Welcome to PatsFans.com

Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    it's happening again...

    Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes.

    By a vote 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]” Iran via “military instruments.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”


    UPDATE Before the vote today, changes were made to the original amendment, with paragraphs three and four taken out completely. This paragraph was also added at the end:

    “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that “I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by the preferable approach. That the one we are using. We always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.”​

    the full roll call is here
     
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    So does Obama just not vote on anything so that he has no voting record ? At least Hillary had the balls (ha ha) to go on the record with a YES vote. Whether I want to attack Iran or not I can respect her actually voting as opposed to the other guy.
     
  3. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    that's great...

    anyhow, how bout going on the record about whether or not you feel this is another weasel-dyck maneuver to get backdoor permission for war? or at least whether you want to attack Iran or not.... further, how bout predicting your position on the matter in the event that we DO attack Iran? .... will you be "supporting your C-in-C" to the very end, regardless of his hopes for The Rapture?
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2007
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Why should I have to go on the record when a guy running for President doesn't have to ?

    Seriously, I don't have an opinion yet. I guess I need to watch Fox News more and NFL Network less for a while.
     
  5. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    i see... that's excellent... so, you detour and take a shot at Obama, not really changing anyone's opinion about the guy, and then turn around and act non-committal your very self about the issue... something tells me, with conflict looming with Iran the past 2 years, a smart guy like you has already formed an opinion on the matter...

    like i said, it's happening again...

    say, how many soldiers are housed in each of those seperate Iraqi bases again? ... Iran can vaporize them within minutes if we sucker punch them... i wonder if Limp Dick Cheney has thought about that...
     
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Obama deserved the shot. I'm no fan of Hillary, that's for sure, but I gave her credit.

    And yes, I'm non committal right now. It's not an easy decision. If we did it and it worked it could be a large step towards the greatest peace move since we took out Hitler. But as we've seen with Iraq, the middle east is complicated and we could leave a bigger mess too.
     
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,326
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -2

    Who controls the senate?
     
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,326
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -2

    Um, just read up on the bills in question and they are non-binding measures. One was to split Iraq into 3 territories similar to what happened in Bosnia, and the other was to reccomend that the State Dept declare the RG a terrorist group. Again, they are non binding.

    I hate to say this PC but don't the Dems control the Senate? I know they only do so by the slimmest of margins, but 76-22 isn't slim.
     
  9. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    this is bad news.
     
  10. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,635
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +809 / 2 / -9

    God Willing We will Kill The Bastards

    Praise Allah
     
  11. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    why do you hate to say it? have i ever professed unwavering love for Democrats? they're only a lesser evil on the Beltway, nothing more...
     
  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Congress should be concentrating on getting out of Iraq. Iran will retaliate and enflame the entire region, invade Iraq, and our guys will be caught in the middle. Send your teenagers to Canada!
     
  13. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    I agree this is overtly pursuing legal and government measures to further lead us into a war with Iran. We passed a similar resolution in 1998 for Iraq, setting the stage for an invasion.

    If we go into Iran, this will be the end of American dominance once and for all. This stupid move will hurt us militarily, economically, and I cannot think of a single reason how this benefits Americans at all. AIPAC and neocons need to go NOW.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2007
  14. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    In reality, the amendment is a clear call for military action against alleged Iranian agents inside Iraq. From the text of the legislation:

    (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and [stop] the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

    (4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

    As Jonathan Schwarz noted, the amendment is a “Sense of the Senate” resolution, “which means it has no legal force, but as the Congressional Research Service will tell you, ‘foreign governments pay close attention to [such resolutions] as evidence of shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities.’”

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/kyl-iran-fox/
     
  15. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    The American political system is broken.
    It doesn't matter who you elect, whatever the elite want, they get their way no matter what bodies we elect in there.

    American democracy is a SHAM.
     
  16. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    The only reason we would even consider going into Iran now is the pressure from AIPAC. What other possible purpose could there be? You want to punish supporters of terrorists?...start bombing KofSA.
     
  17. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    it's really sad, and pathetic, that this once great nation has been led down a path to such reactionary mediocrity in its leadership...
     
  18. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .



    This problem is a text-book example of exactly what the United Nations is supposed to handle. The need for non-partisan intervention to alleviate the hostile emotions carried by the governments involved here (Iran and Islamist proponents, the U.S. and "Western"/Christian proponents) has never been more crucial. This tension needs to be reduced by an outlook that includes the welfare and safety of [highlight]all[/highlight] parties involved, as well as those who are not directly involved.

    Dr. Moon and the Universal Peace Federation have been working on issues like this for a number of years. A non-partisan approach is the only solution.



    //
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>