Section 2 ..D..5..WTF!!!!

[Ichingcarpenter]

Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:18 AM - Edit history (1)

MRW13A27 S.L.C.
113TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION




''If the government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapon program,


the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress

to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence.''









http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nuclear%20Weapon%20Free%20Iran%20Act.pdf


Another part of the bill...... why not Saudi Arabia instead of Iran?


(6) The Government of ______ denies its people
2 fundamental freedoms, including freedom of the
3 press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and
4 freedom of conscience.




So if Israel attacks Iran ........ the US must now?


I hope President Obama vetoes this bill that Democrats and Republicans sponsored.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. it won't even pass the senate.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Which Republican Senators are against this Bill?

otherwise do the math if you can.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. Did you do the Math yet Genius?

I did it for you

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. 13 Democrats cosponsored this bill

The bill has 13 Democratic co-sponsors and when you add that to the 45 Republican Senators, you're already at 58. It only takes 67 to override a veto.

[Igel]

5. Easy answer.

And seeing it doesn't even mean the inference I support it is a reasonable one.

See that "6" in front of the clause you quoted?

When adducing reasons for an action, you list all of them. Usually the dominant one is first. There are usually tacit ones, as well.

"Whereas" #6 isn't the dominant reason. It's neither necessary nor sufficient. It's a supporting reason. If it weren't there, the bill might be seen as a bit weaker but would still be offered up.

That whereas might apply to Sa'udi Arabia--but if it does, that's also a separate issue (with homogeneity of action not being necessary in people) and not the topic of this bill. Bills need focus, a single topic. The topic isn't "religious rights"; the topic is "Iran." If you want a different bill, ask your Congressperson to propose one.

There's another reason, a tacit one, in the list. Iran isn't trusted by the bill's sponsors; Saudi Arabia is trusted, at least as far as public statements go. Yeah, it does things that the US government doesn't like--but they're usually low-key, incidental to core policy goals, and deniable. What Sa'udiyya does publicly is usually more in line with official US policy goals. There are probably a few other tacit reasons that vary by sponsor. Support for Obama; wanting to put pressure on Iran; playing to some local constituency; following one's inner drummer. Etc.