So if a leader of a country calls for the destruction of another, that's against international law. The Senate voted yesterday to ask the UN to hold Iranian President Ahmadinejad responsible for his comments and charge him with a crime. The vote was 411-2-11-8.
Those who voted against? Kucinich and Paul. Two Presidential candidates. If they don't have the balls to stand up against someone calling for genocide against another country, they certainly shouldn't be the leader of this nation.
Think about that for a moment. If they won't hold someone responsible for their threats, who's to say how they'd react against threats to the United States? They aren't willing to hold a guy who has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, who's actively seeking nuclear weapons, for his threats.
The US gets threats all the time. To be President, you have to have the trust of the American public. These two idiots have shown that they can't be trusted to protect the American public or it's allies.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
A UN resolution is 'not' a congressional approval to go to war. Conducting a preemptive war without congressional approval is also unconstitutional. If you do not like our constitution and if you do not want to put America first second and third in your list of priorities above any other nation, then please find someplace else to live that better suits you. If you care about that 'other' nation so much more than your own, then why not consider moving there? Just a suggestion.
You COMPLETELY missed my point. It has nothing to do with going to war with Iran and has everything to do with holding the Iranian President responsible for his words. If you read one bit of any of my posts, you know I support the Constitution more then anyone here. I'm talking about two senators who don't want to come to the aid of our allies when they are threatened. If they don't want to get involved there, it means they're much less likely then others to get involved when it comes to threats against this nation. Perhaps if you actually read my post, you'd know that. Next time I'll put it into shorter sentences and use smaller words for you to understand.
I think that my point may have been missed as well. To put it simply, Israel does have a nuclear arsenal. They also have a very good military and are well capable to defend themselves, as proven during the 6 day war. We have been pumping trillions of dollars to Israel over the past few decades, which is more support that we give any other nation. So my point is, since they can easily defend themselves against anything that Iran can throw at them, and since the nut running Iran has only used words and not actions 'so far' then there is no justification for us to attack them 'so far'. If and when an attack does occur, Israel can probably hold its own. Here are a few questions that I ask myself when faced with a decision like this.
If I were on the playground at school (or whatever) and someone said they were going to kick my ass, would that justify striking first and hitting him before he can hit me? IMO no it does not.
Now if he does in fact hit me, it might hurt, and I might regret not striking first but I still have done the right thing, and then at that point my buddies will come running to help me, but I do not expect my buddies to interfere ahead of time and fight my fight for me either.
This follows the reasoning of the "do unto others..." motto. I may not like his words, but they are just words even though those words may in fact lead to action. I would choose not to strike first because I would not want someone hitting me just for something ugly that I said.
Now of course the issue at hand is much larger in scale that the school playground and the punches are a whole lot harder and more dangerous, but the basic ethical dilemma remains the same. If we do not follow these ethical guidelines (do unto others..) then why should our enemy?
As for not supporting Israel, well I'm not really sure how else to say it, but every child someday has to be taken off the nipple that is feeding it and make it stand on its own two feet. If they get hurt, help them back to thier feet and let them go again.
In this case, if we continue supporting one side of that war, we will bleed all of our wealth to Israel while making enemies with all of thier enemies and in the end leaving ourself vulnerable.
I think that George Washington said it best in his farewell address when he said: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements."
I do apologise for any misunderstanding. I had only read this one article that was linked from Digg. Though I still think that I misunderstand why you would slander these 2 candidates over following the constitution and following our national values that have all but disappeared lately.
I for one will always support liberty over security for that was the reason this great nation was founded. Do you think that our forefathers had it any easier when they were fighting the british? Did our forefathers enact unpatriotic laws such as the "patriot act" and take away personal liberties when faced with the danger of being hung by the british for treason against the king?
We have nothing to fear but fear itself, if you let that fear grip you it can change your moral values from something good to something bad. I for one am not afraid......
Again, sorry for the misunderstanding and I wish you the best of luck. Take care.
