I'm sure Obama's scalding and aggressive public statements would put fear into Iranian's hearts and halts their nuclear program in its tracks.
Originally Posted by GB_FXST
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h225
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h927
found these in 5 minutes on google. Spend a little more time and you will find at least a dozen more. Every vote has the same characteristic. The vote for support of Israel or to sanction or threaten Iran is over 90%. A veto proof 67% vote to declare war on Iran is easily within Israel's reach.
Last edited by StateMachine; 09-03-2012 at 11:18 AM.
Support this assertion. Where did Dempsey SABOTAGE Israel's effort to go to war? Every quote by a USG official is that Israel has the right and freedom to do whatever it sees fit for its security.
You are free to go to war with Iran.
Where there's a corporate lobby involved wanting profits from sales, Israel sometimes runs into flak. The Israel is always at odds with the defense corporations over sales to Arabs. But in the case of war on Iran, there is no such opposing lobby.This is a find funny. The old omnipotent Israeli lobby myth. The US just sold 145 tanks to Islamist Egypt, why couldn't the AIPAC-controlled congress stop that, or every other in the massive history of American arms sales to states hostile to Israel?
Morris Amitay, once noted that "we rarely see [oil and corporate] interests lobbying on foreign policy issues. … in a sense, we have the field to ourselves." Or as AIPAC's former legislative director, Douglas Bloomfield, told the BBC in 2003: "AIPAC has one enormous advantage. It really doesn't have any opposition."
The bottom-most link does not work ...
Anyhow, are you seriously going to argue that passage of a declaration of war against Iran is no different than passage of HR 4133?
The summation of HR 4133 is as follows:
The implication and import of the two issues are a difference of magnitude.To express the sense of Congress regarding the United States-Israel strategic relationship, to direct the President to submit to Congress reports on United States actions to enhance this relationship and to assist in the defense of Israel, and for other purposes.
Oh yes, and please document how HR 4133 is a product of the Israel Lobby. That it is pro-Israel legislation does not make it so.
4 pages of what if's that's all it is really ... Obama will not risk another conflict when election time is looming
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...276276,00.html'Iran must steer clear of US interests in Gulf'
Washington reportedly sends Tehran indirect message saying it will not back Israeli strike on nuclear facilities as long as Iran refrains from attacking American facilities in Persian Gulf
Fixed that link for you. And here's what that one says :
5/21/2012--Passed Senate amended. Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Human Rights Act of 2012 -
Title I - Expansion of Multilateral Sanctions Regime with Respect to Iran
Section 101 -
Declares that it is U.S. policy to: (1) prevent Iran from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and advanced conventional weapons; and (2) implement all sanctions against Iran in order to compel Iran to abandon nuclear weapons efforts and to cease support for terrorism.
Section 102 -
Expresses the sense of Congress that the goal of compelling Iran to abandon efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability and other threatening activities can be achieved through a policy that includes economic sanctions, diplomacy, and military planning, capabilities and options, and that this objective is consistent with the one stated by President Barack Obama in the 2012 State of the Union Address.
Section 103 -
Urges the President to initiate diplomatic efforts to expand the multilateral sanctions regime regarding Iran.
Section 104 -
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the President should seek to maximize the effects of existing sanctions on Iran, and (2) the United States should take all necessary measures to preserve information-sharing activities.
Now it's not that big a step from a military build up on the Iran regime's border to pulling the trigger.
The implication and import of the two issues are a difference of magnitude.
Oh yes, and please document how HR 4133 is a product of the Israel Lobby. That it is pro-Israel legislation does not make it so.
You are asking for a link that has Israel lobbyists and USG congress critters openly colluding on crafting legislation. That is a tough one to find.
Thats is what all signs are saying. Iran has signaled that they want no piece of the USG. And the USG has signaled back they have no interest in dancing with them.
This is a fair fight between 2 regimes, except one side seems to have cold feet and won't step into the ring. They keep crying that, "the USG won't let us fight." What they mean is the USG is not going to jump in the middle of a fair fight, no matter whose ass is getting kicked.
I can understand. I've backed out of fights where I thought I was going to get my ass kicked.
You mean that the USG is not pressing, blackmailing and threatening Israel not to attack Iran?
1.Israel not interested in "fair fight",its not entertainment.
2.USG seems lacking integrity concerning this issue if that is how they see situation.
Absolutely. There is not one statement to date either on or off the record by named or unamed officials that do not state that "Israel has the right and freedom to defend itself as it sees fit."
The USG has provided Israel with bunker busters, ABM funding, radars, and whatever else they'll need in their fight.
It's all about you boys now.
Welp, fair is all you're gonna get.
Integrity for you is Americans dying for Israel apparently.
1.Does US cooperation in missile defense(that exercise from thread start) is conditioned upon Israel not attacking Iran?
2.How credible US military option look for Iran,if US ask them not to attack US targets in case of israeli attack?
3.Don't remember Israel asking for "Americans dying for Israel". Even if US attacks all by its lonely self Israel will be attacked by hezzis and Iran itself.I do remember USG saying "it's not only israeli problem". Now it suddenly is?
---------------
Above if true is lack of integrity in my book.And i'm not whining,or whatever.Israeli military option was discussed long before US presented it's own.
If Israel really wants, the USA will be involved.
Don't want.Israel has interest in US making credible threat,not actual attack.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote