41 Senate Republicans Want A 'Trump' War With Iran

[rightwinger]

41 Republicans vote against Iran amendment, effectively blocking bill - CNNPolitics

Senate Republicans tallied enough votes Friday morning to block a largely Democratic-backed amendment that would require President Donald Trump to get congressional approval before striking Iran militarily.

During an unusual Friday vote that commenced at 5 a.m. to meet various scheduling demands of the senators, Republicans hit the 41-vote mark, which means the Iran measure can't get the 60 votes it would need to advance.

Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, cast the 41st vote.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. W. Bush is gonna be a proud muthafucka.

Well what is your solution? You can see Iran is attacking people. What do you think we should do? Find Chamberlain and try appeasement again?

Appease what?

Trump is provoking a conflict

 

[Polishprince]

41 Republicans vote against Iran amendment, effectively blocking bill - CNNPolitics

Senate Republicans tallied enough votes Friday morning to block a largely Democratic-backed amendment that would require President Donald Trump to get congressional approval before striking Iran militarily.

During an unusual Friday vote that commenced at 5 a.m. to meet various scheduling demands of the senators, Republicans hit the 41-vote mark, which means the Iran measure can't get the 60 votes it would need to advance.

Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, cast the 41st vote.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. W. Bush is gonna be a proud muthafucka.

Well what is your solution? You can see Iran is attacking people. What do you think we should do? Find Chamberlain and try appeasement again?

Appease what?

Trump is provoking a conflict

Trump isn't "provoking" anyone, he's just implementing long standing US policy against Terror States getting nukes. Obama was in office 8 years, he had plenty of time to change the policy

 

[22lcidw]

The former Soviet Union, Russia must be laughing their azzes off that they are not the ones that have to try to keep the middle east in line. We are in a deep swamp over there. War after war after war with a volunteer service. That is not good. Most of the people living there want to live a good life. It is normal. But a higher percentage even if low then needed, live for jihad. And bring terror to their own people. So do we mind our own business or be the world's poiceman? Maybe we need a military draft if we choose the latter. Sending volunteers over there for multiple tours is insane.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Well what is your solution? You can see Iran is attacking people.

So? They aren't our people. Those two ships that got hit were under the flags of Norway and Japan and neither of those countries want to get into a war with Iran, who which, by the way, was never proven to be responsible. Why do we need to have a solution when it's not even our business?

Find Chamberlain and try appeasement again?

Let me know when Iran invades Czechoslovakia

We already know that Iran is in fact, using their terrorist proxies to attack other countries.

How much more powerful, and aggressive does Iran have to get, before you think we should do something? Do they have to start world war 3 with nukes, before you think we should stop the aggression?

Tell me, I want to know.

They haven't done anything to warrant an all out war. You don't go to war over a machine

So basically what you are saying is, we have to wait for blood. Because it was Hitler taking over the Rhineland that started the march to war. But no one wanted to go to war over machines... even if they were the machines the fueled the war effort for German.

Again, at what point do you think we should do something? Are you going to wait until they are a real nuclear threat invading other nations?

Because these are not entirely stupid people. They are not going to shed blood, until they have enough power in the region to make it a blood bath for us to intervene. Just like Germany made sure not to start shooting people, until they had enough military might, that they would walk into Poland without Europe doing anything.

If Europe had put their foot down with the Rhineland, and intervened militarily over machines, there never would have been a world war.

So at what point do we do something? How many machines, influence and power does Iran need before you act?

Have you ever been to war? Sometimes they have to be fought but not yet on this one. Blood for blood

 

[Andylusion]

Well what is your solution? You can see Iran is attacking people.

So? They aren't our people. Those two ships that got hit were under the flags of Norway and Japan and neither of those countries want to get into a war with Iran, who which, by the way, was never proven to be responsible. Why do we need to have a solution when it's not even our business?

Find Chamberlain and try appeasement again?

Let me know when Iran invades Czechoslovakia

We already know that Iran is in fact, using their terrorist proxies to attack other countries.

How much more powerful, and aggressive does Iran have to get, before you think we should do something? Do they have to start world war 3 with nukes, before you think we should stop the aggression?

Tell me, I want to know.

They haven't done anything to warrant an all out war. You don't go to war over a machine

So basically what you are saying is, we have to wait for blood. Because it was Hitler taking over the Rhineland that started the march to war. But no one wanted to go to war over machines... even if they were the machines the fueled the war effort for German.

Again, at what point do you think we should do something? Are you going to wait until they are a real nuclear threat invading other nations?

Because these are not entirely stupid people. They are not going to shed blood, until they have enough power in the region to make it a blood bath for us to intervene. Just like Germany made sure not to start shooting people, until they had enough military might, that they would walk into Poland without Europe doing anything.

If Europe had put their foot down with the Rhineland, and intervened militarily over machines, there never would have been a world war.

So at what point do we do something? How many machines, influence and power does Iran need before you act?

Have you ever been to war? Sometimes they have to be fought but not yet on this one. Blood for blood

And they said the same thing about Hitler and the Rhineland.

You see how well that worked?

Why do they bother teaching history, if we are not going to learn anything from it?

 

[2aguy]

41 Republicans vote against Iran amendment, effectively blocking bill - CNNPolitics

Senate Republicans tallied enough votes Friday morning to block a largely Democratic-backed amendment that would require President Donald Trump to get congressional approval before striking Iran militarily.

During an unusual Friday vote that commenced at 5 a.m. to meet various scheduling demands of the senators, Republicans hit the 41-vote mark, which means the Iran measure can't get the 60 votes it would need to advance.

Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, cast the 41st vote.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. W. Bush is gonna be a proud muthafucka.

All of the democrats want him to go to war with Iran......nothing they would like better than a war with Iran just before the election.....and I am sure when the democrats talk to Iran, this is what they are telling them...

 

[Ambivalent1]

So? They aren't our people. Those two ships that got hit were under the flags of Norway and Japan and neither of those countries want to get into a war with Iran, who which, by the way, was never proven to be responsible. Why do we need to have a solution when it's not even our business?


Let me know when Iran invades Czechoslovakia

We already know that Iran is in fact, using their terrorist proxies to attack other countries.

How much more powerful, and aggressive does Iran have to get, before you think we should do something? Do they have to start world war 3 with nukes, before you think we should stop the aggression?

Tell me, I want to know.

They haven't done anything to warrant an all out war. You don't go to war over a machine

So basically what you are saying is, we have to wait for blood. Because it was Hitler taking over the Rhineland that started the march to war. But no one wanted to go to war over machines... even if they were the machines the fueled the war effort for German.

Again, at what point do you think we should do something? Are you going to wait until they are a real nuclear threat invading other nations?

Because these are not entirely stupid people. They are not going to shed blood, until they have enough power in the region to make it a blood bath for us to intervene. Just like Germany made sure not to start shooting people, until they had enough military might, that they would walk into Poland without Europe doing anything.

If Europe had put their foot down with the Rhineland, and intervened militarily over machines, there never would have been a world war.

So at what point do we do something? How many machines, influence and power does Iran need before you act?

Have you ever been to war? Sometimes they have to be fought but not yet on this one. Blood for blood

And they said the same thing about Hitler and the Rhineland.

You see how well that worked?

Why do they bother teaching history, if we are not going to learn anything from it?

You go, hell you think it's just like it is in the movies. I value people's lives more than that.
Go ahead Captain America

 

[Andylusion]

We already know that Iran is in fact, using their terrorist proxies to attack other countries.

How much more powerful, and aggressive does Iran have to get, before you think we should do something? Do they have to start world war 3 with nukes, before you think we should stop the aggression?

Tell me, I want to know.

They haven't done anything to warrant an all out war. You don't go to war over a machine

So basically what you are saying is, we have to wait for blood. Because it was Hitler taking over the Rhineland that started the march to war. But no one wanted to go to war over machines... even if they were the machines the fueled the war effort for German.

Again, at what point do you think we should do something? Are you going to wait until they are a real nuclear threat invading other nations?

Because these are not entirely stupid people. They are not going to shed blood, until they have enough power in the region to make it a blood bath for us to intervene. Just like Germany made sure not to start shooting people, until they had enough military might, that they would walk into Poland without Europe doing anything.

