Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTwo weeks ago, I was alarmed to learn that congressional Democrats were sponsoring Resolution 362, which encourages what amounts to an act of war against Iran.
Today, there are more than 200 co-sponsors of the House resolution, but there is also growing mobilization to stop passage of Res. 362. What is especially stirring opposition is the provision that calls for:
"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."
Implementing this would require a blockade, according to a letter from three retired Pentagon officials, and, unless sanctioned by a Security Council resolution, would constitute an act of war.The good news is that a growing outcry from the American people is causing some co-sponsors to have second thoughts, and the momentum for passage of the resolution may be weakening.Among them is Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), who says in a July 9 blog:
"Given my growing concerns regarding this resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a US blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs committee for a vote."
Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts has gone one step further: "I'm all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the blockade part goes too far," he told the Valley Advocate of Northampton, MA. "I'm going to call the sponsors and tell them I'm changing my vote."Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) withdrew his co-sponsorship on July 9.The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, editorialized against the resolution on June 24:
"... we are casually giving our government the right to control Iran's borders using naval blockades. Might that be construed as an act of aggression? Only if we pay any mind to the rules set forth by the United Nations ... stating that such a unilateral blockade constitutes an act of war. So, are supporters of Res. 362 asleep at the wheel, or are they just anxious to drag us into another illegal war?"
This is a familiar discussion to those who watched the build-up to war in Iraq. This time, however, former secretaries of state from both Democratic and Republican administrations are on the same side. According to The Los Angeles Times, five of them-Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, and Madeleine Albright-agreed at a recent round-table discussion that it is time to open a dialogue with Iran. The outcry against an attack on Iran is already having an effect, and there are plans for more. United for Peace and Justice, for example, is organizing "Days of Action" across the U.S. July 19-21.
What are the threats against Iran really about?
Despite what you may have read, this issue is not about nuclear proliferation-in fact an attack would increase the likelihood that Iran would acquire a nuclear weapon, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. The Nobel Peace Prize winner told AlArabiya television last month that if there was a military attack on Iran, he would resign:
"I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work...A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball ...If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West."
It's also not about how much extra we are all paying for gasoline and oil as a result of our threats against Iran, although the National Security Network estimates that U.S. saber-rattling is already driving up prices by $30-$40 per barrel of oil. If threats turns into active conflict, oil prices will really take off.
The question now is whether we will pursue another illegal and disastrous war, which the American people-including Jewish Americans-don't want. Will we destroy more American lives and those of Iranians. (You can see a slide show of life in Iran as a reminder of the human beings who are in the crosshairs.)
We have a crucial choice before us: Will we continue a unilateral strategy of global domination? Or will we switch to a post-superpower strategy that can actually deal with the threats of nuclear proliferation, extreme poverty, and climate disruption. This is the option we explore in the Summer 2008 issue of YES! Magazine.
Will we continue spending billions on the military in order to control the world's declining fossil fuel resources and shipping channels (and to make sure our corporations have access to both)? Or will we invest those funds in the safe, clean, domestic sources of energy that can create jobs at home and power our future without compromising our moral standing, the stability of our climate, and human lives?
This is a critical choice point for all of us. And this time, we can't say we didn't see the consequences of our actions.
Sarah van Gelder is the Executive Editor of YES! Magazine.
34 Comments so far
Show AllLet's say it is true.
The Iranians are working towards nuclear weapons. Can you blame them?
It is a defensive move. and a wise one at that.
Notice that the only two nations that stand up to U.S. Imperialism are North Korea, and Pakistan. What do they have in common?
They have nukes.
Nuclear Proliferation will restore justice and peace to our world. It will make our nation stop bullying the world. We should support Nuclear Proliferation!
Nuclear weapons make war obsolete because they make victory impossible. It was mutually assured destruction that kept the peace between the Soviet Union and the United States. The peace lasted for decades.
It is bigotry to think that a hereditary Islamic theocracy couldn't grasp the concept of mutually assured destruction. When both parties have nuclear weapons it is suicide to attack. Governments want to stay in power,, they don't want to be incinerated.
What government would ever order a suicide attack?
