it’s a “lie” that Iran’s program hit the headlines five years before the article was published, since it really hit the headlines about six years before. As for your dodge about nuclear “power plants”, I’m happy to let rational people figure out for themselves whether or not nations around Iran quickly starting their own nuclear programs are doing so because they’ve suddenly become really, really, really interested in green electricity.
Yet another imagined “lie”, and now you’re reading something that isn’t in the article at all. You might also stop to realize that even if one were taking such “measures”, they’re easily subverted. You might want to read up on the history of Dimona.
And that too is a distortion. Numerous nations in the ME suddenly wanted to start their own nuclear programs (you assure us, their lust for green electricity was just chronologically coincidental) and you pretend that it’s “an Iraqi parliamentarian talking”.
You are, in short, distorting or ignoring the facts. This is particularly amusingly blatant considering that the Saudis, for example, have been talking about a nuclear response to Iran in terms that leave no real question as to what is happening. But, you assure us, these are all lies. All the nations in the ME which are suddenly so interested in nuclear power are doing so because of Earth Day, or something of the sort.
Containment? No, AIPAC specifically opposes that policy toward Iran. A more aggressive approach seems to be their preference.
I’d say AIPAC’s lobbying against Iran (on behalf of Israel) goes beyond conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.
Sorry, did you say you are a donor?
A rather blatant breakdown in logic and a classic cum hoc fallacy.
Your claim was not that AIPAC lobbies against Iran, which obviously it does. Equally obvious is the reason for your bait and switch. Your initial Conspiracy Theory, which you have repeated and are now using in some sort of mutated ad hominem dodge, was that the bill in question was merely “pandering” to AIPAC.
Of course, as that’s simply a Conspiracy Theory you haven’t even attempted to prove it, and are instead slinging ad homs in the hope that the fact that you’ve neither substantiated nor cited any proof for your CT will be ignored. It’s rather clear both why you can’t seem to support your CT and why, predictably, you’re trying to make a debate personal after complaining about imaginary ad hominems earlier in the thread.
Just noting that you are following AIPAC’s “Iran is a scary monster” script.
No, you’re still not substantiating your own Conspiracy Theory, you’re trying to change the subject from your utter lack of proof, and you’re mischaracterizing the facts about Iranian attacks on the US and cooperation with Al Quaeda as “scary monster!!!” because you are unable to actually address the facts and distortion is the only tool when analysis is unavailable to you.
But we’ve covered all this before. You didn’t have anything then. You don’t have anything now. And nothing has changed.
So care to support your CT any time soon Spoke?
I am content to let readers decide whether this bill is pandering…and potentially dangerous pandering at that.