If Europe had put their foot down with the Rhineland, and intervened militarily over machines, there never would have been a world war.

So at what point do we do something? How many machines, influence and power does Iran need before you act?

Have you ever been to war? Sometimes they have to be fought but not yet on this one. Blood for blood

And they said the same thing about Hitler and the Rhineland.

You see how well that worked?

Why do they bother teaching history, if we are not going to learn anything from it?

You go, hell you think it's just like it is in the movies. I value people's lives more than that.
Go ahead Captain America

You say you value people's lives.

An estimated 70 to 80 million people died in world war 2, which only happened because the powers that be, followed YOUR advice here.

The fact disprove your claim. You don't give a crap about people's lives. We followed your plan. Millions died following your plan.

And by the way.... I would go, my family would go, and my family did go. I come from a long line of military people. We practice what we preach. I don't push policies I wouldn't do myself.

Remember that dumb video by Michael Moore, where he asks members of congress if they would sign up their family to go to Iraq? They edited the tape. The guy he asks, said that he his nephew was in Iraq right now, and he'd be more than happy to sign up other family members if they were interested.

But spare me this crap about you valuing people's lives. You don't give a crap. If you did, you would want to stop Iran, before this thing spirals into kill millions of people.
Don't try that BS crap with me. You don't care at all.

It's brave people like my family and other military families, that keep your whiny butt safe.

 

[HenryBHough]

Who knew there were so many closet Muslims in Congress?

 

[caddo kid]

41 Republicans vote against Iran amendment, effectively blocking bill - CNNPolitics

Senate Republicans tallied enough votes Friday morning to block a largely Democratic-backed amendment that would require President Donald Trump to get congressional approval before striking Iran militarily.

During an unusual Friday vote that commenced at 5 a.m. to meet various scheduling demands of the senators, Republicans hit the 41-vote mark, which means the Iran measure can't get the 60 votes it would need to advance.

Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, cast the 41st vote.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. W. Bush is gonna be a proud muthafucka.

All of the democrats want him to go to war with Iran......nothing they would like better than a war with Iran just before the election.....and I am sure when the democrats talk to Iran, this is what they are telling them...

maybe Trump can 'wait out' Iran, have a few more US assets attacked, shot out of the air, shot out of the water, just generally shot & hit by the Iranians, until the 2020 election.

Once Trump loses the election Trump can then attack Iran before the next POTUS is inaugurated in January, 2021, and leave the incoming POTUS another ******* train wreck, like G. W. left for Obama.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You say you value people's lives.

An estimated 70 to 80 million people died in world war 2, which only happened because the powers that be, followed YOUR advice here.

The fact disprove your claim. You don't give a crap about people's lives. We followed your plan. Millions died following your plan.

There are no comparisons between Nazi Germany and Iran

It's brave people like my family and other military families, that keep your whiny butt safe.

By all means, pick up a gun and head on over

 

[Andylusion]

You say you value people's lives.

An estimated 70 to 80 million people died in world war 2, which only happened because the powers that be, followed YOUR advice here.

The fact disprove your claim. You don't give a crap about people's lives. We followed your plan. Millions died following your plan.

There are no comparisons between Nazi Germany and Iran

It's brave people like my family and other military families, that keep your whiny butt safe.

By all means, pick up a gun and head on over

Yeah, I agree. Because Iran has a fatalistic ideology, and an ambition for nuclear weapons, both make them many times more dangerous and a world war 3 hazard.

That said, they are comparable in a very important way... The Nazis wanted to create the 3rd Reich. The third great German empire.

It is well known that the Iranians want to create another Persian Empire. The same ambitions.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It is well known that the Iranians want to create another Persian Empire. The same ambitions.

It was well known that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass distruction, which apparently were invisible since they were never found

 

[Andylusion]

It is well known that the Iranians want to create another Persian Empire. The same ambitions.

It was well known that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass distruction, which apparently were invisible since they were never found

But they were found. We found them. In fact some troops of ours that found those chemical weapons, had medical complications because of them.

What are you even talking about?

I've even read books written by some of our soldiers there, talking about finding chemical weapons, that Saddam claimed he didn't have.