The United States needs to step aside and allow the natural spread of nuclear technology. Technology throughout history has always spread. Gunpowder started in China, which was the most powerful, most advanced, and wealthiest nation on earth at the time. Now,, everyone has gunpowder. The most isolated illiterate tribesman carrys an automatic rifle when they go to war.
In the future, every Mullah, Generalismo, and War Lord will have access to nuclear weapons. All of them will be able to unleash an atomic fireball, but all of them will know that the same thing will come back at them. As rational beings that will realize this is unthinkable.
Once everyone who wants an atomic bomb has one,, Peace will prevail!
Support Iran's nuclear program. Support Nuclear Proliferation. Help bring forth the new age of Atomic Peace
Let's get real for a moment. The top brass at the Pentagon have made especially clear to
W and his gang that nuclear weapons are out if war comes with Iran. What the hell does that leave "political and military experts"? Hey, can you say not enough division army or marines to do the job and the USA takes a big booty whipping just like that one fellow in "Platoon," the Oliver Stone feature film about the Vietnam War said the USA probably needed back then. Currently all active duty US Army and Marine divisions except one army one permanently assigned to South Korea are deployed in Iraq with them being only able to at best, and this is the mainstream US media version, to control 3/4 of the the neighborhoods in Baghdad, when after the Tet offensive in the Vietnam War the US coalition forces could control all of Saigon after that "wonderful victory" for the US side. Now maybe it should be clear from this that at most the US Central Command would be able to send in some rangers, Green Berets, Delta Force types, and some SEALS with maybe just one division from the active duty army and marine forces now in Iraq to go up against the Iranian army, air force, and people and get the hell beat out of them. Now we've just got to allow for the fact that a good booty whipping or two for the US war machine might just be what is needed to get the old Vietnam syndrome which the right so hates back.
DC MCD: It's probably wiser for me to advocate for a FULL investigation, but let's face it, evidence WAS removed. It's a gut reaction supported by the behavior put into place AFTER, blatant disregard for the US Constitution, Habeas Corpus, the RULE of law.
Bottom line, it was just too convenient. The press was bought and owned by right wing corporations who could deploy "message management" to manufacture consent (in the public); the military industrial complex is always itching for war for profit; and the congress/senate has become an effete boys' club that whores itself to special interests/lobbies. I see the neocons like skilled chess players, they almost owned the board and just needed a piece or two removed. They NEEDED a "Pearl Harbor." The more trusting in our forum may believe that the Bush team KNEW about it and didn't do anything to stop it; but I think their CIA operatives funded it, at least in part.
EVERY one of significance around Bush profits from oil. Look how war has driven up its price? Although some have argued wisely that Clinton (the comment by Albright) showed an indifference to life, too; but Bush's GLEE in the face of savagery makes his contempt for human beings all the more naked. That kind of contempt can aim at persons of ANY background. To him the 3000 persons in NY were just collateral damage, too.
As for evidence, you must have missed the single longest thread ever shared on this site... it ran to over 1000 comments a few months ago on the topic of 911. There are people who post here who are FAR more intelligent when it comes to techniques and tactics, others with greater insight into political motive(s). You asked me and I answered, and by the way, when I rode my bike to get coffee that morning (I have not had cable tv in some time), and SAW the scene on TV at the coffee shop... I calculate the I CHING every day using a system of numerology and it was 23/SPLITTING APART. Seeing the EVIDENCE of that cosmic fact unfold on the TV screen was one of the intense moments where one just knows it ALL lines up. I knew it was an inside job... my instincts and intuition (which are more developed than those of many other people due to my practice of yoga and studies of esoteric subjects, added to some meditation) TOLD me so.
Sorry angel,
I don't even really believe in satan but I think you would really have some power politically if you found out who was the rep in your area and go to the meetings and ask them why you should vote for them when you want what you want.
The progressives in this country need your help and you could let them know what you want and see who can get your support and if they don't come across you will have been most helpful for a better world.
Things could be worse, ... Pelosi even looks good to me now.
homeward-angel,
Are you a Satanist?
