PDA

View Full Version : Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes


@_@ Artman
09-26-2007, 03:29 PM
Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/breaking-lieberman-kyls-iran-amendment-passes/)


It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3), (4) [removed] *

(5) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.


* The two paragraphs that were contentious were removed, they were...

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat,
contain, and roll back 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.

Ok. Still seems that diplomacy is the angle Gates is giving us for now...

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.'

But it still passed. Despicable. Kudos to the too few who voted against:

* Biden (D-DE)
* Bingaman (D-NM)
* Boxer (D-CA)
* Brown (D-OH)
* Byrd (D-WV)
* Cantwell (D-WA)
* Dodd (D-CT)
* Feingold (D-WI)
* Hagel (R-NE)
* Harkin (D-IA)
* Inouye (D-HI)
* Kennedy (D-MA)
* Kerry (D-MA)
* Klobuchar (D-MN)
* Leahy (D-VT)
* Lincoln (D-AR)
* Lugar (R-IN)
* McCaskill (D-MO)
* Sanders (I-VT)
* Tester (D-MT)
* Webb (D-VA)
* Wyden (D-OR)

No shows: Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) :???:

trumptman
09-26-2007, 03:37 PM
Don't worry Artman, I mean it only passed 76-22 whereas the Iraq War resolution passed 77-23.

Clearly a lot has changed with Democrats running things. It's okay though because in another couple years they will swear Bush lied to them, that their vote wouldn't be the same if given the chance to do it again and if they just are put into power... oh wait they already are, then things will change.

Nick

@_@ Artman
09-26-2007, 04:48 PM
Don't worry Artman, I mean it only passed 76-22 whereas the Iraq War resolution passed 77-23.

Nick

Interesting you brought that other vote up. So you do remember the promise for there to be diplomatic and economic approaches before military? The Senate said. "Sure, we'll ok force as a last resort", and lo and behold the administration jumped the gun and went straight to violence.

Is this a repeat...?

Maybe not. Only irksome statement left in this amendment is; Iranian Revolutionary Guard = Terrorists

trumptman
09-26-2007, 05:20 PM
I remember the vote as actually being for force, which is what occurred after it. The difference is that Democrats went from declaring that we would have tens of thousands of troops dead due to being gassed to Saddam is just a paper tiger, Bush knew that and lied.

We have the same sort of thing occurring here in that regard. Iran is clearly attempting to weaponize uranium, but we don't really know for sure how far along it is, whether they are projecting more than they are capable of, etc. You'll have multiple votes like this and eventually one for straight out force.

You look at that amendment at it is straight up pure, Pax Americana and I want it noted that Democrats fully support that thinking. There is no votes against it because "Why are we even there and we are creating the terrorists ourselves."

It reads repeatedly, United States interest, security of the region, global economy.

The Democrats slam down their votes just like everyone else.

To toss a little more fuel on the fire and hopefully make others realize more about this I add a couple of links.

NATO must do more. (http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=29775)

HICAGO: NATO must take a more active role in maintaining global stability, Polish President Lech Kaczynski said in a speech here Tuesday.

NATO should "gain in significance by taking more action on the global and regional level," the Polish leader told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

"There is no other organization which is more efficient, which would have a harder security structure," he said through a translator.

France sez Iran nukes = war (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070925200301.myze6pt0&show_article=1)

"Iran has the right to nuclear energy," Sarkozy told world leaders at the General Assembly's 62nd session here. "But allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons would mean an unacceptable risk for regional and world stability."

Sarkozy added there would be no world peace if the international community "shows weakness in the face of the proliferation of nuclear weapons," in a speech received with loud applause from the rest of the assembly.

Anyone who thinks America as cop on the world beat is going to end when Bush leaves, because the confusingly believe it began when he came, is going to be awfully upset when they see President (H) Clinton authorizing the bombers to make their drops.

Nick

SpamSandwich
09-26-2007, 05:53 PM
Anyone who thinks America as cop on the world beat is going to end when Bush leaves, because the confusingly believe it began when he came, is going to be awfully upset when they see President (H) Clinton authorizing the bombers to make their drops.

Nick

Your're right about that. There is fundamentally no difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. Both amount to ignoring the will of Americans. Our "nation of laws" is drowning in too much government.

franksargent
09-26-2007, 07:35 PM
Your're right about that. There is fundamentally no difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. Both amount to ignoring the will of Americans. Our "nation of laws" is drowning in too much government.

... I know EXACTLY what you mean, I'm waxing up my surfboard, cuz it's six and glassy ...

Let's go surfin' now
Everybody's learning how
Come on and safari with me
.
.
.
(http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Beach-Boys/Surfin-Safari.html)

:rolleyes:

@_@ Artman
09-26-2007, 07:43 PM
http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/MyWebFilms/Oorlog/ApocalypseKilgore1.jpg

One of these days, this war's going to end..........................................

Fellowship
09-26-2007, 08:28 PM
Your're right about that. There is fundamentally no difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. Both amount to ignoring the will of Americans. Our "nation of laws" is drowning in too much government.

Not to mention that there seems to be no care that we are being bankrupted all the while our US Dollar is falling to new lows..

Fellows

SpamSandwich
09-26-2007, 10:34 PM
Triple-True!

Northgate
09-27-2007, 03:28 AM
Not to mention that there seems to be no care that we are being bankrupted all the while our US Dollar is falling to new lows..

Fellows

But there was an ad. In a newspaper. That's obviously more important.

tonton
09-27-2007, 03:42 AM
France sez Iran nukes = war (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070925200301.myze6pt0&show_article=1)

Yeah... because there's SO much conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to energy. :rolleyes:

What Sarkozy sais is correct. Iran has a right to nuclear energy. They do not have a right to nuclear arms (nor does Israel and something has to be done about that, doesn't it?). How does that change the current situation?

Oh... I know... because "everybody knows" Iran is developing nukes... :lol: Same old Republican conjecture...

dfiler
09-27-2007, 10:05 AM
No shows: Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) :???:Does that mean they didn't vote or that they voted for it?

I'm watching this issue closely as it will affect who I vote for in the next presidential election. Bills like this lead to war, not peace. I will not vote for anyone that is trying to start wars with other countries.

@_@ Artman
09-27-2007, 10:12 AM
Does that mean they didn't vote or that they voted for it?

I'm watching this issue closely as it will affect who I vote for in the next presidential election. Bills like this lead to war, not peace. I will not vote for anyone that is trying to start wars with other countries.

If I had a chance to pose the question to either of them at a debate, I'd ask: you skipped what might later prove to be a critical vote on Iran -- what is your position? I'm disappointed Clinton voted for, but equally disappointed Obama didn't vote against.

Fellowship
09-27-2007, 10:16 AM
I'm watching this issue closely as it will affect who I vote for in the next presidential election. Bills like this lead to war, not peace. I will not vote for anyone that is trying to start wars with other countries.


Here is your man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI

Fellows

audiopollution
09-27-2007, 11:19 AM
Here is your man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI

It's kinda like the guy has sponsored a grassroots campaign to spam the world, it seems.