Are we going to war with Iran? Seriously?

A moderated forum for more thoughtful discussion.

Moderators: pd Rydia, LadyDragonClawsEDW

User avatar
Kai
Fighting the Iron Law of Oligarchy Since 2006
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:32 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Are we going to war with Iran? Seriously?

Unread postby Kai » Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:18 am

I would really like our American members to read this. Because this does affect you.

Entry from En Tequila Es Verdad (good blog if you're like me and prefer your news with a little wisecracking to make it go down easier):
<BLOCKQUOTE>Really fucking unhappy right now. Not only did Congress flush the Fourth Amendment down the loo, they seem hell-bent on shitting away what fragments of sanity they have left:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Just when you thought a Congress could not debase itself any further, having just approved massive funding for the Iraq war and given the corporate criminal accomplices of Bush's attack on the Bill of Rights a free pass... along comes the mother of all insane resolutions of our time. This is even worse than the notorious Iraq War Resolution. and is likely to pass Congress like a glassful of laxatives.

Resolution 362 in the House (not officially named the "Iran War Resolution", but nonetheless amounting to nothing less than that)will effectively demand the US to impose a naval blockade of Iran, an act of war.

Pleasetake action this weekend.</BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, please do. The last fucking thing we need is another fucking unilateral war. This country's military back is broken as it is, not to mention the ethical, moral, and diplomatic concerns involved. We shouldn't be provoking a war with Iran to begin with, but to do so when we have two fucking unfinished wars on our plates - that's beyond insane. I don't think we even have a word for how batshit crazy that is.

After all, even Bush's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff favors diplomacy:
<BLOCKQUOTE>In an interview with National Journal published today, Mullen speaks favorably of directly engaging with Iran, even though he says Iran has not always shown a &#8220;propensity&#8221; for it:
<BLOCKQUOTE>NJ: Given Iran&#8217;s role as a spoiler in the region, and with so much now at stake for the United States, doesn&#8217;t it make sense to directly engage with Iran to discern its motives and explore potential accommodations?

MULLEN: I would like to have a healthy dialogue with Iran, but many different administrations over a period of decades have been unable to achieve that. But I do think engagement would offer an opportunity, certainly, to understand each other better. That said, the Iranians have to want to talk too. It can&#8217;t just be a desire on our part. And the Iranians haven&#8217;t shown much propensity for dialogue.</BLOCKQUOTE>Mullen isn&#8217;t the only administration official who has eschewed Bush&#8217;s absolutist rhetoric in favor of a more diplomatic approach. </BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not entirely hopeful that the voices of reason can drown out the war drums, but it's past time to try. We have a disaster on our hands now - what we'd have with a third war is catastrophe.

As for Iran not showing much of a propensity for talking with us, who the fuck can blame them? Look at who they'd be talking to. George W. "I'll see your crazy and raise you a batshit insane" Bush.

Remember a few things in the run-up to this new war. Bush lied to get us in to the last one. He used fear and patriotism to shut down dissent. And too many of us, myself included, simply threw up our hands and didn't do a goddamned thing.

Not this time. Not another war. Listen:
<BLOCKQUOTE>We need to stop House Resolution 362 in its tracks. Right now.

And to stop or substantially slow the push for war AIPAC needs to disgraced and here's how you can help.

The key talking point : anti-Jewish attitudes have been on the rise over the past decade, both in the US and worldwide. Sure. And Pastor John Hagee, alleged friend of Jews and Israel and key AIPAC ally, AIPAC's 2007 star speaker, has helped drive that increase in anti-Jewish hatred.

Is Israel's well being the point ? Maybe. But good faith efforts towards Mideast Peace clearly are not:

IN 2003, according to this American Prospect story, the Bush Administration chose to spurn an Iranian peace offer that would have given EVERY concession the US and AIPAC now demands from Iran.

Thus, the alleged reasons for the push for a US war with Iran are probably lies. Iran was willing to concede everything - it's nuclear program, its support for Hamas and Hezzbollah...</BLOCKQUOTE>Hear that? That's a call to arms, that is. Don't believe the lies. Don't accept another useless war pushed on you by warloving hatemongers. It's time to stop these sick fucks dead in their tracks.

We couldn't stop FISA, but we are fucking well not going to bend over and take this.

Let Congress know you won't tolerate it.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

User avatar
Animala
HATED BY SKELETONS
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:52 pm

Unread postby Animala » Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:51 pm

The text of the relevant part of the resolution. I've snipped out most of the "Whereas" since they're justification for the resolution with no effect on what it actually does. Full text is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c ... ON.RES.362:

Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;

(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--

(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;

(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;

(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and

(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.


The second bolded bit is what's causing alarm.

User avatar
Animala
HATED BY SKELETONS
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:52 pm

Unread postby Animala » Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:07 pm

This is a Concurrent Resolution, requiring both the approval of the Senate and the House, although this one originates in the house.

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_resolution

In the United States, a concurrent resolution is a legislative measure passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Passed by both houses, concurrent resolutions are not presented to the President and do not have the force of law. In contrast, a joint resolution or a bill is presented to the President and, once signed or approved over a veto, does have the power of law.

User avatar
Kai
Fighting the Iron Law of Oligarchy Since 2006
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:32 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Unread postby Kai » Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:33 pm

The problem that I--and others--have is that this isn't just counterproductive. It seems designed to goad Iran into making the first "real" move. The resolution doesn't authorize the use of force at this point, but it seems like a really transparent ploy to start a conflict with them while keeping our own hands clean.

Which is an absurd risk, and not necessary at all.


Return to Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron

Yalogank