Who but a Satanist would advocate voting every possible way to let McCain, the greater Evil win?
You can vote for any party that can't win and
THAT WAY YOU HELP THE REGRESSIVE!
They don't deserve our help by a wasted vote.
You are helping the worst Evil... Are you a Satanist?.
The third party does not have one person who is electable and thereby join other progressives in wanting to negotiate peace in the Mid East and with Iran.
Progressives who can win need our help and they will get it, You and a few others can help Satan...the greatest evil.
Evil has no bounds, and nobody is pure, not even you, angel.
Hi Siouxrose
Your posts are usually well throught through and inspiring, so I was surprised to see you've definitely concluded 9/11 was an inside job.
While I wouldn't put anything past the criminal cabal that (more provably, I think) runs the US government, I haven't come across any conclusive proof that really allows a conclusion about the cabal's role in 9/11. If you have, can you refer me to it?
I've read a several books by well informed skeptics on the subject, and reams of articles, all of which seem to raise valid and unanswered questions - but nothing -so far- that cinches the conclusion.
Thanks for any pointers you might be able to provide.
With respect and affection,
dc McD
Washington has not listened to the people they work for for a long time. That makes them an illegal government.
Since they are indeed a de facto government, they have no more legitimacy than an outlaw gang. The taxes we pay under duress are, in effect extortion.
As is spelled out in the constitution, we have a right to dispense with this government and institute one more likely to serve OUR ends, not international corporations' bidding.
Ron Paul was one of the most vocal opponents of this, trying to force them to call it what it is, a blockade. Watch these clips from the Iran Policy Hearing on July 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVAmKg_vFsY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNVle82XVks
STARK RAVING MAD: You make absolutely sound spiritual sense in the above posting. Great work!
several points - while a good dose of an accurate accounting of unfolding events in the middle east (not to mention right here!) is enough to induce serious fear and loathing in all but the most hardened heart, we must transform this fear to fearless resolve. we will not sell our souls out to the lowest bidder. we will find refuge in the deepening of spirit, and will resist all overt or covert attempts to be sucked in to the mindset of a cruel and lifeless culture.
as an outgrowth to transforming and strengthening our inner lives, we must begin to manifest peace in every circumstance, whether dealing with friends or our psychological/political counterparts - those who oppose us. looking actively for peaceful resolution to conflict, articulating ideas and feelings from a context of inclusion, regardless of differences will be water and sunlight to the seeds of peace.
only by being the change we wish to see is there any hope of altering the present suicidal course of events. even if there is no hope of altering the descent of this society, there is value in any one being engaging their higher purpose in this lifetime. just because most people are not prepared for this kind of personal commitment, their unreadiness should not deter us, to the extent our vision calls for it, from making a greater acknowledgment, and in all humility, widening the range of the heart.
Given the approval rating of this "prez," and his dubious history on HOW he got elected... added to the evident quagmire that Iraq is, added to Bin Laden being elsewhere (though I maintain 911 was an inside job), added to our bankrupt treasury, added to the billions of lost housing value, added to the numbers of persons killed here and in Iraq... why is it that no force steps in and says, "Mr. Bush/Cheney, you guys are at the end of your watch, here... we're gonna suspend any serious decisions to the NEXT administration." In other words BUY some time in the HOPE that enough aware groups can coalesce and begin to rein in the policies gone so far adrift from sanity, sound economics or sovereign justice. The madness has gone so far some force must impede it. Maybe it will be an equivalent mutiny from the armed forces, those likely to take the brunt of any retaliation conducted on the part of Iran, if the maniacs-in-chief let loose.
I just had what might be a crazy idea. Along with Americans telling our politicians what we think regarding a blockade...or an attack on Iran,letting them know we don't support it, we should also be make our feelings known to other governments in our world reminding them what they have to lose if they do not pressure Washington to back off.
Saloo: The world may have said "NO" to invading Iraq, but aprox 75% of Americans said "YES! Let's Kick but in Iraq"!!!! In speech after speech, GW mentioned Saddam and 9/11 and Americans believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Americans LISTENED to GW & Cheney and others and never looked back till it was too late.