That was a well thought out, well organized post. I welcome healthy debate here. Here's my counterpoint: If it was a simple "I'm going to get my ass kicked" situation, yes, you would be 100% right. However, with just one potent nuclear weapon, they could wipe out Israel entirely. Israel isn't a large country by any stretch of the imagination, so it could theoretically happen. Secondly, Iran is a known sponsor of Hezbollah, the terrorist group who's charter says that they want to destroy Israel, and that has already killed hundreds of Israeli civilians with bombs on buses, night clubs, and restaurants. So it's completely within the realm of possibility that Iran may want to let Hezbollah do it's dirty work. Secondly, they have been actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq with explosives, training, and extremely expensive sniper rifles (I have an article on that on here as well), so it is reasonable to assume that Iran might do the same with Hezbollah and Israel. You and I are in agreement though that I would like liberty over security any day of the week. I'm just saying that if the Iranian President wants to break international law, he should be held accountable for it. These two senators voted against it for whatever reason, but to not stand up to a threat, and it is indeed a threat, shows weakness against a bully, and that's a characteristic that does not belong in any Presidential candidate. Yes, Israel can defend itself against most conventional threats, but who's to say that Iran's target would be Israel? They could just as easily target the US, Canada, Australia, or even their Arab neighbors. Now, take a look at some of the speeches that the Iranian President has done in the past year and a half. He talks about "end times" and with them trying to gain nuclear weapons, that doesn't concern you? We're not talking about a few deaths, we're talking about deaths on a tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands scale. Radioactive fallout would skyrocket the cancer rate around the world as the wind picks up radiation and blows it around the world. When I vote for a President, I need someone who's going to stand up for the United States and it's allies. If they aren't willing to stand up for the allies, how am I to trust that they won't stand up for the United States? Ron Paul talks about "blowback" all the time, but how are we to know that if another terrorist attack happens that he won't say "well we deserved it for such and such reason" and do nothing about it? Yes, we do give Israel a lot of money, support, and weapons. But with anti-Americanism going on in the Arab world even before 9/11, it is nice to have a very strong ally in the region don't you think? We have many others such as Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (although the Saudi's are a bit on the fair weather friends side from time to time). Personally, I think we should stop giving international aid to anyone who's not an ally. Why should be give aid to those who hate our guts ? Take the Palestinian people as a prime example. You do make several valid points, but I believe that Iran is a special case and with those two Senators voting "no", it's a real judge of conviction on their part that deserves scrutiny. I look forward to your reply. :)
-----"I'm just saying that if the Iranian President wants to break international law, he should be held accountable for it."
I totally agree with you here. "If" he breaks international law, then yes, he should be punished. So far he has only ran his mouth, and as ugly as the words are, he still has not committed any crime.
-----"He talks about "end times" and with them trying to gain nuclear weapons, that doesn't concern you?
No this does not scare me in the least. If I had stuck my head in the ground every time someone talks about the end of the world, whether it be a holocaust, genocide, rapture, etc.... then I would have lived my entire life in fear. If I die, I die, I am going to someday anyway, but I would rather live free and die young than to live 100 years in fear.
-----"They could just as easily target the US, Canada, Australia, or even their Arab neighbors. "
True, they could, but do you honestly think that by giving up our freedoms that it will stop them from doing this? If they choose to attack us, they probably will do so whether we are over here having a good time or hiding in our homes scared.
-----"Ron Paul talks about "blowback" all the time, but how are we to know that if another terrorist attack happens that he won't say "well we deserved it for such and such reason" and do nothing about it? "
If someone punches you in the face, would you then punch them in return? If you punch someone first, do you not expect to get hit back? The difficult choice is to decide whether or not to keep punching each other in turn, or take your licks and become a better person from it. Wars are started when both sides don't know when to stop punching. That is called ego, not bravery.
Anyway, I do agree with you on most of your points, I just will not ever agree with someone taking my freedoms for reasons that only incite fear and then use that fear to trick me into a preemtive strike. I will also never put America second to "any" other nation, ally or not. I will not further destroy Americas moral values in order to defend another nation from its own unjustifiable actions in retaliation to its enemies.
Also, both sides are indeed guilty of crimes against international law which is well documented in UN records. So by your standards we should also attack Israel for breaking international law also? So who should we hold accountable first? That was just sarcasm of course, but international law doesnt mean going to war with everyone that breaks those laws otherwise we would have already attacked Israel, Iran and half the rest of the world, oh yeah and ourselves.......
I am pro-USA and there is a limit to how much I am willing to give up in order to defend another nation that can defend itself against its own mistakes. The more we give to them means the less we will have for oursleves if we really do need it in defense of our country. If they do get attacked, I would probably agree to help, but until that happens I could care less.
Best regards Travis. I have enjoyed this conversation. I wish more people could openly discuss world politics without becoming angry as have many others that I have chatted with on various blogs. With that said, it is 5pm so it's quitting time. Good day to you sir. =)
-Regards,
Bruce
I'm a different anonymous.
