Originally Posted by
acptulsa
If he's really just playing the game, why is he saying nothing other than he'd like us to work with them on the Iron Dome, presumably so we can buy the technology with our contributions to the project? A proposal to which I personally have exactly zero personal, technical and moral objections.
He did say he was in favor of aid to the Ukraine as well, and he said the Iron Dome was a good joint effort. Not really sure how it's joint, other than the U.S. paying for Israel's defense systems in the tune of nearly half-a-billion dollars.
"Funding for the production and deployment of these additional Iron Dome batteries and interceptor missiles was approved by the United States Congress, after being requested by President Obama in 2010.[29] In May 2010, theWhite House announced that U.S. President Barack Obama would seek $205 million from U.S. Congress in his 2011 budget, to spur the production and deployment of additional Iron Dome batteries."
and...
"On 17 May 2012, when Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the Pentagon issued a statement from the Secretary saying in part, "I was pleased to inform Minister Barak that the President supports Israel's Iron Dome system and directed me to fill the $70 million in assistance for Iron Dome that Minister Barak indicated to me Israel needs this fiscal year."[37]On 18 May 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, with $680 million for Iron Dome in Section 227. The report accompanying the bill, 112–479, also calls for technology sharing as well as co-production of Iron Dome in the United States in light of the nearly $900 million invested in the system since 2011.
SECTION 227, IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, would authorize $680.0 million for the Iron Dome system in fiscal years 2012–15 in PE 63913C for procurement of additional batteries and interceptors, and for operations and sustainment expenses. This section would also require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to establish within MDA a program office for cooperative missile defense efforts on the Iron Dome system to ensure long-term cooperation on this program. The committee is aware that National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) included $205.0 million for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system for the State of Israel. The committee notes that the Iron Dome system has proven very effective at defeating threat rockets launched at protected targets. The committee also notes that if the full $680.0 million is used on the program, the total U.S. taxpayer investment in this system will amount to nearly $900.0 million since fiscal year 2011, yet the United States has no rights to the technology involved. The committee believes the Director should ensure, prior to disbursing the authorized $680 million for Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate rights to this technology for United States defense purposes, subject to an agreement with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, and in a manner consistent with prior U.S.–Israeli missile defense cooperation on the
Arrow and
David's Sling suite of systems. The committee also believes that the Director should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system.
[38] On 4 June 2012, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee included $210 million for Iron Dome, in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, S.3254. The bill has been reported out of committee and is waiting to be assigned a date for consideration by the full Senate.[39]
SEC. 237, AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, said that of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by section 201 for research, development, test, and evaluation, defense-wide, and available for the Missile Defense Agency, $210,000,000 may be provided to the Government of Israel for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program as specified in the funding table in section 4201.
On January 17, 2014, President Barack Obama signed the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The bill provides $235 million for Israel to procure the Iron Dome system.[40] The Israeli government has also agreed to spend more than half the funds the United States provides for the Iron Dome system in the United States. Funds going to U.S. contractors will increase to 30 percent in 2014 and 55 percent in 2015 from 3 percent previously, according to a U.S. Missile Defense Agency report to Congress.[41]"
Source for full context and reading if you want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#Funding
If you don't have a problem with the U.S. helping pay for Israel's national defense, I don't know how that is considering we are $17+ trillion in debt. Just because there might be some shared technology, doesn't mean we are paying for our own Iron Dome. That would then come at MORE expense to the American taxpayers. Instead of paying Israel more than half-a-billion, they could have used that here. Instead, it's the typical Military Industrial Complex's tentacles in everything.
Originally Posted by
acptulsa
And what happens when Obama tries to appease a certain voting bloc with pandering is he says that crap during the election then serves only the corporate interests as usual once in office.
I honestly didn't know that we looked at President Obama's broken promises to his voters, as a good thing? But your next point I guess you were trying to make about someone possibly lying and/or giving out false promises to win....
Originally Posted by
acptulsa
If Rand Paul cares to reverse that process, he will make himself a hero to the republic.
I didn't vote for Ron Paul in 2008, thinking he would be very effective as President, outside of one big area, and another smaller one. I did vote for Ron Paul in 2008 thinking that if he won, he might set the record for most vetoes ever by a President. And that was A-okay with me. I thought it would have been awesome to see him vetoing nearly every single bill Congress sent to his desk.
Originally Posted by
acptulsa
If you will recall, his father's constitutional talking points got drowned out in quixotic, isolationist kooky uncle screaming on the part of the masters of the mainstream media and no one but us heard them. Obviously that was good enough for you, to hear someone making sense in the debates while we chugged right on down the line toward an eighteen billon dollar debt, further erosions of our privacy and liberty, the unprecedented situation of we, the people being forced to purchase products from insurance conglomerates just to legally breathe the air of this nation, and the value of the dollar down to three Indian head pennies.
Ron Paul didn't use "talking points" in the debates. Which is exactly what some of us wanted. He had the record to back them up, and many of us then suggested a speech coach to help tailor his message in debates, and prepare him for them, around his record in a good way for the idiot GOP voters to understand. It's the same thing I'm saying now about Rand, he could be saying certain things in a way that reaches the GOP base, without appearing to be appealing to neocons. He would actually be making any Republican that doesn't agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy, look like Hillary Clinton.
Originally Posted by
acptulsa
Well, guess what? That's not good enough for me. To be quite frank, I don't give a flying $#@! if your ass is properly kissed, or if your panties are in a bunch instead. I want to sneak him into office, and see what he does with it.
Maybe my faith is misplaced, and maybe it isn't. But I have no faith in a single one of the other candidates, and I know for a fact that I'm right about that. I love my country too much not to take a chance on Rand, and I desperately want him to lie to me about his true intentions just as often as he has to to avoid repeating his father's fate.
Again, talking points. If he's simply trying to reach the GOP base on foreign policy, there's a very good way to talk about foreign policy, and it would frame the debate now going into the 2016 election if Hillary runs on the Democrat side (it looks like she will be).
And if Rand/Ron are the same, I would expect the same from Rand in the veto department, but I have no idea if that would happen. Rand isn't Ron, and is doing some things differently, and some still the same.
Originally Posted by
acptulsa
And if you don't like it, well, um, gee, that's a crying shame, there, Doyle. I'll see if I can't figure out how to cry you a freaking river of crocodile tears.
Oh, and the news that you're severely miffed at whatever it was that Rand Paul said today is about as earth-shattering as the news that the news media is reporting AIPAC's theory that Jascha Heifetz' hangnail was caused by Hamas as fact. Just in case you were suffering any delusions that you've become the least bit unpredictable.
If you can cry crocodile tears, please let me know. We might be able to make a video titled, "How Jennifer Rubin feels about Rand Paul" and just show you crying in it. And last I checked, basing opinions on facts, aren't delusions. But nice try at an ad hominem.
Connect With Us