Regarding the possible blockade. ...It would seem that all Iran has to do in retaliation is block oil shipments from leaving the Middle East. Now, China & Russia will not accept this...to name two countries. Matter of fact, a blockade by the USA towards Iran would maybe help Iran develope their own coalition of countries from all over the world to teach the USA a lesson...the need for oil could make this happen. maybe the politicians are listening to Americans.....maybe not. It may well be that "Friends" of the USA are telling our government to think long and hard before they agree to a blockade of Iran because THEY will not be our friends, they will not support us and they will do what they have to do to make sure they get their oil, even if they have to work with Iran and against us to do so. For that matter.....the USA imports more goods than we export. The world may tell us "too bad so sad, but WE are NOT going to do business with you"! Oh yeah! Remember one more thing. Our economy depends on foreign investors who are paying big bucks to underwrite our debts and pay the interests on our debts. All it would take is one country....like China....to stop their financial help and our country..... economically, would be destroyed.
Sarah van Gelder provides a link, supposedly to prove her point that "Jewish Americans" don't want a war with Iran.
I went to the site, AJC (American Jewish Committee) and, besides being greeted with the "Sorry, the page you requested was not found" error, found it to contain the usual Zionist propaganda.
It contains, for example, a piece that says Iranian actions "pose threat to world peace," another on the two dead Israeli soldiers returned by Hezbollah ("an enemy that glorifies murder and celebrates death") and of course a plea to uphold Resolution 1701 condemning Lebanon.
The rest of the site is a paean to Zionism and a pledge to support Jewish interests throughout the world, fight anti-Semitism, blah, blah blah.
I would think that Ms van Gelder could have at least made the effort to link to a Jewish peace organization, of which there are many, instead of one that for all practical purposes is simply an offshoot of AIPAC.
But then I guess she assumes we're all stupid. She's mostly correct. Sure, this is ALL about oil. Right.
Doubtful anyone in the Bush Administration can listen and the battery in McCain's hearing aid seems to have died. Look at Iraq.
The leader of the Iraq government says he wants us out. Eight out of ten of his people apparently want us out or dead. Almost the entire world wants us out. And, except for Bush, Cheney, their offspring McCain and the CEOs of war industries, most Americans want us out too. Too bad we aren't a democracy.
[more irreverent thoughts at resistence-is-possible.blogspote.com]
Why bockade Iran if Israel is going to saturation bomb it with 10,000 'bunker buster' bombs?
Iran will retaliate with ship to shore Sunburn missiles that will drop a carrier in minutes-then it's on!
An infuriated America-with 5,000 dead sailors-attacks Iran with ground and air troops while Israel steps back.
Blockade? Hardly a strategic or tactical requirement, and in fact an uneccessary albatross drawing American's attention away from reality dog shows to something they need not bother thinking about. Life and Death they are responsible for.
It's all been taken care of.
A blockade, even with a Security Council resolution, is still an act of war. Strictly interpreted, everything, EVERYTHING, would be prevented from entering. What about stuff over land? With so many troops tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, how is this supposed to happen? Aside from the pure wrongness of it (think of the suffering during the "oil-for-food" program for Iraq times 100), what is this supposed to prove? If they are refining uranium already for weapons, and I don't believe they are and neither does the US intelligence agencies, how does blockading them prevent them from continuing to do this? It's completely pointless! It's just another disguised oil grab!
I feel immensely relieved that the writer sends us to a recommended slide show, to see actual, breathing Iranians as human beings 'in the crosshairs'. Is this potential discovery of others' humanity a new twist along the blood-soaked road of Am. imperialism? Why didn't somebody recommend this course for Iraqi civilians?
"Americans Say No to War with Iran: Will Washington Listen?"
Did they listen when the whole world said no on Iraq 2003
wake up guys maybe this is our last chance for saving the country
Hey Norma, this clearly isn't a Republicans vs. Democrats issue. Last count I saw, there were nearly as many Dem sponsors as Republican sponsors.
And I would never count on Obama to do "the right thing", unless by "right" you mean whatever best suits his personal goals.
Support Nader in the debates. Vote for him if you want WWIII and the Rapture.