The House had already condemn the words, a couple years ago. Why didn't it suggest charging the crime then?
Because war was not desired. The nature of the required and allowed responses create a dominoe machine that leads to war.
In addition the resolution asks for the UN and members independently to take action consider the development of nuclear weapons in Iran.
In addition the resolution is a commitment to go to war if Israel is attacked.
The resolution is a war bill that is disquised as a repremand.
I totally agree with you here. "If" he breaks international law, then yes, he should be punished. So far he has only ran his mouth, and as ugly as the words are, he still has not committed any crime.
Actually, he has committed a crime. Whereas the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (commonly referred to as the `Genocide Convention') defines genocide as, among other things, the act of killing members of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the targeted group, and it also prohibits conspiracy to commit genocide, as well as `direct and public incitement to commit genocide';
You're right though, one should never give up liberty for security. However, the bill voted upon had nothing to do with giving up liberty. It was all about asking the UN to charge the Iranian President for his crime. ( I know what his name is, but it's difficult to spell. :) )
When someone who's actively seeking nuclear weapons and talks about "end times", it's very concerning to me. It's one thing if someone in Sudan calls for "end times" because they don't have the means to bring it about. Iran does. There's where I draw the line. :)
And yes, if someone does punch me in the face, I punch back. I defend myself and my loved ones from attack.
If Israeli government officials have broken any international laws, then yes, they should be held accountable for them as well.
I'm not saying we should attack any country that has broken international law, I'm saying that the Iranian government situation is unique and being such, all options, military ones included, should be on the table. Of course, the military option should be of the absolute last resort. We're already sabotaging their nuclear program (I have an article on that as well), so it's clear that we're doing more then just waiting to attack them. However, their support of the insurgency in Iraq is an act of war in of itself. I'm not saying level the place, but there should be no reason why if we find out that there's a warehouse in Iranian territory that's pumping out weapons and training for insurgents that we shouldn't bomb the hell out of that warehouse.
My biggest concern is that if Iran does indeed make a nuclear weapon, and those in power at that time believe that they should bring about the end of the world, is that hindsight would give you nightmares about "what could have been" had we taken proper measures. The Israelis are already chomping at the bit to bomb Iran, and I believe that we're the only ones standing in the way of them doing it.
That being said, I did enjoy this debate we've had. I completely agree with you that the world of blogging is filled with angry tirades against this side and that side, and everything soon becomes a personal attack (I'm guilty of it from time to time as well). :)
Well have a good night Bruce, I enjoyed our debate!
Travis
"Other Anonymous Guy/Girl"
I fail to see where it mentions that force will be authorized if this bill is passed. Is that just wishful thinking on your part? Am I blind and didn't see that part? :) Of course, if Israel is attacked, we would gladly lend support to them. They are one of our closest allies and you help friends in need. Just like if Britain was attacked, we'd help them as well.
Travis
You moron. Ron Paul isn't a Senator.
Jesus.
The substance of this "blog" is garbage as well, but damn, you are clueless.
C. Wesley Fowler
What's the matter Fowler? The fact I used the term "senator" as a generic, quick way to lump two idiots together the only thing you have to attack me on? So if I'm clueless, feel free to enlighten all of us here. I await your reply.
United Nations = CFR = international bankers = Globalism = World government.
Well that was pointless. :) Care to elaborate?
Actually this post is a good example of the extreme ignorance of those who support Israel.
The president of Iran never called for genocide. This is a blatant lie. The most he has done is call for the "Zionist regime", which is in fact a extremely oppressive ethnocratic regime not too different from South Africa's apartheid government, to be dismantled.
If the Iranian President never called for Israel to be wiped off the map, why did every world leader condemn him for it? Why did Kofi Annan condemn him for it? Why does Al-Jazeera, arguably an anti-Israeli news organization report it word for word?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816
The simple fact remains that the world has a problem with Iran's attitude towards it's neighbors and it's nuclear ambitions. The world sees that a military strike against it's nuclear facilities are becoming more and more of an option. The only people that call the Iranian President's comments "a lie" are liberals who are too spineless and weak to call a bully out onto the carpet when they see one.
It's been four days Fowler, we haven't heard from you and your "enlightened ways". Can we all safely assume you've gone back to under the rock from which you came?
Post a Comment