"Americans Say No to War with Iran: Will Washington Listen?"
Writers like this need to expand their definition of "Americans" before handing us yet another tale of the Iran tape.
Americans of the FOX and the right-wing radio dittohead circuit are demanding we destroy Iran as soon and as ruthlessly as possible. From Hannity to Limbaugh to Prager to Levin and the rest, it's kill kill kill Iran all day long, every damn day.
So the answer is, apparently: yes, "Washington" is listening.
And what if Iran starts its own oil blockade?
The moves against Iran were already planned by the Project for a New American Century. They considered moves against Iraq, Iran, or Syria and opted for Iraq as the best choice. With that accomplished, Iran now comes into focus. When we are hopelessly bogged down in both countries, we will move against Syria – and thereafter possibly Egypt. Whether our military can actually accomplish all this for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution was never a concern of theirs. PNAC intended for the US to gear up for a world-wide struggle for resources, fighting everywhere over the globe at once to accomplish this.
All the remaining candidates except Nader have committed to the substance of the PNAC foreign policy vision.
If there is a US or Israeli attack on Iran, the Repubs will gather and snarl and emit encouraging screams like blood-mad baboons. No surprise there. The Dems will do something far worse. They will legitimize it by mewling insipid drivel, like "we can't criticize the policy while our troops are in the field", or "defense of Israel is the number one priority". The attacks are almost certain to significantly increase the danger and insecurity of both our troops and Israel but that is not part of the acceptable, "mainstream" debate and so doesn't matter and will not be discussed. Eventually as so much completely predictable shit hits the fan after the attacks, the Dems will again mewl and whimper, this time about "supporting the mission, but not the incompetent management". Barack Obama will almost certainly be the leading Dem spokesman for all this.
Think of it this way:
The primary purpose of elections in America is to ensure the seamless continuity of elite rule.
The primary purpose of legislation in America is to retro-actively legalize crimes by the elite and their minions.
The primary purpose of the taxes we pay in America is to reward the elite and bail them out when they plunder their own banks, brokerages and businesses.
I have been watching this thing since 1968. I have barely seen a shred of evidence that might lead me to any other conclusion.
I defend democracy ny time for free hun!
Gutsy politician is a contradiction in terms, but gutless wonder is accurate, for pretty much anyone but Bernie Sanders.
My representative - David Scott - has been in the pocket of corporate interests for years and has one of the safest seats in Congress. He is the poster boy for political cowardice.
I've contacted him about other issues - Net Neutrality, for example - and received nothing but the most condescending nonsense in reply.
jj
Norma Stitz-YOU ARE SOOO WRONG!!!
VOTE THIRD PARTY! THE DEMOCRATES ARE COMPLICIT IN WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING THESE LAST 7 YEARS! the dems represent same old same old, VOTE THIRD PARTY EVERYONE, the dems dont deserve your vote!!
norma-are you a paid political operative?
from the article:
"...Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, and Madeleine Albright-agreed at a recent round-table discussion that it is time to open a dialogue with Iran."
these people, world-class war criminals all, are nevertheless people whose voices are heard, while yours and mine are not. so we might hope that another world-class misadventure will be avoided.
i don't care what the real reasons are, only that cheney/bush's plans are thwarted, but i'm getting that same queasy feeling i got upon finding myself in agreement with pat buchanan and ross perot about nafta.
oh, well. as my friend sister alice says, in practical politics there can be "no permanent friends and no permanent enemies."
DC will listen if only you vote Dem. Then you can talk to some ppl who got conections
who can talk to conections and Obama will get the message right.
Vote Nader n you'll get McCain who'll use our conections to take over!
Nader is the bomb an McCain'll drop him!
If you go to the Aipac website you see them urging you to contact representatives, and believe me their supporters are all over it. If you are against another preemptive war for Israel call, email and tell everyone you know to do the same.
siouxrose
although i definitely feel "mad" sometimes, this isn't part of the cd name i've chosen. i often think that many who are considered "a bit off" may be among those most worth listening to.
As Dick Cheney would say, "We don't give a damn what the American people think."